[UPDATE] Man gets cyber crime charges for spamming twitch channels

[dalekphalm]

4 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

Yup.  And I even live next door to a synagogue.  In December I came out to catch the bus to see Toronto Police Service babysitting the place.  Turns out it was one of four synagogues that had gotten snail mail antisemitic threats the previous day.  ...and who sends threats by LETTER MAIL in 2018? 

Well, you know, they gotta live OFF THE GRID, MAN! Or else Big Brother is gonna track their emails!

[Clanscorpia]

53 minutes ago, Shakaza said:

 

The vagueness is that any kind of "hurtful" thing directed towards someone can be classified as hate speech. If I lay out the facts for you and say something like (not saying its true just an example) "black people are statically less intelligent and more aggressive than other races" and someone gets hurt, you can still get charged, even though youre saying the truth based on facts. A society cant progress if facts and opinions of the majority oppress that of the minority, thats how things like Soviet Communism, and Nazism became so damaging to their respective countries. The Canadian constitution itself states that "Section 1 of the Charter says that Charter rights can be limited by other laws so long as those limits can be shown to be reasonable in a free and democratic society."  This means the majority will always have a say over what the minority say because they are the ones who decide what is "reasonable" and why free speech needs to be absolute to protect the minority from repression by the majority.

[dalekphalm]

5 minutes ago, Clanscorpia said:

The vagueness is that any kind of "hurtful" thing directed towards someone can be classified as hate speech. If I lay out the facts for you and say something like (not saying its true just an example) "black people are statically less intelligent and more aggressive than other races" and someone gets hurt, you can still get charged, even though youre saying the truth based on facts. A society cant progress if facts and opinions of the majority oppress that of the minority, thats how things like Soviet Communism, and Nazism became so damaging to their respective countries. The Canadian constitution itself states that "Section 1 of the Charter says that Charter rights can be limited by other laws so long as those limits can be shown to be reasonable in a free and democratic society."  This means the majority will always have a say over what the minority say because they are the ones who decide what is "reasonable" and why free speech needs to be absolute to protect the minority from repression by the majority.

The very law you quote, is what allows restrictions (as is reasonable) on Free Speech.

 

Here's the thing, in your example, you made a claim - one that is false and is largely considered racist by all reasonable individuals.

 

However, if you were to back up that statement with clear and unbiased facts, backed by empirical evidence (eg: numerous RTC studies, all peer reviewed, etc), then MAYBE we could have a conversation about it.

 

But if someone is gonna claim some racist bullshit as fact, they had damn well better have lots of evidence to back it up - otherwise in Canada, they can get in serious criminal trouble.

 

And yes, "hurtful" is vague, but it has to be. I think it would be impossible to list every single thing that could possibly be considered hate speech. The bill would be 100 pages long, and still not cover every single possible outcome.

 

That's why, in Canada, we specifically enact protections for minorities, because we know that occasionally the majority may try to abuse them.

 

Give me an actual example of someone saying a factual truth, and getting charged Hate Speech for it.

[Clanscorpia]

3 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

The very law you quote, is what allows restrictions (as is reasonable) on Free Speech.

I know, thats why I was pointing out how its damaging.

4 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Give me an actual example of someone saying a factual truth, and getting charged Hate Speech for it.

I wasnt saying it had happened in Canada, I was pointing out how the law can be abused and how laws like it have been abused all over the world, specially for punishing minority political groups.

[dalekphalm]

2 minutes ago, Clanscorpia said:

I know, thats why I was pointing out how its damaging.

I wasnt saying it had happened in Canada, I was pointing out how the law can be abused and how laws like it have been abused all over the world, specially for punishing minority political groups.

Can you elaborate on how that could be abused?

 

In the example you gave before, where a person said "black people are less intelligent". Well, yeah, that'd be a hate crime, since there's no science backing up his statement.

 

That's a bad example. It just goes to show that Hate Speech should indeed be a crime.

