Re: All you need to know about the New York Times
Dammit, I was gonna say that! Quit stepping on my lines, tax!
Dammit, I was gonna say that! Quit stepping on my lines, tax!
Our Heroic Media
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
Jesse BrownVerified account @JesseBrown Here are instructions from CBC Journalistic Standards & Practices director @DavidStuder1 to journos. #CharlieHebdo
ya might wanna ctrl/+ or whatever to enlarge the type...it's just as pussy either way.
Blazing CatFur @Blazingcatfur Hi @CBCnews Remember the CBC pilot The Altar Boy Gang communion host as snack food, poker chips & repository for LSD
Re: All you need to know about the New York Times
other than you calling politicians idiots, the SCC morons and the Charter an outlet for "rights denial"... you didn't address my post! :mrgreen: ... and YOU speak of "getting it"... and YOU speak of "understanding the basics"?
guys, guys... just keeping it real for ya! You can, as you are, ignore the reality of Canada's hate speech laws... and the clear delimiter they frame in existing law... and further potential extensions they may speak to. As I said, to what end? As I said, other than using the ready-reach "cause I can", what does publishing the example I proffered afford... what probative intent/value does publishing a "toon showing a naked religious figurehead locked in a homosexual 'act' bring forward"? A..... uhhh... "cause I can" one?
other than you calling politicians idiots, the SCC morons and the Charter an outlet for "rights denial"... you didn't address my post! :mrgreen: ... and YOU speak of "getting it"... and YOU speak of "understanding the basics"?
guys, guys... just keeping it real for ya! You can, as you are, ignore the reality of Canada's hate speech laws... and the clear delimiter they frame in existing law... and further potential extensions they may speak to. As I said, to what end? As I said, other than using the ready-reach "cause I can", what does publishing the example I proffered afford... what probative intent/value does publishing a "toon showing a naked religious figurehead locked in a homosexual 'act' bring forward"? A..... uhhh... "cause I can" one?
Re: All you need to know about the New York Times
READING COMPRENSION CLASSES.
Take them, you need them.
You asked why Canada has hate speech laws....and I quote "Why does Canada have hate speech laws... ?"
And I answered "Canada has Hate Speech laws because our idiot politicians and the morons on the Supreme Court do not understand the first thing about individual rights............."
That is addressing your post.
The average reader would extrapolate from that answer that yes, hate speech laws are an affront to the basic individual right of free speech.
To expand on that, one merely has to look at the Whatcott case, in which the Supreme Court ruled that the distribution of religious pamphlets criticizing homosexuality as a practice that spreads disease is hate speech.....and specifically ruled that the fact it is true is no defense.
What a farce the SCOC and the Charter are!
As for the cowards of the CBC and other news outlets:
Jason Kenney ن ✔ @kenneyjason Follow Appreciate CBC policy of avoiding gratuitous offence to faith groups.So why does CBC show a crucifix in jar of urine? http://www.cbc.ca/q/mobile/touch/blog/2010/07/21/is-art-replacing-religion/ …
9:35 PM - 8 Jan 2015
READING COMPRENSION CLASSES.
Take them, you need them.
You asked why Canada has hate speech laws....and I quote "Why does Canada have hate speech laws... ?"
And I answered "Canada has Hate Speech laws because our idiot politicians and the morons on the Supreme Court do not understand the first thing about individual rights............."
That is addressing your post.
The average reader would extrapolate from that answer that yes, hate speech laws are an affront to the basic individual right of free speech.
To expand on that, one merely has to look at the Whatcott case, in which the Supreme Court ruled that the distribution of religious pamphlets criticizing homosexuality as a practice that spreads disease is hate speech.....and specifically ruled that the fact it is true is no defense.
What a farce the SCOC and the Charter are!
As for the cowards of the CBC and other news outlets:
Jason Kenney ن ✔ @kenneyjason Follow Appreciate CBC policy of avoiding gratuitous offence to faith groups.So why does CBC show a crucifix in jar of urine? http://www.cbc.ca/q/mobile/touch/blog/2010/07/21/is-art-replacing-religion/ …
9:35 PM - 8 Jan 2015
Where was this “we” when a video critical of Islam was mendaciously identified as the “cause” of the terror attack on Benghazi? Where was “we” when Hillary Clinton went on Pakistani television to declaim against this “reprehensible” video and revile its maker, and at the Benghazi victims’ funerals said: “We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.” Where was “we” when the filmmaker was arrested, while to this day the butchers of Benghazi roam the Earth unmolested?
