Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches

cbc.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 249 posts

Re: Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches

#161

Post by djrogers »

52-6F-62 wrote: post #157
protomyth wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you square the Constitution of Canada with the Human Rights Commission that fines comedians and authors? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Human_Rights_Commissi...

This is a very tough subject. I don't think it will stop being tough anytime soon. I'm going to put on my brute hat, so I might earn some downvotes for simplicity or unpopular opinion here but I'll take a stab at it anyway: It seems that many people often conflate what makes a right and what makes a freedom. That is, people want what they call freedom to do something, but what they mean is that they want the right to…

You can't contrast rights and freedoms when the right in question is a right to free speech. If one has a right to a freedom, and a third party enforces consequences for exercising that freedom, then one's rights are being infringed.

Re: Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches

#162

Post by djrogers »

bquinlan wrote: post #138
syshum wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except Free Speech is a Binary, and that is exactly what Canada is doing,... punishing thought crimes. >Lots of Americans like to think that as soon as you moderately curtail freedom of expression, you've crossed some threshold You have crossed a Threshold >and you're now North Korea. Nice strawman you have there..... >it's possible to have reasonable constraints on expression! Proving you do not have or support Free…

I disagree that free speech is binary. For example, I think that a country can be said to have free speech if it disallows people from promising to compensate someone in exchange for murder.

Free Speech that is restricted is no longer Free, so how can it not be binary? Either you're free to say things - including politically repugnant things - or you are not free to do so.

Re: Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches

#163

Post by djrogers »

naasking wrote: post #133
syshum wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except Free Speech is a Binary, and that is exactly what Canada is doing,... punishing thought crimes. >Lots of Americans like to think that as soon as you moderately curtail freedom of expression, you've crossed some threshold You have crossed a Threshold >and you're now North Korea. Nice strawman you have there..... >it's possible to have reasonable constraints on expression! Proving you do not have or support Free…

> Except Free Speech is a Binary, and that is exactly what Canada is doing,... punishing thought crimes. A "spoken crime" is not a "thought crime". There's no chip in your head, you're free to think whatever you like, even if you're not necessarily free to say anything you like.

You cross the line into thought crimes when you ascribe intent and presume to know the state of mind and thought process behind a given piece of speech.

Re: Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches

#164

Post by chrisparton1991 »

I wonder if the website in question is listed on other search engines (I can't see why not).

Assuming this is the case, is it fair to force one company to expend the effort altering their search results when others don't have to? Did Google do anything wrong that Microsoft (Bing) or Yahoo didn't?

Re: Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches

#165

Post by djrogers »

2preserve wrote: post #122
protomyth wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly is your definition of hate-speech? I fail to see how a tasteless joke makes the cut. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/07/mike-w... History has been pretty clear that curtailment of rights leads to government overreach and leaders using such power against people they don't like.

Are tasteless jokes really something that needs to be protected? Sure, if he was making a joke about the government being corrupt , or the over-reach of courts (ironic), I would be on your side. But are you really gonna die on this hill? You will fight for the right of comedians to insult the personal appearance of disabled people? I don't think it contributes much to the democratic discourse. And don't give me any o…

The only kind of speech that needs to be protected is that which is unpopular or repulsive. Popular, nice, warm fuzzy speech needs no protection...

Re: Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches

#166

Post by tonyarkles »

2preserve wrote: post #109
xxpor wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Section 33 (the notwithstanding clause) makes most of the charter weak at best.

The Charter legalized prostitution, gay marriage, abortions, and assisted suicide. It also banned discrimination against homosexuals, extraditing people to countries where they'll be tortured, and warrantless searches of your house. And it recognized that Aboriginals had title to their land. But yeah, you're right, it's pretty weak. Section 33 has been used once in it's 35 year history, so I see your point.

While I generally agree with you, it is interesting to note that the notwithstanding clause was specifically used to target free speech. And not just a little bit of speech, but any English on signage in Quebec (which, if I recall, must be written more prominently in French than in English).

Re: Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches

#167

Post by djrogers »

DKnoll wrote: post #148
syshum wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So much wrong here where to start.... >>>I think you'll find if you look closely that Canada is an entirely different country than the US and the United States government cannot define free speech globally. Pretty sure I clearly stated this fact in my comments, further at no point did I say the US could define free speech globally, in fact in this discussion it is Canada not the US attempting the define speech global…

Can you link me sources for your entire last paragraph? Also there is no 'Charter of Rights' in Canada. If you can't even name the document how can you puport to understand it?