 

Can you give me a better example, one that would prove how the law in Canada could be destructive?

[AshleyAshes]

16 minutes ago, Clanscorpia said:

This means the majority will always have a say over what the minority say because they are the ones who decide what is "reasonable" and why free speech needs to be absolute to protect the minority from repression by the majority.

That's not how it works at all.  The actual final interpretation of Canadian laws are up to the courts, an extreme minority of the Canadian population, and 'reasonable' is determined by the courts.  The 'Majority' as in, the voting citizens and their elected representatives, can pass laws which violate the charter or constitution and then have those laws struck down by the courts.  That's the embodiment of the majority NOT being able to determine what is 'reasonable'.

 

A prime example of this would be Sauvé v Canada.

 

Our democratically decided Canada Elections Act banned prisoners from voting.  This was legally challenged.  Courts found the ban to be unconstitutional.  The courts weighed the violation of s3 of the charter against s1 and s1 couldn't save the law.  It was struck down.  Then the government passed a NEW law, saying that only prisoners serving 2 years or more couldn't vote.  Ah, sneaky democratic majority!  If your law gets struck down again just make a NEW one! ...The supreme court chastised parliament a second time around:

 

Quote

Parliament must ensure that whatever law it passes, at whatever stage of the process, conforms to the Constitution.  The healthy and important promotion of a dialogue between the legislature and the courts should not be debased to a rule of “if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again”.

I -LOVE- that quote.

 

So anyway, no.  Your belief that you need 'Absolute Freedom of Speech' in Canada or the majority will oppress the minority is not a real concern.  It only stems from an ignorant understanding of Canadian law.  Which, I gotta be honest, I DON'T UNDERSTAND.  Every case I've cited in this thread I first read about in my 11th grade high school law text book from an Ontario high school.  I have NO idea how no other Canadians in this thread have no knowledge of the most fundamental trials in Canadian history...  You guys at least know about the will etched into the tractor fender, right?  I mean, that fender is in a MUSEUM!

 

 

[Clanscorpia]

7 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Can you elaborate on how that could be abused?

 

In the example you gave before, where a person said "black people are less intelligent". Well, yeah, that'd be a hate crime, since there's no science backing up his statement.

 

That's a bad example. It just goes to show that Hate Speech should indeed be a crime.

 

Can you give me a better example, one that would prove how the law in Canada could be destructive?

The laws can be changed to anything that "Charter rights can be limited by other laws so long as those limits can be shown to be reasonable in a free and democratic society." Meaning any of those laws can be changed about free speech including hate speech. Going back to a place like Soviet Russia where saying anything against the state could get you killed or sent to a Gulag shows how a majority government can push down the minority for what the powerful/majority believe in, stifling conflicting views from going through. And if we ban anything that has no science backing it opinions and many left ideas which are currently the "majority" about white people would also be hate speech, but these are not charged as such, showing an inequality in the treatment of hate speech. Laws should place everyone equality not some people given benefits because of stuff that happened in the past.

[Clanscorpia]

2 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

That's not how it works at all.  The actual final interpretation of Canadian laws are up to the courts, an extreme minority of the Canadian population, and 'reasonable' is determined by the courts.  The 'Majority' as in, the voting citizens and their elected representatives, can pass laws which violate the charter or constitution and then have those laws struck down by the courts.  That's the embodiment of the majority NOT being able to determine what is 'reasonable'.

 

A prime example of this would be Sauvé v Canada.

 

Our democratically decided Canada Elections Act banned prisoners from voting.  This was legally challenged.  Courts found the ban to be unconstitutional.  The courts weighed the violation of s3 of the charter against s1 and s1 couldn't save the law.  It was struck down.  Then the government passed a NEW law, saying that only prisoners serving 2 years or more couldn't vote.  Ah, sneaky democratic majority!  If your law gets struck down again just make a NEW one! ...The supreme court chastised parliament a second time around:

 

I -LOVE- that quote.