Where is this We of the Hash-tags when whole swathes of the press, and some political leaders, refuse to call acts that are plainly terroristic by their proper name? Can those who refuse to say the word “terrorism” after a terrorist act now claim they are Charlie Hebdo?
And where was We of the Hash-tags when President Obama made the inexplicable declaration at the United Nations that “the future does not belong to those who slander the Prophet?” More than anything else, that sounds like a fulsome statement of accord with those who denounce cartoons and videos and editorials about the “Prophet,” who riot after he is “traduced” by someone in the West. There is no “We are Charlie Hebdo” in that statement. There is surrender instead.
And what about our prophets, of the Enlightentment and democracy, who made free speech the core of our lives and politics? We are notoriously timid in defending them, and almost tumid with the desire to speak up for those who despise them. Why do we wallow in some shallow hollow of factitious guilt, moaning over our failings to “understand” after 9/11, after Mumbai, after London, after Ottawa, after Paris this week, rather than laying the guilt on the real perpetrators and the ideology that fires them?
Our universities bleat about inquiry and free speech, but they are feeble and craven, caving in to protestors and special interests, pleading “sensitivity” and the “wish not to offend” any time some topic or speaker threatens to “hurt” the professionally agitated on campus. Where was “we” when a band of fatuous progressives protested former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice giving a convocation address at Rutgers University? She worked for Bush, so free speech be dammed.
Where was We of the Hash-tags when Ann Coulter was pre-emptively cautioned about what she could or should say by officials at the University of Ottawa? Where was “we” when Ayaan Hirsi Ali was humiliated and an honourary degree invitation revoked after campus activists at Brandeis University — faculty and students — protested? Brandeis mounted a defence of free speech that would have Patrick Henry drooling with envy: “[Ali] is a compelling public figure and advocate for women’s rights. … That said, we cannot overlook certain of her past statements that are inconsistent with Brandeis University’s core values.” A Presidential Medal of Freedom for that wonderful “that said.”
more from Rex
Rex Murphy: We are not Charlie Hebdo | National Post
Where is this We of the Hash-tags when whole swathes of the press, and some political leaders, refuse to call acts that are plainly terroristic by their proper name? Can those who refuse to say the word “terrorism” after a terrorist act now claim they are Charlie Hebdo?
And where was We of the Hash-tags when President Obama made the inexplicable declaration at the United Nations that “the future does not belong to those who slander the Prophet?” More than anything else, that sounds like a fulsome statement of accord with those who denounce cartoons and videos and editorials about the “Prophet,” who riot after he is “traduced” by someone in the West. There is no “We are Charlie Hebdo” in that statement. There is surrender instead.
And what about our prophets, of the Enlightentment and democracy, who made free speech the core of our lives and politics? We are notoriously timid in defending them, and almost tumid with the desire to speak up for those who despise them. Why do we wallow in some shallow hollow of factitious guilt, moaning over our failings to “understand” after 9/11, after Mumbai, after London, after Ottawa, after Paris this week, rather than laying the guilt on the real perpetrators and the ideology that fires them?
Our universities bleat about inquiry and free speech, but they are feeble and craven, caving in to protestors and special interests, pleading “sensitivity” and the “wish not to offend” any time some topic or speaker threatens to “hurt” the professionally agitated on campus. Where was “we” when a band of fatuous progressives protested former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice giving a convocation address at Rutgers University? She worked for Bush, so free speech be dammed.
Where was We of the Hash-tags when Ann Coulter was pre-emptively cautioned about what she could or should say by officials at the University of Ottawa? Where was “we” when Ayaan Hirsi Ali was humiliated and an honourary degree invitation revoked after campus activists at Brandeis University — faculty and students — protested? Brandeis mounted a defence of free speech that would have Patrick Henry drooling with envy: “[Ali] is a compelling public figure and advocate for women’s rights. … That said, we cannot overlook certain of her past statements that are inconsistent with Brandeis University’s core values.” A Presidential Medal of Freedom for that wonderful “that said.”
more from Rex
Rex Murphy: We are not Charlie Hebdo | National Post
Re: All you need to know about the New York Times
You being a lefty and all, I bet you're probably all moony-eyed over those wonderful, spiritual, environmentalist FNs, right? Well, then you should know that the first (and last) law of the Lakotah was "No man can tell another what to do."
