[ SECRET POST #3288 ]

[case]

⌈ 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.

Comments

Re: When do you consider someone well-off?

[(Anonymous)]

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.

Re: When do you consider someone well-off?

[ariakas]

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?

Re: When do you consider someone well-off?

[(Anonymous)]

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.

Re: When do you consider someone well-off?

[ariakas]

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.

Re: When do you consider someone well-off?

[kallanda_lee]

Whatever, bro.

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