It’s a constant rewriting and attempting to realign reality to their own personal agendas.
They always cry for freedom which they always had and continue to enjoy but believe that their ideas and feelings should be imposed into other people’s platforms and places … no matter how outlandish and dishonest they are.
You have a right to be a right wing conservative … you just don’t have the full right to spread your ideas in other peoples houses or websites if they don’t like what you say.
Guh. I really wish conservatives - and Jordan Peterson - would learn the actual meaning of censorship.
Facebook, twitter, the Ontario College of Psychology… a Lemmy instance is a private body. They can make whatever rules they like. If their rules say you can’t say homophobic/hateful/racist things and you do so, they can do whatever they like. Don’t like it? tuff beans, go make your own Facebook for racists and phobes.
All our freedom of speech, freedom of expression means in this country is the government can’t persecute you for your (dumb or critical) opinions. But you only have limited ability to spew your opinions in public where others can’t opt-out, you can’t espouse your opinions where they incite hatred and violence against others (in a fashion/context where actual persecution and violence as a result is credible) and you do not have a god-given right to spew your opinions in a private forum that chooses not to tolerate them.
The fact that private bodies can make their own rules doesn’t mean it’s not censorship. Things like the first amendment, and the right to freedom of expression aren’t the embodiment of free speech, the concept of free speech exists beyond them.
You’re using a no true scottsman fallacy by the way. I’m not sure if it’s intentional, but it’s bad logic.
You’re using a no true scottsman fallacy by the way
Today I learned.
I suppose what I meant is the pundits frequently hold up having their Facebook posts removed as state censorship, that this is somehow in violation of their constitutionally protected right to expression - and its not. It IS censorship by a private body in a forum completely of that private entity’s control, yet they wave the word censorship around to convince others that somehow its a shadowy conspiracy by the deep state or whatever to clamp down on freedom of expression.
Danielle Smith is an embarrassment to the province. This will not be the last time she says something stupid, and draw negative attention to the province.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
It’s a constant rewriting and attempting to realign reality to their own personal agendas.
They always cry for freedom which they always had and continue to enjoy but believe that their ideas and feelings should be imposed into other people’s platforms and places … no matter how outlandish and dishonest they are.
You have a right to be a right wing conservative … you just don’t have the full right to spread your ideas in other peoples houses or websites if they don’t like what you say.
Guh. I really wish conservatives - and Jordan Peterson - would learn the actual meaning of censorship.
Facebook, twitter, the Ontario College of Psychology… a Lemmy instance is a private body. They can make whatever rules they like. If their rules say you can’t say homophobic/hateful/racist things and you do so, they can do whatever they like. Don’t like it? tuff beans, go make your own Facebook for racists and phobes.
All our freedom of speech, freedom of expression means in this country is the government can’t persecute you for your (dumb or critical) opinions. But you only have limited ability to spew your opinions in public where others can’t opt-out, you can’t espouse your opinions where they incite hatred and violence against others (in a fashion/context where actual persecution and violence as a result is credible) and you do not have a god-given right to spew your opinions in a private forum that chooses not to tolerate them.
The fact that private bodies can make their own rules doesn’t mean it’s not censorship. Things like the first amendment, and the right to freedom of expression aren’t the embodiment of free speech, the concept of free speech exists beyond them.
You’re using a no true scottsman fallacy by the way. I’m not sure if it’s intentional, but it’s bad logic.
Today I learned.
I suppose what I meant is the pundits frequently hold up having their Facebook posts removed as state censorship, that this is somehow in violation of their constitutionally protected right to expression - and its not. It IS censorship by a private body in a forum completely of that private entity’s control, yet they wave the word censorship around to convince others that somehow its a shadowy conspiracy by the deep state or whatever to clamp down on freedom of expression.
If I acted the way some conservatives do on Facebook in real life, I’d learn very quickly that this type of behaviour is intolerable.
People trying to rewrite human interaction and then crying when people are like “halt, fiend”.
Danielle Smith is an embarrassment to the province. This will not be the last time she says something stupid, and draw negative attention to the province.