Do not say we have free speech in Canada

Freedom of speech or freedom of expression isn't freedom from consequences. Words matter, and they have consequences, and people should consider the consequences of their speech in public.

Agreed. Fuck off with this "we have no free speech" bullshit, substack (and it's freedom of conscience in Canada in the first place, not free speech). All of the things listed are social consequences, not criminal prosecution or some other government persecution. Sarah was booted by her party, not the government, and the rest are employers and universities. If there is fault, it lies with those organizations.

It's also not protected speech, so if there is fault, those organizations will have to suffer social consequences themselves, as it doesn't seem that they broke any laws.
- The censured her:
  
  The Doug Ford government has put forward a motion that would censure an Ontario NDP MPP over her comments on the Israel-Gaza war and ask they not be recognized in the legislature until a formal apology is made and a statement on social media is deleted.
  
  The motion calls comments made by Hamilton Centre MPP Sarah Jama last week “antisemitic” and “discriminatory.” If passed, it would call on the Speaker not to recognize Jama in the House “until the Member retracts and deletes her statement on social media and makes an apology in her place in the House.”
  
  So they're trying to completely take away her ability to govern because of her speech. So yes, the government is trying to silence her.
- There's a bit of a blurred line when they're members of government or government organizations versus private employers.
  
  A political party IS part of government, even if it's not the political party leading the country. However, a party shouldn't be forced to keep somebody who goes off the rails and is causing them damage. At the same time, those same parties seem to be very pick-and-choose about which "rebellious" members they decide to expel and over what issues
- Clock is ticking. Just wait until the companies start fucking you over with this power you've given them.
Indeed. And if the NDP won't allow its members to recognize that Israel is an apartheid state, then members who see it as such should abandon the party. Both those serving as public representatives, and regular members and donors.
- Asking a genuine question regarding the apartheid terminology here. When someone refers to Israel as a apartheid state with regards to Palestinian civilians it always doesn't make sense to me. Because for that to be true, one needs to consider Gaza and Westbank to be Israeli territory, which I don't think is a concept that anyone who makes this claim agrees with. To me, that's like saying North America is an apartheid continent because Canadians and Mexicans don't get the same rights as Americans in America.
Don't be dense, read the article. The story is not about legality or free speech absolutism. It is about how the window of acceptable political speech in what is considered mainstream has narrowed to a stifling degree to exclude very reasonable milquetoast peacenik sentiments.
- the story is not about legality
  
  Then it shouldn't use the words "free speech" in the headline. Free speech is very much a legal term.
Permanently Deleted
- 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.
- It's not a view. It's written into our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and empowered by our constitution.

We don't. This isn't the U.S. with their freedom of speech, where you can say literally anything. We have something called freedom of expression, which does not cover hate speech, and a few other things.

The article is not about free speech absolutism. It is about journalism. Hate speech has nothing to do with it.
- Perhaps the headline should have reflected the actual topic more accurately.
Permanently Deleted
- "You" being who?
  
  Edit: it was a genuine follow-up question to a statement that I feel could have been interpreted in a couple of ways, and his answer did give some precisions on his position, which is why I wanted to ask, rather than assume. No idea why refusing to judge hastily warrants downvotes lol
The US doesn't have freedom of speech either... Source: American.
- I mean, you do have it codified in your Constitution as its very first amendment. Now, how much is it really protected, in practice...
I just want the word "literally" to be misused less. Learn new adverbs, please.
- You missed that bus 15 years ago, bud

Israel is an apartheid state

I’m pretty sure only Cons try to say we have free speech because they don’t know our laws

Of note though; freedom of speech means freedom from persecution not freedom from consequence

Tell me you didn't read the article without telling me you didn't read the article.
- So where did they highlight people being put in court over comments and where did they explain that they are aware we don’t have free speech so even someone being in court isn’t a problem?

I agree with many points from the article but I don't think the title choice was good

No, we have freedom of expression, not freedom of speech and it's not unlimited contrary to the USA.

It's not unlimited in the US, either, despite what the fascists think.
- Ya, "Free Speech" as written in the constitution only covers congressional laws.

Archive link

Therer are people who could be discussing this credibly but a troll like Loreto isn't one of them.

This is exactly why we need to have open and censorship resistant platforms.

We should never celebrate deplatforming people for unpopular or evil opinions, not because we agree with those opinions, but because those tools can and will be used against good causes / us eventually.

The cancelling culture, and rage framework that has existed in the west media is now being turned against "worthy" causes.

I've gotten into many deplatforming is evil, and shouldn't be encouraged/allowed arguments on lemmy - this is exactly why I engage. Do I care about kiwifarms, communists, racists, no.... I do not, but when its time for my voice to be heard above the whargarble of public opinion i need those very same platforms to exist.

The next step would be to legistate that protected free speech should also protect people from employment discrimination and reprisals, but that is probably a discussion for another day.

Today I think the big fight is over saying : Killing civilians is bad, ethnic cleansing is bad, genocide is bad....

We should never celebrate deplatforming people for unpopular or evil opinions

Bullshit, people with evil opinions keep others from expressing themselves, tolerating them means deplatforming others and means they have more space to recruit.
- Permanently Deleted
- Agreed. The central example is a NDP member being censured by the party for her views. THAT IS WHAT A POLITICAL PARTY IS. She would have also been removed if she started arguing for tax cuts to the wealthy and restrictions on union activity. Even perfectly legitimate political opinions can make you totally unfit to be a representative of a political party. Words have consequences and political parties are social structures with social rules. Cry me a river, this isn't a free-speech issue.
- Then you get this situation the article speaks of, people being de-platformed for speaking against evil in the world.
The article points out that those that have been bitching about free speech being suppressed when it's about some bigot spewing fash crap, are uniquely silent when it comes to racialized people speaking out about genocide and apartheid. The "free speech debate", "anti-wokism", "anti-cancelling" etc has never been about lifting the voices of those who are structurally silenced at every turn in this country. It has always been about people that already have privilege being able to punch down with impunity. So fuck that.
- I'm here making noise about the silencing of genocide and apartheid.
As an aside, the number of times, this week!, I've had a argument about the dictionary being wrong, and that the definitions are inaccurate, sensational, antisemitic... is laughably high.
- Arguing that the dictionary is correct and should be cited as the arbiture of language ignores that language is a fluid, evolving structure. Dictionaries are guides to help seek understanding and seeking to be understood. They're not law by which we must abide.