11–20 of 51 posts
35/ Canada has asked every single financial system provider from banks to credit card companies to investment firms to crowdfunding platforms to crypto companies to insurance companies to:
- freeze the accounts - of anyone directly or "indirectly" supporting the protests
36/ Given the powers of the Emergency Act, there is no due process on these actions and no civil liability for this freezing.
The core point made here is wrong. > 6/ Freedom of speech might require such activities like: > A website > A pamphlet > An advertisement > Paying a graphic designer > Travelling to a different location All of those amplify your speech, but they're not prerequisites for speech. You can speak without any of them - I'm doing it right now! Same for all the other various things mentioned in this thread. None of the thing…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What good is "freedom of speech" if you can only talk to yourself?
You clearly listened to me. I didn't spend any money on that. Case in point.
Maybe it would be clearer if you told me what "freedom of speech" means to you .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What good is "freedom of speech" if you can only talk to yourself?
Freedom is speech isn't the freedom to make people listen.
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean the freedom to make people listen, but the government can’t make that choice for people.
anything that takes that long to make an argument seems to not have a specific point other than costing money and some hints at decentrLizied freedoms?
Is this what twitter has turned discourse into? If you haven't made your within one or two tweets your whole work is dismissed as "not have a specific point".
Anyways the "point" of this article is that the government is punishing their enemies by locking them out of the financial system. This is bad because of how much we rely on the financial system for every day life, and that the action is being done without the usual due process (ie. right to a trial). You might be in favor of this action because the targets happen to be your enemies, but this could easily be flipped next time around.
anything that takes that long to make an argument seems to not have a specific point other than costing money and some hints at decentrLizied freedoms?
>anything that takes that long to make an argument seems to not have a specific point Is this what twitter has turned discourse into? If you haven't made your within one or two tweets your whole work is dismissed as "not have a specific point". Anyways the "point" of this article is that the government is punishing their enemies by locking them out of the financial system. This is bad because of how much we rely on t…
All the same, you should be able to fit your thesis and list your key arguments in a couple of sentences.
You have the right to protest and make your opinion heard. But at the point that you are actively preventing ~25% of the international trade between two countries while further increasing both inflation and supply chain issues, your "protest" looks more like economic terrorism. Especially when only a small minority of people actually care--let alone support--your position.
To tie this back to the original thread: The author states "There are no other constitutional rights in substance without freedom to transact". But this protest is impacting other people's ability to transact. Therefore, by the same logic the author presents, this "protest" is impacting the freedoms of millions just because a couple of hundred people don't want to get vaccinated or get tested regularly.
The requirement that people crossing the border be vaccinated or have taken quick and painless test to prove that they are not carrying a virus that has claimed more than 5M lives in the past two year is NOT tyranny: it's an minor inconvenience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you're suggesting comes down to rich people having disproportionally more say. Taking money out of the equation democratizes speech and makes sure everyone has a say, not just the Peter Thiels that can buy printing presses.
But taking money out of the equation for only some, and not others, takes us even further from democratization of speech.