 

So anyway, no.  Your belief that you need 'Absolute Freedom of Speech' in Canada or the majority will oppress the minority is not a real concern.  It only stems from an ignorant understanding of Canadian law.  Which, I gotta be honest, I DON'T UNDERSTAND.  Every case I've cited in this thread I first read about in my 11th grade high school law text book from an Ontario high school.  I have NO idea how no other Canadians in this thread have no knowledge of the most fundamental trials in Canadian history...  You guys at least know about the will etched into the tractor fender, right?  I mean, that fender is in a MUSEUM!

 

 

Except it can be constitutional, it literally says their in the constitution the laws can be passed, its in the first charter.

[AshleyAshes]

Just now, Clanscorpia said:

Except it can be constitutional, it literally says their in the constitution the laws can be passed, its in the first charter.

I'm going to ask a very simply question since you are demonstrating such utterly poor comprehension of Canadian Law:

 

Without Googling it, do you know what the 'Oakes Test' is?

 

And to be clear, I learned about the Oakes Test IN HIGH SCHOOL so none of this is some kind of university learned legalese.

[Clanscorpia]

Just now, AshleyAshes said:

I'm going to ask a very simply question since you are demonstrating such utterly poor comprehension of Canadian Law:

 

Without Googling it, do you know what the 'Oakes Test' is?

 

And to be clear, I learned about the Oakes Test IN HIGH SCHOOL so none of this is some kind of university learned legalese.

Currently in high school so no I do not but I can google stuff which is nice about having the internet. So looking at it quickly through the overly complicated language of wikipedia I can see that the test is basically seeing if the law will have an overly harsh effect on people and making sure the law doesnt overstep exactly what needs to be done. But looking at this even it is extremely vague and basically goes with whatever side is in power for minimizing free speech as it still uses the language "free and democratic society" which is highly subjective as to what you believe that means. It also talks about a balance, which with a small enough group at the other end, or enough power on one could sway towards one end. 

[AshleyAshes]

Just now, Clanscorpia said:

through the overly complicated language of wikipedia

...Wow...  You crying that 'Wah, legal language while talking about law is too hard!' is not doing you any favors in this discussion about law...

 

2 minutes ago, Clanscorpia said:

basically goes with whatever side is in power

I can't understand where you keep getting this idea that an imagined power has influence over the courts.... But considering the above I can only credit it to reading comprehension issues.

[Clanscorpia]

1 minute ago, AshleyAshes said:

...Wow...  You crying that 'Wah, legal language while talking about law is too hard!' is not doing you any favors in this discussion about law...

Its not legal language, its Wikipedias tendency to overuse unnecessary amounts of complicated language that are not needed making basic comprehension difficult without reading.

 

2 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

I can't understand where you keep getting this idea that an imagined power has influence over the courts.... But considering the above I can only credit it to reading comprehension issues.

Its not an imagined power, its the legislature that can push the laws and argue this, they are the defendants in the cases going to the court, and can provide evidence against the plaintiffs case. 

[Guest]

33 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

The very law you quote, is what allows restrictions (as is reasonable) on Free Speech.

 

Here's the thing, in your example, you made a claim - one that is false and is largely considered racist by all reasonable individuals.

 

However, if you were to back up that statement with clear and unbiased facts, backed by empirical evidence (eg: numerous RTC studies, all peer reviewed, etc), then MAYBE we could have a conversation about it.

 

But if someone is gonna claim some racist bullshit as fact, they had damn well better have lots of evidence to back it up - otherwise in Canada, they can get in serious criminal trouble.

 

And yes, "hurtful" is vague, but it has to be. I think it would be impossible to list every single thing that could possibly be considered hate speech. The bill would be 100 pages long, and still not cover every single possible outcome.

 

That's why, in Canada, we specifically enact protections for minorities, because we know that occasionally the majority may try to abuse them.

 

Give me an actual example of someone saying a factual truth, and getting charged Hate Speech for it.

