Is Freedom of Speech in Canada on Trial in Ontario Case?

[slaw]

True and forming negative assumptions of the character, the moral fibre of a man just because he shows admiration for the female form doesn't necessarily indicate a sexist either.

A man can admire women without being the stereotypical sexist pig that's rammed down our throats all over TV. That form of labelling is sexist in itself. Very ironic.

But Slaw can defend himself. I just wanted to defend all men everywhere who have utmost respect for women but also admire their figures.

Sent from my Note 3 using Tapatalk

I've been called far worse by far better men. In any case, getting called names by the social justice warriors only confirms that whatever you're doing, you're doing it right.

[Quirk]

social justice warriors

Whoomp. There it is.

[Miekenstien]

Man, how tall is your horse quirk? You've attacked peoples opinions, deflected, used group think, acted like women were some trod upon minority and pointed to an old article away from the topic to show this woman is not a nut hub while casually and insultingly dismissed other videos of the opposite opinion.

[Quirk]

Man, how tall is your horse quirk?

I don't have a horse. And If I did, I wouldn't show it "videos of the opposite opinion" from a dude that thinks that "liberalism is a mental disorder" because that would be cruel. But if that's the sort of "opinion" that you go for, have at it.

Feel free to post any of Steph's articles, they're all prettty good. If I had a horse, I'm sure it would agree.

[Quirk]

Someone else talking about the freedom of speech implications I mentioned this morning:

This is the same video you already posted, and it remains nutcase media. Do you seriously consider this credible? This is toxic MRA/Conspiracy bullshit.

[Miekenstien]

Hopefully he wins the case. I doubt he will be ruled against. Some people see a fight in any disagreement. Some people will construe all info to their personal view and vehemently defend their righteousness. Luckily free speech also allows them that right. Hopefully this doesn't just let the loudest whiner make the rules and beliefs of society. Amirightfellas

[Apollo]

Hopefully he wins the case. I doubt he will be ruled against. Some people see a fight in any disagreement. Some people will construe all info to their personal view and vehemently defend their righteousness. Luckily free speech also allows them that right. Hopefully this doesn't just let the loudest whiner make the rules and beliefs of society. Amirightfellas

I hope he wins because of the freedom of speech implications. The topic the spat is about is almost a distraction to the heart of what's at stake in the case. The police said no wrong doing occurred and somehow it's still potentially a crime. I find that simply mind blowing (am I misunderstanding this somehow?).

Let me frame it another way, if all this occurred face to face instead on Twitter, do you think they'd still be where they are today(assuming it was recorded somehow)?

[Quirk]

Amirightfellas

Funny thing is that's almost Steph's twitter handle.

Even funnier though is that Steph is a staunch supporter of free speech and the free Internet, including fighting C-13 while you guys did nothing when Harper was basically ending your right to private communications in Canada. And yet here you are, fighting for free speech in the name of a sexist troll, whose speech amounts to harassing women. Great job bros. Keep getting your news from Blatchford and pals of Alex Jones.

[Apollo]

You're assuming a lot about people in here who you do not know and then stating it without having anything to back it up. You're not even taking the time to ask questions before you state how we are or what we did or didn't do and what that means.

I'm not suggesting she's fighting against freedom of speech here or that she's not for it but it does appear that should she win a side affect will be less freedom of speech. You're trying to marry a person you strongly dislike to an idea to win over the discussion to your view that she's great and is doing what is needed. What I'm telling you is that they could be fighting about anything really, the people could be completely different, it's what the verdict represents is most important. These two people may be forgotten about quickly, the verdict will not and will influence future cases. It will influence how we have discussions online in general.

[Miekenstien]

You're assuming a lot about people in here who you do not know and then stating it without having anything to back it up. You're not even taking the time to ask questions before you state how we are or what we did or didn't do and what that means.

I'm not suggesting she's fighting against freedom of speech here or that she's not for it but it does appear that should she win a side affect will be less freedom of speech. You're trying to marry a person you strongly dislike to an idea to win over the discussion to your view that she's great and is doing what is needed. What I'm telling you is that they could be fighting about anything really, the people could be completely different, it's what the verdict represents is most important. These two people may be forgotten about quickly, the verdict will not and will influence future cases. It will influence how we have discussions online in general.

well mansplained

[Miekenstien]

I hope he wins because of the freedom of speech implications. The topic the spat is about is almost a distraction to the heart of what's at stake in the case. The police said no wrong doing occurred and somehow it's still potentially a crime. I find that simply mind blowing (am I misunderstanding this somehow?).

