this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2023
48 points (70.0% liked)

Canada

7210 readers
299 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca/


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] corrupts_absolutely@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

i cant believe how popular this view is on social media.

[–] Omega_Jimes@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

It's complicated. Legally we don't have "freedom of speech".

For clarification: Do I believe that's a core human value? Absolutely.

Do I believe that tolerance is a social contact we should all abide by? Very much so!

Do I trust society to regulate itself? Heck no, from a sociological point of view that's a mess for lots of reasons. In smaller communities it may be ideal, but anything anyone says now is considered on a global scale.

So, from where I stand, it makes sense for a governing body to place limited restrictions on what a person should be allowed to say in the public sphere. This specific issue is debatable and relies on a certain amount of faith in the institution. Is it right that these people were punished for saying their beliefs? That's another complicated view that depends on a case by case basis. Is it legally allowable that a politician be censured for what they say? That depends on what they said. Is it morally allowable? From a moral absolutionist point of view, probably not, but our charters were made to prevent people from calling for violence in the public sphere. Is it morally acceptable to allow for someone to call for violence in a very real way as a political representative? What constitutes violence? How far can we deconstruct the rhetorical arguments our society is based on?

It's complicated. We don't have freedom of speech and we don't have freedom from consequences. If you give people you agree with freedom from consequences you also have to give it to the people you don't agree with.

[–] ram@bookwormstory.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not a view. It's written into our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and empowered by our constitution.

[–] corrupts_absolutely@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

freedom of speech is not an exclusively legal term

[–] ram@bookwormstory.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Both the article in the OP, and the comment you're responding to are using it in the legal sense.

[–] corrupts_absolutely@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

unless i am failing to understand what is being said the article is saying otherwise.

For them, free speech is freedom for them to collect a paycheque while saying the most boring, obvious, clichΓ©, bootlicking shit they can come up with. That is free speech β€” the right to do these things with minimal government involvement.

[–] ram@bookwormstory.social -3 points 1 year ago

You're misunderstanding something then.