1y ago

Right-Wing Trolls Are Freaking Out After Learning They Can Get Sued For Calling People 'Groomers' On The Internet

pressprogress.ca Right-Wing Trolls Are Freaking Out After Learning They Can Get Sued for Calling People ‘Groomers’ on the Internet

New court decision reinforces that there is no public interest in speech that exposes vulnerable groups to hate

Other right-wing accounts variously reacted by describing the move as Orwellian, lamenting the death of free speech and even contemplating leaving Canada for good.

Oh no. Not that. Please no.

166 comments

even contemplating leaving Canada for good.
Hello, yes, LGBT person stuck in Texas here. Can I have their house please? I don't really like the cold, but if it means I don't have to feel scared about coming out of the closet then I could deal with it.
- My comrad in crisis, no one in Canada can afford houses anymore. High chance they are just impoverished renters.
  
  2/3 of Canadians own their own homes.
  
  That isnt just Canada bud. The cost of housing in the US far out paces incomes. At least anywhere that people want to live or where there are jobs.

How can the government just overstep on Canadians' first amendment rights? Don't they know what the US founding fathers stood for? The right of Canadians to say whatever they want to whomever they want without fear of any consequences!!!1!
- Yup. They live in the christofascist echo bunker which is dominated by US neo-fascist billionaires and have no idea what's actually going on in the real world.
- It's hilarious most of them don't know that this country has a charter of rights and freedoms, not the American constitution.
  
  They're considering adding it to the curriculum because an embarrassing amount of Canadians think they're under the American constitution.
- The first amendment you say? They're still salty about the formation of Manitoba out of the Northwest Territory?
  
  Isn't everybody?

Other right-wing accounts variously reacted by describing the move as Orwellian, lamenting the death of free speech and even contemplating leaving Canada for good. Some rejected the authority of the court altogether while others questioned if the judge herself had "something to hide."
Funny how they think free speech is dead. I'm sure the there's a pretty decent overlap between these idiots and the people standing in front of Town Halls and region headquarters whining about vaccines, kickdowns, and Trudeau with 0 repercussions.
These dumb fucks need to stop crying about "free speech" and start crying about what it is they really want - the ability to be degenerates and knuckle draggers without any repercussions.
I openly invite all these morons to leave Canada for good. We don't want them. Nobody wants them. Go! Move to Antarctica where maybe the penguins will put up with your dipshittery. Maybe we can set up a GoFundMe to help them afford the travel cost out of here.
- When the right wing says, "free speech" they actually mean, "hate speech without repercussions". Free speech is a right wing dog whistle.
  
  Yeah, these are the same people that want to ban books and have tight control over which true things are taught in schools.
- Penguins and seals down there aren't gonna put up with their shit either.
- The poor penguins.

This is Canada, they have different laws around protected free speech. People don't realize that the US is basically the only country that has these super broad free speech laws written into the constition.
- This is illegal in the US too (defamation per se). The main difference is that the US requires a higher standard for public figures (proving actual malice i.e. that they lied knowingly and maliciously).
  
  Fwiw "actual malice" doesn't require…actual malice. It just requires knowing the statement was false, or with reckless disregard for the veracity.
- The Constitution does not apply between interactions between private citizens. The Constitution only applies between the State and the Public.
- Technically Canada (and most other Liberal democracies) have similar freedom of expression (which includes speech). Where the difference lies between Canada and the US is in the Canadian Charter of Rights' structure vs. the US Constitution's structure.
  In the US, "Freedom of Speech" is the first amendment, and as such (as I understand it) stands largely on it's own as an enumerated right. Unless it intersects with another Constitutional provision, or with the interpretation of the text of the first amendment itself, it's otherwise unlimited.
  In Canada, Freedom of Expression is provided for in Section 2 of the Charter, but Section 1 provides for the limitation of any of the following rights and freedoms:
  The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
  I Am Not A Lawyer, but the legal framework for testing Section 1 laws is call the Oakes test, and the language in this article bears the hallmark of justifications of the application of Section 1:
  In its decision, the court found Webster’s statements failed a basic “public interest” test since “perpetuating hurtful myths and stereotypes about vulnerable members in our society” does not represent speech anti-SLAPP rules are “intended to protect."
  I would assume that since this was an attempt to dismiss a lawsuit using Ontario's anti-SLAPP law, that the motion to dismiss was overruled because the anti-SLAPP laws were in line with promoting a Free and Democratic society.
  Also there is Section 33, the "notwithstanding clause", which allows for the temporary suspension on just about any of the rights by the legislature, but that's not relevant here, ans is fairly rarely used (except in Quebec).

Good. Every time they bs without evidence, it: Destroys the credibility of legitimate claims & can cause serious reputation and mental harm to the accused. Should be criminal
- They're not "BSing;" they're "defaming" and "inciting violence against."
  
  Ayup. I've seen and heard tons of people speak favourably in supporting the death penalty and castration and rape of child sex abusers. So to like someone to a child abuser when so many of the general population believe in heavy violence against them is absolutely putting people at risk.
  Look at paedophile hunters who hound and harass people on the basis of little to no evidence and look at the damage they've done to people's lives. Morons won't think about whether a gay person is actually grooming a child, they'll act like a bull with a red flag in front of them.
- That's part of the point, yup.

lamenting the death of free speech
Its amazing how ignorant they are to the fact it’s always* been like this
since the Bill of Rights
- Oh! So I can't go into a post-op ward in a white lab coat and tell the recovering patients that the power of prayer is better than surgery?!
  What's next?! Taking away my Professional Engineer certification just because I'm not an engineer?
  Or maybe you want to bankrupt my architecture firm simply because my certifications double as my Colgate Cavity Patrol diploma!
  Never forget: If you can't commit outright fraud with your free speech, is it really free?
  /s
  
  What’s next?! Taking away my Professional Engineer certification just because I’m not an engineer?
  You don’t need /s because this is something they are pissed about
- Bill of Rights?
  