Googling the phrase “smuggling hate speech on their iPad" came up with a host of links, as does the phrase "hate Speech calling someone the incorrect pronoun" (specifically wrt Canada’s Federal Bill C-16), and the fining of comedians and speakers in Canada has been covered ad nauseam in many forums, including this very thread.

[1] https://medium.com/@KelemenCari/american-speaker-arrested-in...

[2]http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/301661-th...

Re: Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches

#168

Post by dec0dedab0de »

52-6F-62 wrote: post #157
protomyth wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you square the Constitution of Canada with the Human Rights Commission that fines comedians and authors? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Human_Rights_Commissi...

This is a very tough subject. I don't think it will stop being tough anytime soon. I'm going to put on my brute hat, so I might earn some downvotes for simplicity or unpopular opinion here but I'll take a stab at it anyway: It seems that many people often conflate what makes a right and what makes a freedom. That is, people want what they call freedom to do something, but what they mean is that they want the right to…

By that definition you are free to do anything you want. Which ofcourse is true, but not really useful.

Re: Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches

#169

Post by DKnoll »

djrogers wrote: post #167
DKnoll wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you link me sources for your entire last paragraph? Also there is no 'Charter of Rights' in Canada. If you can't even name the document how can you puport to understand it?

Googling the phrase “smuggling hate speech on their iPad" came up with a host of links, as does the phrase "hate Speech calling someone the incorrect pronoun" (specifically wrt Canada’s Federal Bill C-16), and the fining of comedians and speakers in Canada has been covered ad nauseam in many forums, including this very thread. [1] https://medium.com/@KelemenCari/american-speaker-arrested-in... [2] http://thehill.com/…

What a perverse lens you are looking through...

He was refused and detained at the border and not criminally charged. He has no right to enter Canada and can be turned away for any reason, but right-wing extremism is as good as any. There any many first hand accounts of Canadians trying to cross into the US for the inauguration and being rejected because their political views.

The thing about 'misgendering' now being a crime is an absurd farce. The law amends the criminal code so that gender identity is protected from discrimination in the same way as birth gender, race, age and other traits with the same penalties applying. Again, did you read bill C-16 or read a blog post about it?

What do you think happens in Canada if someone says a joke in poor taste? The Canadian stasi/krypteia hops out of a van and whisks them away in the middle of the night for re-education?

I'm glad that you enjoy the political and social climate as much as you do, but we're fine over here. If you want to visit I suggest you show respect and tolerance or you may find Canadians aren't always friendly.

Re: Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches

#170

Post by kodablah »

ABCLAW wrote: post #152
kodablah wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you help me understand something. Why do they have to cite laws this ruling is in contravention of instead of citing laws that Google is in convention with to prevent worldwide dissemination? One would think that you don't have to prove what the government proposes you do in region X to be illegal there, but rather prove that what you are already doing in region X to be legal there.

The Supreme Court did cite the test governing the provision of interlocutory orders. That test is well known law from RJR MacDonald . There's a bit of a blurb regarding the case in my comment below, but you can look up the case and you'll find the full test and commentary. The government isn't proposing anyone do anything; A private party is, and asked for the court's help. The second private party is very clearly ac…

The unfortunate part of that test appears to be that the private party can request the moon. A reasonable person might expect a court that is required "judge what's in front of them" to not apply their judgement to foreign jurisdictions.

I wonder how this would be applied to a physical storefront from a global retailer that happened to have presence in Canada...I suppose they'd be forced to remove physical non-Canadian products from even their non-Canadian stores. Because hey, retailer, show us where it's illegal for you to remove this product. You can't? Then apply our ruling worldwide.

Is my analogy off? Or is it, as I suspect, the fact that the decision is easier to accept digitally part of the reason why it's being levied? The RJR MacDonald test appears incredibly subjective.

This test, if in fact it is narrowly construed as show-us-where-you-can't, is a scary defendant test to counter decisions. Or if the test is being vaguely construed for these means, it is equally scary.

Post reply on HN