Satchmo Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 53 minutes ago, Spring Salmon said: Well fine. It came up for me but I never really read G&M articles so I guess that was one of my freebies I get. Anyways if you're going to argue all day with me about it at least you could have read it. I honestly thought you would read the globe one that's why I posted it, not a national post one or the rebel or whatnot. Oh well Thinking I might have a subscription to the G&M is an understandable assumption. I don't know if I've been arguing all day though I know I've asked you a few questions. Anyway, as I've implied but not explicitly stated (until now), I'm done talking about this bill until it gets farther along in the cycle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spring Salmon Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 44 minutes ago, Sharpshooter said: No. You don’t get those ‘freebies’. You need to tread carefully. Listen to me carefully. I was talking about free articles on the globe and mail Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4petesake Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 4 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: What in your opinion are things that should result in cops banging on your door? Swatting someone. Posting obscene content of a minor. Inviting people from your Fbook group to beat the shit out of your neighbour. Bragging that you and your co-host should rape PP’s wife. You? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted June 4 Author Share Posted June 4 Just now, Spring Salmon said: I was talking about free articles on the globe and mail You know what I’m saying generally right? You know what I meant and am meaning? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 13 minutes ago, the destroyer of worlds said: Probably stuff that 99.9% of the people here wouldn't even dream about posting here or on Facebook. Stuff that would clearly hurdle any legal threshold that would apply in the enforcement of even Bill-63. So, if you posted on Facebook that you were going to attend a “protest” before the protest happened that shouldn’t involve any police showing up at your door right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 11 minutes ago, 4petesake said: Swatting someone. Posting obscene content of a minor. Inviting people from your Fbook group to beat the shit out of your neighbour. Bragging that you and your co-host should rape PP’s wife. You? I agree with all of that. What about if you posted that you were attending a “protest” even before it happened? Should the cops show up at your door because of that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4petesake Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 Just now, Elias Pettersson said: I agree with all of that. What about if you posted that you were attending a “protest” even before it happened? Should the cops show up at your door because of that? I’ll say no, but I would still like to hear the context because I suspect you are baiting your trap… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 1 hour ago, Bure_Pavel said: Unfortunately I dont think it passes. There definitely needs to be some accountability online especially when in comes to protecting minors. But the current version seems a little over the top, how does one incite a genocide online for example? You'd need a supreme court case to set the limits I'd imagine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 1 minute ago, 4petesake said: I’ll say no, but I would still like to hear the context because I suspect you are baiting your trap… Not on purpose my friend. Is it to make a point. 'I thought this was a free country': Canadian woman slams cop for hounding her at home when she posted on Facebook that she might attend Freedom Convoy protest https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10520533/amp/Canadian-woman-slams-cop-hounding-home-Facebook-post.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 4 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: Not on purpose my friend. Is it to make a point. 'I thought this was a free country': Canadian woman slams cop for hounding her at home when she posted on Facebook that she might attend Freedom Convoy protest https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10520533/amp/Canadian-woman-slams-cop-hounding-home-Facebook-post.html Well considering that was a terrorist occupation of the nation's capital instead of a peaceful protest, looks like the cops did their job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bure_Pavel Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 4 minutes ago, Bob Long said: You'd need a supreme court case to set the limits I'd imagine. I think they should concede some points and increase the focus on protecting youth online, to get this passed quicker. I think the main concern on the other side is after the whole war time act thing, will the government hesitate to use this unlawfully as a tool in a pinch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4petesake Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 5 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: Not on purpose my friend. Is it to make a point. 'I thought this was a free country': Canadian woman slams cop for hounding her at home when she posted on Facebook that she might attend Freedom Convoy protest https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10520533/amp/Canadian-woman-slams-cop-hounding-home-Facebook-post.html I’ll agree with you. l still don’t know what she posted but on the face of it that’s pretty dumb of the OPP. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 (edited) 4 minutes ago, King Heffy said: Well considering that was a terrorist occupation of the nation's capital instead of a peaceful protest, looks like the cops did their job. The cops showed up at her house before the protest happened. She didn’t even confirm that she was going. But hey if you actually agree that this is okay then at least we know where you stand. And you shouldn’t have any complaints to make when PP gets elected and the script is switched. Which is why I think the Conservatives should just agree to C-63 as is and run with it. Edited June 4 by Elias Pettersson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the destroyer of worlds Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 9 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: Not on purpose my friend. Is it to make a point. 'I thought this was a free country': Canadian woman slams cop for hounding her at home when she posted on Facebook that she might attend Freedom Convoy protest https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10520533/amp/Canadian-woman-slams-cop-hounding-home-Facebook-post.html I'm willing to bet there is some context that isn't being reported here. Just a hunch. