How new laws due to terrorism are being used to take away free speech...
Posted: Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:18 am
I'm relatively 'left' but believe that much of the onus of terrorism is NOT simply coming from the extreme right but being exacerbated BECAUSE of the left borrowing tactics of equal extremes.
I just heard on television the news tell me that for missing person cases now, the police will have absolute freedom to dig into anyone's privacy of anyone related to the missing persons! [Saskatchewan, Canada]
Now this was of course the trivial news today. But now all my local media have permitted the "reporters" to speak emotively with expressions of how they almost universally think the law should take away anyone's right to speak EVEN by "indirect" means or to subtle absences that some think SHOULD be spoken.
I get all the abuses that can occur and like to see people voluntarily stop such behavior. But what they are all suggesting could make even me get treated as a 'hate-crimer'. All it would take is someone to be remotely offended.
I just asked here in Canada what the supposed online increase of right-wing conspirators are BEFORE they censor them, as they tend to do here before or while they are reporting the issue. We can't look to see what or how this is being done to determine on our own what the statistical interpreters of these "reports" refer to.
Does anyone know the prevalence of this? I didn't notice it raised here and don't want to discuss the particulars of any terrorist act. But what do you guys here think?
Should we require a special censor class of moderators who can qualify one as committing a "hate" crime? I might even be considered one for JUST what I say here.
I just heard on television the news tell me that for missing person cases now, the police will have absolute freedom to dig into anyone's privacy of anyone related to the missing persons! [Saskatchewan, Canada]
Now this was of course the trivial news today. But now all my local media have permitted the "reporters" to speak emotively with expressions of how they almost universally think the law should take away anyone's right to speak EVEN by "indirect" means or to subtle absences that some think SHOULD be spoken.
I get all the abuses that can occur and like to see people voluntarily stop such behavior. But what they are all suggesting could make even me get treated as a 'hate-crimer'. All it would take is someone to be remotely offended.
I just asked here in Canada what the supposed online increase of right-wing conspirators are BEFORE they censor them, as they tend to do here before or while they are reporting the issue. We can't look to see what or how this is being done to determine on our own what the statistical interpreters of these "reports" refer to.
Does anyone know the prevalence of this? I didn't notice it raised here and don't want to discuss the particulars of any terrorist act. But what do you guys here think?
Should we require a special censor class of moderators who can qualify one as committing a "hate" crime? I might even be considered one for JUST what I say here.