Let me frame it another way, if all this occurred face to face instead on Twitter, do you think they'd still be where they are today(assuming it was recorded somehow)?

i think a lot has to do with cyber bullying. my mom, when i was younger, had to get a restraining order on one of her boyfriends because he would drink and beat her. pretty much nothing came of it, he had to do rehab and stay 100 yards away for a while to prove he could stay sober. then he was allowed to get back into his daughters' life. that case had real physical abuse. i remember my mom putting my baseball glove over my face so he wouldn't see i was awake and took a beating for me. that is criminal, this case is going over board. but again i don't think the women will win this, to many far reaching implications.

[Miekenstien]

Funny thing is that's almost Steph's twitter handle.

Even funnier though is that Steph is a staunch supporter of free speech and the free Internet, including fighting C-13 while you guys did nothing when Harper was basically ending your right to private communications in Canada. And yet here you are, fighting for free speech in the name of a sexist troll, whose speech amounts to harassing women. Great job bros. Keep getting your news from Blatchford and pals of Alex Jones.

did we not also have a thread about the security laws being drafted? that was just after the ottawa attack right? i would say our response has been spot on, the exact same when it comes to basic rights of the people.

so far your argument has been away from the topic of free speech and been based around the fact you like this girls writing from her past, which also has no bearing on whether or not this trial is a free speech issue. keep fighting the good fight

[Apollo]

i think a lot has to do with cyber bullying. my mom, when i was younger, had to get a restraining order on one of her boyfriends because he would drink and beat her. pretty much nothing came of it, he had to do rehab and stay 100 yards away for a while to prove he could stay sober. then he was allowed to get back into his daughters' life. that case had real physical abuse. i remember my mom putting my baseball glove over my face so he wouldn't see i was awake and took a beating for me. that is criminal, this case is going over board. but again i don't think the women will win this, to many far reaching implications.

Sorry to hear you had to go through that. I can't even imagine what that's like or how one deals with something like that after its over. I hope you're in a much better situation now and living a happy life.

[Miekenstien]

Sorry to hear you had to go through that. I can't even imagine what that's like or how one deals with something like that after its over. I hope you're in a much better situation now and living a happy life.

yeah no problem. he is my sisters' dad so before i moved to shanghai i still saw him semi-often. he was sick, i respect him now that he is better. alcoholism is serious stuff. the only effect i have "noticed" is i will quickly intervene when i see a friend abusing any substance. not all preachy and tell them they are wrong, but i always ask if they are ok etc.

i used it as an example of how, in canada, real physical abuse isn't punished very harshly. but that was like late 80s, i was really young. so i can't see a situation where a justice rules against the police. that in itself will undermine a lot of legalities in canada and set a large precedent.

[Quirk]

so far your argument has been away from the topic of free speech and been based around the fact you like this girls writing from her past, which also has no bearing on whether or not this trial is a free speech issue. keep fighting the good fight

In otherwords, my argument is based on actually knowing who she is and what she has been doing, not just what I gleamed from vile scum like Blatchford and the Alex Jones posse, you'd think that would be considered a positive, not to you I guess.

So here's what I don't know:

- whether the harassment meets the critia for criminal harassement.
- whether Steph and/or the other women also behaved badly in some way.

Like I said, I'm not the Judge.

Here's what I do know:

- Steph supports and fights for free speech, and has done so consistently.
- Dude was harassing her (whether "criminaly" ot not) for 10 months
- Harassment is not free speech
- Widespread harassment is a barrier to free speech
- Dude didn't stop until she pressed charges and he was arrested

He was not arrested for speech, but for harassement, Steph is fighting for speech, and always has.

Here's what else I know:

- All the other partipants in this thread automatically supported sexist troll dude, despite not having info from any sources which are not well know crackpots, and actually cited said crackpots as "other opinions"

- Y'all assumed Steph is either crazy, a nutbar, out to benefit somehow, get publicity etc, or just a vindictive bitch in some way, based on no information, not knowing who she is, and not for a moment taking her charges of harassment and her efforts to protect herself from it seriously at all. That's some sad shit right there.

- The arguments have been peppered with obvious sexist dog-whistles, like "social justice warrior," including one poster who "admires women's bodies" so much that needs to have such a sexualized image as his avatar while pronouncing judgement on a women he doesn't know in a case he has read exactly one article about that was written by an author who is a well known nutcase.

Yeah but, Free speech dudes.

Cry all you like. It's perfectly obvious what is going on here.