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 Just now, Elias Pettersson said: The cops showed up at her house before the protest happened. She didn’t even come form they she was going. But hey if you actually agree that this is okay then at least we know where you stand. And you shouldn’t have any complaints to make when PP gets elected and the script is switched. Which is why I think the Conservatives should just agree to C-63 as is and run with it. I don't support domestic terrorism from either side, unlike Poilivre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 (edited) 14 minutes ago, 4petesake said: I’ll agree with you. l still don’t know what she posted but on the face of it that’s pretty dumb of the OPP. Thanks for being honest about it. She joined a Facebook group that was going to attend the Freedom Convoy. So the cops started to follow that group and show up at everyone’s house to give them “information”. That sounds like police overreach to me and only what would be done in a Communist country. But at least you can objectively see this for yourself. The problem with Heffy and others is that they don’t seem to understand that the script can easily be flipped if the Conservatives take government. This is why we have the Constitution. It’s supposed to protect us against unlawful governments. And this is why bill C-63 needs to really be examined. Because once it turns into law it can be used against the very people who voted for it. Edited June 4 by Elias Pettersson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 8 minutes ago, King Heffy said: I don't support domestic terrorism from either side, unlike Poilivre. Attending a protest isn’t considered domestic terrorism. There were “many” people there who were peacefully protesting and not blocking traffic or committing crimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junkyard Dog Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 56 minutes ago, Sharpshooter said: Does the world need more Podcasts? How about ‘we’ and our kids just have some common sense without people telling us what they think it means on a digital platform? True to an extent. Podcasts can be good with different perspectives but in today's world we're drowning in the political sphere. Gonna keep Extremely Centered in the back pocket. Make the extreme middle an urban legend, like Bigfoot. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the destroyer of worlds Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 There are definitely groups online that police should be keeping tabs on. That includes groups that plan to have nation-wide protests. Being pro-active to inform potential participants that they need to behave sounds like good policy. Especially after seeing the Jan 6th debacle down south. If this was some leftist organization planning large, nation-wide protests I would expect similar treatment. Protest. Behave yourselves because big brother is watching. Do anything illegal or ignore orders to disperse, to jail you go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the destroyer of worlds Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 1 minute ago, Elias Pettersson said: Attending a protest isn’t considered domestic terrorism. There were “many” people there who were peacefully protesting and not blocking traffic or committing crimes. The same can be said about the BLM protests down south. The Wetʼsuwetʼen protests outside of the locations that blockaded. The Jan 6th protests in DC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 (edited) 8 hours ago, Spring Salmon said: I thought I was quite clear earlier and DB got it right away. Giving people life in prison for words or giving them house arrest for things they might do in the future is insane. How do people not see that? Think about if PP came in and decided any criticism against him is hate speech. Say something he doesn't like and bam you're locked up. Maybe for life. That's ridiculous and the screeching from here would be loud and deserved. I know it's in its first reading and all but that stuff should have never been in there from the first place. I think everyone would agree kids should be protected but we don't need the government to over moderate the internet. Parents have to take responsibility over their children and keep an eye on them. Laws already exist against hate speech, child porn etc. and this new bill we don't need. How it comes out at time that the Liberals are getting shit on online constantly is suspicious and makes you wonder about their true intentions It may be clear to you, but that just means it's on you to make it clear to others rather than expecting everyone to think like you do. Remember, you're talking with people who are often FOR gun laws. Explain to them exactly why the laws should have more leniency. Expecting them to just know what to look for is just plain stupid and naive. What if they like the laws you dislike? They're not going to see the problem at that point. But, if you're too lazy to do that, I get that too. Just don't expect to convince a single soul that anything you're saying is correct. If you don't care to convince then great. If you do care to convince, then I've told you what you need to do in order to do so. Simple as that. Think about our discussion yesterday. What got you thinking in all of that? How can you use that to convince others? I'm not just making this stuff up, dude. Edited June 4 by The Lock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 19 minutes ago, Bure_Pavel said: I think they should concede some points and increase the focus on protecting youth online, to get this passed quicker. I think the main concern on the other side is after the whole war time act thing, will the government hesitate to use this unlawfully as a tool in a pinch. cuts both ways tho, I'm sure if there are rail blockades under PP's watch, he'll use whatever tool in the book he has too. I understand the concerns about overreach, but if the best we can do is FakeBook videos like the one posted above, maybe we don't need to worry too much? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 2 minutes ago, the destroyer of worlds said: There are definitely groups online that police should be keeping tabs on. That includes groups that plan to have nation-wide protests. Being pro-active to inform potential participants that they need to behave sounds like good policy. Especially after seeing the Jan 6th debacle down south. If this was some leftist organization planning large, nation-wide protests I would expect similar treatment. Protest. Behave yourselves because big brother is watching. Do anything illegal or ignore orders to disperse, to jail you go. Taxpayer funded police organizations should have better things to do than to spend their time knocking on people’s doors to hand out “information”. Not to mention all the resources it takes to monitor social media accounts. If they knocked on my door because of an amber alert or some other emergency that’s completely different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 18 minutes ago, the destroyer of worlds said: I'm willing to bet there is some context that isn't being reported here. Just a hunch. there always is with this FakeBook crapperola. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 4 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: Taxpayer funded police organizations should have better things to do than to spend their time knocking on people’s doors to hand out “information”. Not to mention all the resources it takes to monitor social media accounts. Part of the police's job is to prevent crime. A large part of the role of a police liaison officer in a school is precisely to hand out information, but I would argue it's a more efficient use of tax dollars to use a proactive approach in the hopes of reducing the likelihood of a crime being committed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.