fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3288 ]

[ SECRET POST #3288 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3288 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 044 secrets from Secret Submission Post #470.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

If you can afford a medical emergency without being totally destroyed by it, you're well-off.

Known in the rest of the developed (and much of the developing) world as "every single citizen."

Yeah don't remind me. :|

If it makes you feel any better you're one of the few places you can't get arrested for """offensive""" tweets.

You can't get arrested for "offensive" tweets in Canada, either. They have to be credible threats against an individual, which is exactly the same measure by which someone can be arrested for tweets in the US.

We also have libel, slander, etc., laws, just the same as the US, but they're civil matters. You can't be "arrested" for them.

Literally the only difference is our hate speech laws. Those aren't for "offensive" tweets, they're a very specific category: someone has to directly and specifically call for violence against a group of people based on a protected category in our constitution (age, gender, race, sexual orientation, religion, etc.). And again, you're not arrested. You're fined. And only if you're found guilty, which usually requires corroborating evidence. To whit, hate speech is:

"any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide"

I'm honestly okay with people being fined for tweeting about how all fags should be put to death or how all Jews should be rounded up and shot. If you really need genocide advocacy as part of your freeze peach, there's something profoundly wrong with your country.

Edited 2016-01-05 01:41 (UTC)

DA

Hahaha, I read that as "I'm honestly okay with people tweeting about how all fags should be put to death" and was so confused for a second

Because they're just fucking words, no matter how vile they are. Enjoy your thought crimes. Oops, just thought it would be fun to nuke Canada, guess it's time for the government to punish me for my wrong-thought.

So when does Canada get the technology to upload our thoughts to the internet, converted to written word, against our will?

This is why the thought-crimes argument is breaktakingly idiotic: have you ever thought about stealing something? Probably. Were you arrested for it? No. You'd actually have to steal it.

Have you ever thought about inciting others to commit genocide? Hopefully not, but if you have, you weren't arrested for it. You'd actually have to write it down and publish it in a public forum.

Moreover, if being able to be arrested for writing about inciting violence but not actually carrying it out is thought-crime, the US's Department of Homeland Security is miles ahead of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Only they call it ~terrorism~. Worse, you don't get fined: you get imprisoned indefinitely.

If we changed the name Anti-Freedom Domestic Terror Speech laws, would you be okay with it?

So I can have my thoughts, just don't express them to anyone ever?

You went straight from thinking about stealing something to stealing it and skipped the talking about stealing it which would actually be relevant to this discussion. I can't be arrested for just saying 'hey I'd like to rob this bank' if I take no further steps.

Inciting genocide blah blah blah etc. The examples you gave of saying 'all Jews should be shot' or whatever don't even come close to reaching a reasonable definition of that so if your hate crime laws cover that I would say they have way, way overstepped their bounds. I expected to be suspected of a crime when I have taken reasonable steps toward carrying it out such as detailing a specific not general plan, buying equipment, recruiting, etc.

I expected to be suspected of a crime when I have taken reasonable steps toward carrying it out such as detailing a specific not general plan, buying equipment, recruiting, etc.

This is literally why "corroborating evidence" is required, and what it includes. You can't be fined if your statement is without sincere intent or is satire.

Whatever, bro.

I'll take not dying of cancer because I can't afford treatment over my right to post racist shit on Twitter.

Wait not so fast cancuck

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-ruling-in-twitter-harassment-trial-could-have-enormous-fallout-for-free-speech

and lets not get started on little sisters bookstore my northern friend

That's not hate speech, that's criminal harassment. Which has always been a crime (and is in the US as well), it has only now broadened to include social media.

Also, he was charged. Not found guilty. If the prosecutor can't prove that he he harassed them by the standards of Canadian law (i.e. to the point that they feared for their safety), then the charges will be dropped and his accusers will pay damages.

nayrt, Yikes, that case is ridiculous. And, unfortunately, the fact that it is dragged into court is a huge financial burden even if he is found innocent - not to mention the time wasted, and the fact that he has lost his job. And that anyone who Googles him will now see his name linked with legal troubles. There's no way reparations would cover that, if they are actually ordered. I did look to see if there were updates, but couldn't find them.

I think is probably an abuse of what the online anti-harassment laws were made for, and it's also not surprising that the laws morph outside their original intent. But the fact that that dispute was elevated to court doesn't seem a good thing to me at all.

I'll second this one :/.

I am dirt poor and could afford that - I'm from a country with a free healthcare system. America's boggles my mind.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #3288 ]

Re: When do you consider someone well-off?

Re: When do you consider someone well-off?

Re: When do you consider someone well-off?

Re: When do you consider someone well-off?

Re: When do you consider someone well-off?

Re: When do you consider someone well-off?

Re: When do you consider someone well-off?

Re: When do you consider someone well-off?

Re: When do you consider someone well-off?

Re: When do you consider someone well-off?

Re: When do you consider someone well-off?

Re: When do you consider someone well-off?

Re: When do you consider someone well-off?

Re: When do you consider someone well-off?

Re: When do you consider someone well-off?

Re: When do you consider someone well-off?