Survey finds most Canadians don't want feds to regulate internet content

[AndrewX]

But the Groper wants to regulate it. Fuck him and his socks.


Don’t let the feds regulate the internet said the majority of Canadians in Privy Council Office confidential research according to Blacklock’s Reporter.

The survey, contained in an April 22 report, said consumers, not cabinet, should determine what is fit to watch.

“The federal government should not be responsible for regulating content for Canadian audiences,” said the report called Continuous Qualitative Data Collection Of Canadians’ Views.

The report was completed as cabinet prepared to debate on Bill C-11 An Act To Amend The Broadcasting Act.

The bill, which is currently before the Senate transport and communications committee, would grant the CRTC powers to regulate “commercial” – not defined – internet videos similar to TV license holders.

“Discussing whether they felt the Government of Canada should play a role in regulating non-user generated content on major digital platforms such as Netflix or Spotify, most participants felt these decisions should primarily be left to the viewer or listener,” said the report.

“While a small number were in favour of establishing some regulations, particularly those geared towards ensuring greater fairness for Canadian content creators and promoting and protecting Canadian stories, most felt it was the responsibility of the consumer to determine the type of content they wished to engage with regardless of its country of origin.”

The report was based on interviews with Canadians in six focus groups in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Québec.

Survey finds most Canadians don't want feds to regulate internet content

Don’t let the feds regulate the internet said the majority of Canadians in Privy Council Office confidential research according to Blacklock’s Reporter.

torontosun.com

 

[canada-man]

you can always use VPNS and use the U.S where they have the 1st Amendment

 

[Adam_hadam]

you can always use VPNS and use the U.S where they have the 1st Amendment

I don't give 2 fucks about the 1st amendment or any amendment for that matter.

 

[IM469]

Any kind of censorship starts to erode individual rights. Put in the hands of politicians, it becomes support of popular choice instead of the individual. Look at the laws against prostitution as an example. Two consenting adults are forbidden in an activity that is private. The boon for politicians is that it does provide cheap political fodder for elections. A VPN may allow you to evade prosecution but you shouldn't have to use it.

 

[Leimonis]

They are already doing it. There are some channels on Bitchute that are banned for viewing in Canada. Need to use VPN or Onion Browser to bypass the block. Government is just making it official. Always said Trudeau was totalitarian ruler.

fuck your bitchute

You are being redirected...

 

[bazokajoe]

If the majority of Canadians don't want it regulated that means Mr. Socks will regulate it.
He always does the opposite of what the majority of Canadians want.
Worst PM in Canadian history.

 

[poker]

Regulate it…. (Not bans, regulations)

We regulate the speed limits on highways and streets, and for good reason.

We can argue on what the drinking age should be, but most us can agree 12 year olds should not be consuming alcohol… or pot.

I don’t hear anyone complaining about the rights being infringed of someone who wants to murder you. Sure, when you want to go all “road rage” it’s fine… but when 3 bikers are coming after you, we’re suddenly “law and order”.

Sensible regulations are fine.

Yes, I am aware it’s a double edge sword. What happens when the Christians get in and start banning pornography, prostitution, and alcohol…. Who gets to decide what’s sensible. Great questions. And really, there is no answer. Every person has slightly different values.

In my humble opinion…. Society is deteriorating. A few regulations would not hurt. Not “bans”. Regulations. There is a massive difference.

And again… just an opinion, but it’s seems to me like more and more young men are simply incapable of having healthy relationships. Stats A few years back showed exercise gaming and internet use was having a very adverse affect in guys. Doing worse in school at all levels, no success with women. Their brains get rewired, so to speak.

Someone has to have to balls to step up and introduce some regulations.

 

[Butler1000]

Regulate it…. (Not bans, regulations)

We regulate the speed limits on highways and streets, and for good reason.

We can argue on what the drinking age should be, but most us can agree 12 year olds should not be consuming alcohol… or pot.

I don’t hear anyone complaining about the rights being infringed of someone who wants to murder you. Sure, when you want to go all “road rage” it’s fine… but when 3 bikers are coming after you, we’re suddenly “law and order”.

Sensible regulations are fine.

Yes, I am aware it’s a double edge sword. What happens when the Christians get in and start banning pornography, prostitution, and alcohol…. Who gets to decide what’s sensible. Great questions. And really, there is no answer. Every person has slightly different values.

In my humble opinion…. Society is deteriorating. A few regulations would not hurt. Not “bans”. Regulations. There is a massive difference.

And again… just an opinion, but it’s seems to me like more and more young men are simply incapable of having healthy relationships. Stats A few years back showed exercise gaming and internet use was having a very adverse affect in guys. Doing worse in school at all levels, no success with women. Their brains get rewired, so to speak.

Someone has to have to balls to step up and introduce some regulations.

Regulations are bans. Its not the speed limit. That's a bad comparison. The only way to regulate content is to say what can't be said. Or to ban what can't be shown.

And at some point someone will attempt to ban something you don't want banned.

 

[poker]

Regulations are bans. Its not the speed limit. That's a bad comparison. The only way to regulate content is to say what can't be said. Or to ban what can't be shown.

And at some point someone will attempt to ban something you don't want banned.

In some cases yes. I think banning snuff porn is reasonable. Restricting who can be viewing pornography based on age is not a ban, and needs to happen. Too many 10 year olds are getting fucked up in the head.

 

[The Oracle]

The right Honorable Justin Trudeau and his hive acolytes will go right after free speech in any way they can.

That was always their end game.

 

[johnd5050]

Democracy in its final stage of death right behind the USA.

 

[Butler1000]

In some cases yes. I think banning snuff porn is reasonable. Restricting who can be viewing pornography based on age is not a ban, and needs to happen. Too many 10 year olds are getting fucked up in the head.

But you and I both know its about banning speech. Thats a strawman argument. Snuff films are banned because murder is against the law.

 

[poker]

But you and I both know its about banning speech. Thats a strawman argument. Snuff films are banned because murder is against the law.

It’s not a Strawman at all. People seem to be ok with regulations for this, and want a free for all for that.

Hate speech is against the law too.

Libel, slander and threat of violence are not free speech. Media has always been liable for those things. There is no reasonable argument to extend regulations for other media to the internet.

What we’re talking about isn’t speech at all. It’s having an ability to break the laws with anonymity hiding behind fake identities and VPN’s. Some people do not like the idea of giving that up. I get it. It’s gutless, but I get it.

 

[Butler1000]

It’s not a Strawman at all. People seem to be ok with regulations for this, and want a free for all for that.

Hate speech is against the law too.

Libel, slander and threat of violence are not free speech. Media has always been liable for those things. There is no reasonable argument to extend regulations for other media to the internet.

What we’re talking about isn’t speech at all. It’s having an ability to break the laws with anonymity hiding behind fake identities and VPN’s. Some people do not like the idea of giving that up. I get it. It’s gutless, but I get it.

So then the laws already exist. With remedies. What is the purpose of this bill? To out people?

Ask yourself then could the laws be used to out us?

 

[poker]

So then the laws already exist. With remedies. What is the purpose of this bill? To out people?

Ask yourself then could the laws be used to out us?

Without really have looked at the Bill…. I can’t say for certain what the in and outs are. I will take a look though.

 

[curr3n_c1000]

They use to laugh at China for restricting content on the internet to the public.

Now they are wishing they had that power.

 

[Deviant]