I think this goes to show where if you call someone in high school (for example) pretty stupid, but you say they also have bad grades so it’s true, does that make it any less hurtful to the individual? 

 

It mainly depends on your target audience and their maturity on the subject, as well as a bit of common sense. 

 

Another instance is the stigma surrounding healthcare in the Maori population in New Zealand. It’s a very important subject that should (and is) talked about more. There is a significant disparity regarding mortality in Maori compared to Pakeha (white ppl). However it is more to do with culture than anything biological (although it is a sensitive subject in this regard. The real key to closing the gap it seems is education of healthcare, however that seems to stem a racial debate over ‘who knows more’. This is often why talks such as these are often thrown under the rug so to speak and quite often you can land in hot water. 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Clanscorpia said:

Its not legal language, its Wikipedias tendency to overuse unnecessary amounts of complicated language that are not needed making basic comprehension difficult without reading.

 

Its not an imagined power, its the legislature that can push the laws and argue this, they are the defendants in the cases going to the court, and can provide evidence against the plaintiffs case. 

Proper language is needed to distinguish facts. In a scientific field there are many jargon terms specific to the speciality.

Understanding of literature in these fields is only possible with these terms and is relatively straightforward if you have studied the basics of the subject. 

[AshleyAshes]

2 minutes ago, Clanscorpia said:

Its not legal language, its Wikipedias tendency to overuse unnecessary amounts of complicated language that are not needed making basic comprehension difficult without reading.

No, that language is pretty typical in explanations of law.  This is you being in over your head and failing to comprehend and trying to push the blame onto Wikipedia.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Clanscorpia said:

Its not an imagined power, its the legislature that can push the laws and argue this, they are the defendants in the cases going to the court, and can provide evidence against the plaintiffs case. 

Right... So how does the government being allowed 'have it's day in court' to argue it's case and the courts make their decision weighing both sides bring us to 'basically goes with whatever side is in power for minimizing free speech'?  I can't see where your leap of logic here is.

[dalekphalm]

45 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

That's not how it works at all.  The actual final interpretation of Canadian laws are up to the courts, an extreme minority of the Canadian population, and 'reasonable' is determined by the courts.  The 'Majority' as in, the voting citizens and their elected representatives, can pass laws which violate the charter or constitution and then have those laws struck down by the courts.  That's the embodiment of the majority NOT being able to determine what is 'reasonable'.

 

A prime example of this would be Sauvé v Canada.

 

Our democratically decided Canada Elections Act banned prisoners from voting.  This was legally challenged.  Courts found the ban to be unconstitutional.  The courts weighed the violation of s3 of the charter against s1 and s1 couldn't save the law.  It was struck down.  Then the government passed a NEW law, saying that only prisoners serving 2 years or more couldn't vote.  Ah, sneaky democratic majority!  If your law gets struck down again just make a NEW one! ...The supreme court chastised parliament a second time around:

 

I -LOVE- that quote.

 

So anyway, no.  Your belief that you need 'Absolute Freedom of Speech' in Canada or the majority will oppress the minority is not a real concern.  It only stems from an ignorant understanding of Canadian law.  Which, I gotta be honest, I DON'T UNDERSTAND.  Every case I've cited in this thread I first read about in my 11th grade high school law text book from an Ontario high school.  I have NO idea how no other Canadians in this thread have no knowledge of the most fundamental trials in Canadian history...  You guys at least know about the will etched into the tractor fender, right?  I mean, that fender is in a MUSEUM!

 

 

To be fair, law isn’t a required subject (one might argue it should be), and I never took law in high school. So some of what you’re saying is new to me, but at least I understand your points and the basics. 

25 minutes ago, Clanscorpia said:

Its not legal language, its Wikipedias tendency to overuse unnecessary amounts of complicated language that are not needed making basic comprehension difficult without reading.

 

Its not an imagined power, its the legislature that can push the laws and argue this, they are the defendants in the cases going to the court, and can provide evidence against the plaintiffs case. 