For values of real = lefty la-la land.
I don't ignore the reality of Canada's hate speech laws. I bring them out as examples of creeping fascism whenever anyone proposes similar laws in the U.S. Works pretty good.
Silly fascist. It's not "cause I can," it's "cause I want to." The definitive response to any question of one's activity. That's freedom, tovarishch. I need justify NOTHING to you unless you can show that my actions (and words) proximately and significantly harm you or others.
You being a lefty and all, I bet you're probably all moony-eyed over those wonderful, spiritual, environmentalist FNs, right? Well, then you should know that the first (and last) law of the Lakotah was "No man can tell another what to do."
Russia and Pewtin are behind this hordrible acktack on chrishins at their church in Paris close to the Hilton.
Do you know these people donut wash with soap? I hop ther are no Muscilims in my ****ry
Do you know these people donut wash with soap? I hop ther are no Muscilims in my ****ry
And the cartoon next to this screed was pixellated out. Guess what Rx--you're as gutless as the rst of them.
The recent events have resulted in a major shift for me personally.
I am not one that would normally haunt a foum such as this one . . . it seems one for the rabid right wing.
I would identify myself as well left of center, normally contemptuous of Fox News, the entire US GOP, and, until this week, only vaguely aware of even the existence Sun News.
But the CBC News site has driven me away totally. The biggest news story in the world is these cartoons. They refuse to show even a one. (Some, BTW are pretty reprehensible, but they ARE THE NEWS!!) Many submissions to their comments section are censored . . . including one of mine suggesting only that readers unhappy with the CBC write their MPs. No rant, no vitriol, no "anti-Islamic" content. Just "if you don't like the way CBC is handling this issue, write your MP." CENSORED!!!
The CBC . . . it's too much!
Done, with CBC! I've done what I can. Sent a letter to my MP copied to CBC Audience Relations. It's time this oh-so-politically correct, accommodating, afraid to offend anybody regardless of what's news, tax supported institution was defunded.
I am not one that would normally haunt a foum such as this one . . . it seems one for the rabid right wing.
I would identify myself as well left of center, normally contemptuous of Fox News, the entire US GOP, and, until this week, only vaguely aware of even the existence Sun News.
But the CBC News site has driven me away totally. The biggest news story in the world is these cartoons. They refuse to show even a one. (Some, BTW are pretty reprehensible, but they ARE THE NEWS!!) Many submissions to their comments section are censored . . . including one of mine suggesting only that readers unhappy with the CBC write their MPs. No rant, no vitriol, no "anti-Islamic" content. Just "if you don't like the way CBC is handling this issue, write your MP." CENSORED!!!
The CBC . . . it's too much!
Done, with CBC! I've done what I can. Sent a letter to my MP copied to CBC Audience Relations. It's time this oh-so-politically correct, accommodating, afraid to offend anybody regardless of what's news, tax supported institution was defunded.
Here's why NPR won't republish the controversial Charlie Hebdo cartoons | WashingtonExaminer.com
more cowards amongst your moral and intellectual superiors
more cowards amongst your moral and intellectual superiors
not al jazeera...just he western folk working for them.
Lorrie GoldsteinVerified account @sunlorrie
CBC manual, rather than 'terrorists' use: "bombers, hijackers, gunmen (if we're sure no women were in the group) militants, extremists ..."
Lorrie GoldsteinVerified account @sunlorrie
@linZlou2u My favourite is the CBC edict you can only substitute "gun men" for "terrorists" if you are sure there are no "gun women".
Lorrie GoldsteinVerified account @sunlorrie CBC manual, rather than 'terrorists' use: "bombers, hijackers, gunmen (if we're sure no women were in the group) militants, extremists ..."
Lorrie GoldsteinVerified account @sunlorrie @linZlou2u My favourite is the CBC edict you can only substitute "gun men" for "terrorists" if you are sure there are no "gun women".