Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: PING Britain and Canadia: This is How You Do Free Speech
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2025 15:44:39 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <vm6ibp$2im0p$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vm6gvi$2i033$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2025 21:44:47 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="22841921be526f021d44a07ed7b253bc";
	logging-data="2709529"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18TEC6AM0mRlvOIr3OaKJXXSX3ikDYodwE="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:7X5ki7D1YYnkA6HN22QnhIdgxjU=
Content-Language: en-CA
In-Reply-To: <vm6gvi$2i033$7@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 250114-22, 1/14/2025), Outbound message
Bytes: 4171

On 2025-01-14 3:21 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83L6vZx6OuA
> 
> A teen girl in Wisconsin posted a pic on Instagram from a hospital in 2020 in
> the midst of the Wuhan Flu hysteria, with the caption, "Winning the fight with
> COVID-19."
> 
> The sheriff's department showed up at her home and threatened to arrest her
> and charge her with disorderly conduct if she didn't remove the post saying
> she had the virus.
> 
> (It's unclear from the reporting why in the hell the cops cared whether she
> had the virus or not or if she was telling the world via Instagram that she
> had it.)
> 
> The U.S. District Court ruled in summary judgment (i.e., the facts stipulated
> to by both parties so clearly showed a violation of the 1st Amendment by the
> government that a trial was unnecessary) that the government committed a
> bright line violation of the girl's right to free speech.
> 
> The judge wrote in his order, "The 1st Amendment is not a game setting for the
> government to toggle off and on. It applies in times of tranquility and times
> of strife." Guaranteed rights cannot be dispatched by the government under the
> guise of emergency, and furthermore, law enforcement has no business trying to
> regulate the social media posts of local teenagers.
> 
> (This would be surprising news to FPP, who at the time was vociferously
> arguing here on RAT that since the pandemic was an 'emergency', the government
> could suspend whatever parts of the Constitution it liked.)
> 
> So while the UK and Canadia are busy sending cops to people's homes to arrest
> them for online posts with the government's endorsement and enthusiastic
> participation, here in America, the cops get yanked back by their leash when
> they try and do that fascist shit.
> 
> 

The Brits are way further down the path of limiting free speech than we 
are. I'm very happy to say that Bill C-63 (the Online Harms bill), the 
one that would have greatly ramped up the restrictions on speech and 
even allowed the government to put you under house arrest for things 
they thought you might say IN FUTURE, disappeared with Trudeau's 
suspension of Parliament. It could be revived in the new session of 
Parliament beginning March 24 but the Liberals are (hopefully) going to 
be very busy with a non-confidence motion that will force an election. 
(Our elections are MUCH shorter than yours - just 5 weeks in most cases 
- so we should finally have a sane government under Pierre Poilievre in 
early May.)

Of course Poilievre could conceivably create similar legislation himself 
but I don't think that's likely. It looks like he's going to have a 
strong majority and won't need to worry about winning the support of 
other parties to stay in power.

Unless the Liberals find an incredibly outstanding new leader or 
Poilievre shits the bed in a massive way, I think the Liberals will be 
no more than a minor nuisance for several years once we've had the election.

-- 
Rhino