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Bill_of_Rights

They used to have a much better grasp on this sort of thing. "Is so-and-so a groomer? I don't know, but people have been saying. I'm just asking questions..." and so forth. Couching your bs accusations in uncertain language to protect you from the libel lawsuit you clearly deserve. I guess it's good they seem to be forgetting about that tool more frequently.
- They're being groomed into a mob. It's mass psyops in preparation for next years election cycle. An agitated mob doesn't happen over night.
- We've reached the tipping point. Fascism is on the rise globally and they have broken cover and are running to try to grab the prize. They need to be stopped.
  
  100% agreed.

Gotta love Canadians that think they are ruled by American laws. Every Canadian should know slander and libel laws here are much more restrictive on speech.
- about as inspiring as Canadians that WANT to be ruled by American laws.
  
  This seems to be the whole point of the Conservative Party these days. Wannabe US Republicans.
- Defamation isn't protected under US laws either. It might not be super well enforced, especially on the internet, but that's also not really exclusive to the US. A lot of countries are just now really getting into the legalities of what happens on the internet, for better or worse in certain cases. But generally speaking, laws also apply to what you say online of course.
  
  There is a fundamental difference in the way defamation is treated in Canada(and other Common law countries like the UK and Australia) and the US. This is a simplification, but basically in the US you generally need to prove that the statement was knowingly false (in addition to other defamation requirements like proving damages). This is nearly impossible to do in most situations. In Common law the person who said the statement needs to prove they had a reasonable justification for thinking the statement true. This reverses who the onus of proof is on and makes winning defamation cases in Canada actually plausible.
- Not to mention gun rights in Canada...of which there are none.

They were just exercising their right to Manitoba.
- Alberskatchetoba?
  
  I was making a joke about the first amendment.
  In the US Constitution, the first amendment guarantees the right to free speech, and this was cited by many convoyers for instance.
  The first amendment to the Canadian Constitution allowed for the admission of Manitoba as a Province.
  
  Saskatchetoba

they should all move to Russia, where they will be much more free to say what they like about groomers
- It's likely many of them already are operating out of St. Petersburg.

They can freak out all they like. Often someone who is trans will be called a groomer for no reason.
- It's actually an antisemitic trope repurposed to attack the LGBT* community.
- Not for no reason the reason is the same with all conservative ( or Far-Right kinda the same thing) canadian or otherwise and that reason is Projection they do what they say other people do

Is there anywhere in tge world that isnt infected by fascism?
- They have certainly gotten themselves organized. Once they realized that our system only functions because of the good faith of the participants and that they could lie and cheat and steal with no consequences they quickly began to take over.
  
  They have certainly gotten themselves organized.
  It turns out that all the "globalist new world order" conspiracy accusations were projection, too!
- Like cancer cells in your blood stream, the internet has made fascist mindsets easily dumped in little corners throughout the world
- How is calling someone a groomer related to fascism? Or is it just more of a correlation thing?
  
  they're not "calling someone a groomer", they're specifically calling LGBT people groomers. as in all of them. even if accusing a single person of being a groomer, you need evidence. this is a coordinated hate campaign intended to whip people into a frenzy about a "threat from within taking over our great country". it's fascism.

They can go back to America where they'll be left destitute and homeless by their many fascist institutions (all of which they supported)

Please don’t take the bait!!!!
This is left wing bait so that you support a privacy destroying censorship bill.
It’s the same as “won’t somebody please think of the children”
I’m all for pride and everything, but this is political bullshite to try and convince you that you don’t need privacy online.
DON’T TAKE THE BAIT!
- This isn't bait, this is accurate reporting of a decision by a Canadian court. Reality can be scary when you step out of the echo bunker.
  
  Yep, right on the heels of a bill to try and censor the internet again.
  While I agree with the outcome of the case, we must remain vigilant of our privacy.
- This is left wing bait so that you support a privacy destroying censorship bill.
  It's a violation of my privacy that I can't go around defaming people 😤 😤 😤
  
  Ahhh the straw man argument.
  We both know I didn’t say that, but as you’ve taken to arguing the point in bad faith, I’m not going to fight you.
  Have a nice day.
- To identify the defendant, Judson obtained court orders requiring Meta and Bell to produce subscriber information and IP addresses linking the anonymous Facebook page to Webster.
  How is that anything to do with a privacy destroying censorship bill?
  
  That is the current process and it works just fine. I’m good with what happened in this case.
  But the news is choosing to cover these stories right now in order to build support for the privacy invading bill that they want to pass.
  They’ve tried like 4 times.
  This is how the narrative starts, with something very “reasonable”
  Next they’ll ask for better tools to combat the epidemic of it.
- If you aren't allowed to defame and slander people in real life why do you think you can do it freely on the internet? There are consequences to breaking the law.
  
  You’re missing the point.
  They will show you reasonable cases right now to show that “broad censorship is needed” to help combat it.
  Next there will be articles on how they need better tooling to prevent the epidemic of it.
  This is their 4th try at it by my count.
- It's petrifying how many don't see that!
  
  I see it. At this point, the pros just outweigh the cons

166 comments