Legislature can make all the laws they want. However, the courts can and do decide when a law is (ironically) unlawful because, for example, it violates the constitution. 

 

And it’s up to the court to decide what laws are reasonable, when it comes to hate speech crimes. 

 

So Parliament can do whatever they want, but on many occasions the Supreme Court has struck down laws that violated our rights. 

[AshleyAshes]

11 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Legislature can make all the laws they want. However, the courts can and do decide when a law is (ironically) unlawful because, for example, it violates the constitution. 

Yup.  The Suave case is in text books for just that reason.  It shows a piece of legislation being struck down, the government going 'Wait, what if we just passed NEW legislation that did the same thing as the OLD one? :3' and that getting struck down.

More over, both the constitution and the charter are MUCH harder to alter than any legislation below them.  A simple act of parliament alone can't amend those laws.  You need parliament to pass it, you need the senate to pass it AND you need seven provincial legislatures also pass it and those legislatures combined must represent more than 50% of the Canadian population.  Though this only applies to changes that will effect ALL provinces and there are actually multiple parts of the Constitution that only involve a single province.  Like how PEI's constitutionally guaranteed ferry service was dropped once the Confederation Bridge was constructed.  It basically just required PEI's legislature to approve it.

 

But yeah, there's def no concerns of the government some how using the charter to oppress Canadians.  Just about every landmark charter case is the government LOSING after going too far.   We have pretty extensive case history of the system, ya know, 'working'.

[Egg-Roll]

47 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

I'm going to ask a very simply question since you are demonstrating such utterly poor comprehension of Canadian Law:

 

Without Googling it, do you know what the 'Oakes Test' is?

 

And to be clear, I learned about the Oakes Test IN HIGH SCHOOL so none of this is some kind of university learned legalese.

I took 2 law classes in school, never learned this case... Just saying...

59 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

You guys at least know about the will etched into the tractor fender, right?  I mean, that fender is in a MUSEUM!

Nope don't know that either... But wouldn't surprise me as it is written down on something  A napkin would hold up in court if proven to be your handwriting...

 

The biggest issue is the curriculum, there is no real set one. There's a standard and a book, but nothing really else...

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/curricul/secondary/descript/descript.pdf

 

Quote

Understanding Canadian Law, Grade 11, University/College Preparation

 

This course explores legal issues that directly affect students’ lives. Students will acquire a practical knowledge of Canada’s legal system and learn how to analyse legal issues. They will also be given opportunities to develop informed opinions on legal issues and to defend those opinions and communicate legal knowledge in a variety of ways and settings, including legal research projects, mock trials, and debates.

Understanding Canadian Law, Grade 11, Workplace Preparation

 

This course explores elements of Canadian law that are relevant to students as they prepare to enter the labour force. Students will learn to develop informed opinions on legal issues and to express and defend their opinions in a variety of ways. Practical experience and active learning strategies will be emphasized.

Canadian and International Law, Grade 12, University Preparation 

 

This course explores elements of Canadian law and the role of law in social, political, and global contexts. Students will learn about the connections between the historical and philosophical sources of law and issues in contemporary society. They will also learn to analyse legal issues, conduct independent research, and communicate the results of their inquiries in a variety of ways.

Furthermore it comes down to funding and timing of classes etc, since every school is different some schools (larger ones) could throw in extra stuff, whereas smaller ones might not, I unfortunately didn't go to a large school and had a ok course, great teachers they tried their best, shitty school/funding...

 

 

Also one thing they could do to him possibly is cyberbullying 

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cycp-cpcj/bull-inti/index-eng.htm

 

No idea why people keep saying freedom of speech when the second you violate another's right you basically lose yours. If laws where to protect only you and your interests then the world would turn to hell faster than Kim could hit that big red nuke button he keeps looking at... Just because you can walk around and cus up a storm, the second you start infringing on other beliefs, looks, or birth place and you do so in a manner it offends them and they have proof of it (video, audio, logs, a sworn in person of the law, multiple witnesses), you just committed a crime against said person.

