This argument is ridiculous. The proposed law would stop ISP's from interfering with your lives.
Censorship by the LIBERAL Democratic phonies
- Thread starter ironsides
- Start date
A snuggy.
Isn't the term "regulator in a free market" sort of a oxymoron? A free market should be just that, free with no regulations.
Might have something to do with their ability to lie to millions of people while keeping a straight face, their ability to scream and be angry at the most simplest things that don't matter, yet can make those things sound like the end of the world and the fact that they spout off everything that pampers, ass-kisses and benefits their sponsors.
Defend oil companies, defend owning KPM's & M60's, defend church values, and act angry and fed up while doing it all, and you got Exxon, the NRA and most of the fanatical christians out there supporting you.
It's usually the crazies who are the loudest and want the most attention. Just look at hostage takers, serial killers and terrorists.... they all scream for attention and want their names to be heard by all, by making sure they impact those around them in a manner that they soon won't forget.
What about false statements, slander and incitement to commit acts of violence?
Besides the above, there's also other levels of "Free Speech" that go well beyond what any "Amendment" or "Charter" was meant to protect.
Those types of regulations, rights and laws were to protect the citizens from oppression from the government and allow the citizens a means to fight back...... those regulations, rights and laws were not designed for a government political party and those they fund to openly spread hatred, propaganda and lies to entice divisions, hatred and mistrust throughout the nation..... nor were they created to defend someone's right to be racists, prejudice or keep a group of people down in society.
When someone wishes to use their right to express themselves, they should be prepared to defend what they say and possibly back up any claims they make with facts and evidence..... otherwise it's slander or worse.
I shouldn't be allowed to openly state to the public that a certain member in here has cheated on their spouse a number of times, thus potentially ruining their relationship/marriage, ruining their public image, ruining their private and possibly their public lives and ruining the lives I implicate with that member....... If I don't have evidence or facts to back up such claims..... and thus, if I don't, I should be held accountable.
With everything, there is always a limit to how far something is allowed to be "Free" because there will always be people who will take that luxury/freedom and abuse it at the expense of others and therefore, tarnish the original reasons why that something was free to begin with.
That's why in this country, there are laws existing to help prevent most of this type of crap from happening.
People seem to forget too that these rights and laws, albeit written on paper by humans with ink, thus not all that holy or written in stone by lightening...... were written and created long before the "Press" became what it is today or long before these people who wrote these wonderful "Rights" could view exactly how what they were written could be abused in a negative fashion to counter their original intentions.
The Press today isn't run by the people, the Press are these large corporate businesses who say what they're told to by their sponsors and by the politicians who line their pockets in order to tell the Public what they claim is the truth..... and they sit behind the defense of what you just quoted above, continually allowed to keep this sort of crap going on and further causing chaos, ignorance, paranoia and confusion throughout the public in such a way that nobody knows what's fact or myth and those that do are dubbed crazy or unpatriotic.
Times change, societies grow and develop..... and things need to either evolve or become extinct...... sticking to old documents and thinking from some 2 to 300 years ago as if nothing has changed is ludicrous and sticking to such a mentality is why many view the US and some other western societies as being way behind in the times in many aspects.
Acting as though Charters and Amendments are holy scripture written by some infallible deity that will work perfectly for all eternity makes about as much sense as acting as though Bibles and Qurans were written by some infallible deities that will work perfectly for all eternity.......
...... When in reality, they all were written, created and adopted by fallible Humans based on the fallible Human mentality and understanding of that era each was written in.
Which means that it should be a good idea to at least every 100 years to review the things we all hold dear and determine if they're still valid and apply today, or require revision or updates to work best with the way society and humanity has grown..... or be scrapped all together.
The Amendments and Charters Canada and the US hold to were created and adopted at a time where societies and cultures were changing and no longer wanted to live their lives a certain way..... but before that, their societies and cultures lived a certain way that seems not only acceptable, but the norm. Sure it had problems and not everybody was happy, but the same still applies today.
Sure people's way of life before our Charters and Amendments were created weren't the greatest..... but people's way of life before that was even more difficult and people dealt with more hardships then they did under their current rule prior to charters and amendments.
It's a continual evolution in our societies to eventually change our thinking, our freedoms, our rights.
The Amendments and Charters/Rights people in here continually argue and defend were written and created during an era where people still faced cannon balls and muskets..... before that, people were living a way of life dictated around the time when the crossbow was considered the instrument of the devil....... before that, the Roman Empire was still in existence.
To assume that these charters, rights, amendments and freedoms we all adhere to today will exist and remain our way of life forever on is not only short-sighted, but a bit ignorant on humanity's social evolution....... and to cry foul and get all riled up when someone questions or challenges these charters/rights/amendments as if they should remain as they are until the end of time, is just a means to keep humanity on a path that leads to nowhere. Every path leads us forward but all eventually leads to a dead end, which is why humanity needs to keep changing paths and adapting through time.....
Which at times they have been able to do..... ie: extraditing other country's citizens for crimes they committed outside of the US that are not crimes in their own countries which is where they're claimed to have committed said crimes...... ie: Marc Emery.
And the US makes a big stink about this sort of thing and announce it to the whole world so that it later will be easy to pressure other nations to adopt their laws and their regulations in order to better protect their own nation, ie: the US.
Our nations already did this with prohibition, making most other drugs illegal, dragging our asses off to war with Afghanistan and Iraq, all the airport security measures we all now have to go through.... etc. etc. etc.....
True.... I doubt their laws against the internet would get implemented by many countries, but I'm sure those in the US will try.
I don't care what political position a person holds to, if you want to rewrite the Constitution, I am against it. The laws as they were written plus a few new Amendments that were added are all we need to protect everyone. One has only to enforce them. I this case, I do not want the goverment regulating the best free internet system in the world, nothing a goverment has ever regulated made it better with the possible exception of medicine.
Ok, water also. There are some basic needs that need regulating. But not every aspect of ones life, especially by a political party.
Agreed. But the argument shouldn't be if there are too many or too few. It should be looked at on a case by case basis to come to a reasonable conclusion founded upon empirical data. Censorship is hardly an issue any form of government is willing to let go so easily - but make no bones about it: social conservatism is on the worst end of that train wreck.
So you think that markets should be left to regulate themselves? You trust that banks, insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, petro-chemical manufacturing, mining corporations, agri-food businesses, and so on and so forth would behave in a manner that best suits you as a consumer?
I'm just out of university, and even I am not that naive. Your country is reaping the outcome of de-regulation. And you foolishly elect a bunch of morons who want to take you back to that same tried and true backfiring jalopy.
Best of luck. Round here we call folks like that a chump.
Well to be fair Tonington, there is tons of appeal to allow for us to be free to shape our destiny. The problem is that given the choice between giving that freedom to corporations or government, government is the lesser of the two evils.
Yes, there is tons of appeal to let us shape our own destiny. But it doesn't work that way. Corporations collude to fix prices now, even when it's illegal. They dump chemicals without a care for downstream users of air/water/land and it's illegal. They create drugs and market them fraudulently, and that's illegal. They discriminate against consumers choices right now, and people have the gall to be upset about regulators trying to give consumers some of their freedom back, and still they complain about freedom!?
That is insanity.