[Energycore]

On 1/16/2018 at 4:09 PM, Streetguru said:

Bad idea to let governments set precedence over controlling speech.

I hope you're not trying to argue that harassing a bunch of people with personalized insults, slurs, etc. constitutes a healthy and legal use of freedom of speech.

[Streetguru]

6 minutes ago, Energycore said:

I hope you're not trying to argue that harassing a bunch of people with personalized insults, slurs, etc. constitutes a healthy and legal use of freedom of speech.

So long as the government isn't punishing people for it i'm fine, though no private entity is going to let you get away with that.

[Egg-Roll]

26 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

So long as the government isn't punishing people for it i'm fine, though no private entity is going to let you get away with that.

So let me get this straight, you are perfectly ok with someone lets say...

1. Demoralize you, and your family on any level they wish.
2. Make racial comments or fun out of where you were born or where your family came from
3. Make equally bad statements about your religious beliefs regardless your stance.
4. Any and everything possible to cause as much emotional and or psychological harm towards you as possible, which could lead to you possibly trying to kill yourself.

And you're perfectly fine with said person not getting a criminal charge even if those "words" caused harm/trauma among anyone who may have been affected?

[Streetguru]

Just now, Egg-Roll said:

Any and everything possible to cause as much emotional and or psychological harm towards you as possible, which could lead to you possibly trying to kill yourself.

That falls under illegal activity, at least urging suicide would or continued harassment, IE stalking.

 

the first 3 are generally going to be fine, not that I'd advise anyone to do such things, but they should remain legal.

[Energycore]

23 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

but they should remain legal. [the three points in @Egg-Roll's post above]

I could not disagree more. They're discrimination, plain and simply. If done enough they can cause damage similar to physical abuse¹. If you want to live in a country where they're legal, well, I'm glad there's more than one country in the world.

 

¹ Don't have a source right now though I could look one up

[Egg-Roll]

29 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

That falls under illegal activity, at least urging suicide would or continued harassment, IE stalking.

 

the first 3 are generally going to be fine, not that I'd advise anyone to do such things, but they should remain legal.

The problem with the list I gave, since every person is different, what you think is fine could actually lead to the 4th in some manner w/o a specific timeframe, basically all a person might need is someone influential to them stating they are useless piece of turd just once, therefore 1-3 should (and often are in some situations) be treated equally with the 4th.

 

Think of it like this 1-3 could be easily deemed as bullying correct? The fact is bullying in Ontario and many other parts around the world is illegal. There's been cases in Canada and the USA where verbal bullying online and in schools etc have lead to suicide or the attempt of, simple things that look like 1-3 with the excuse of "oh the kids are just having fun, it's good for the karma" but actually had the 4th as an effect. Hence illegal regardless how miner it seems. Just because one can get away with it in some situations doesn't mean it's legal.

[Streetguru]

27 minutes ago, Energycore said:

 

21 minutes ago, Egg-Roll said:

 

Targeted Harassment, that's likely personal, malicious, and repeated should clearly be illegal or have some form of punishment.

But aside from that as above with hate symbols that's very easy target to say it shouldn't be allowed. What happens past that? How far does it go and who exactly gets to decide what people can or cannot say?


Reminds of that whole thing with Jordan Peterson, where correct me if I'm wrong, but a bill was going to be pass and/or was passed that may or may not make it illegal to not call someone by their preferred pronouns, where it would potentially fall under hate speech requiring you to pay a fine or face jail time? In canada anyways.
https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/20038/why-is-canadas-bill-c-16-believed-to-be-legislating-pronoun-use

Should you be a decent human being yes, clearly, should the government need to be involved in policing speech even when it's vile? No, not in most cases. The governments job is not to protect feelings, There should be a universal right to free speech, but there shouldn't be any right not to be offended.