Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Blizzard bans pro Heartstone player for supporting Hong Kong

12345679»

Comments

  • blamo2000blamo2000 Member RarePosts: 953
    lahnmir said:
    lahnmir said:
    Imagine the guy having yelled “Glory to China, down with the opposition.” You guys would have been tumbling all over each other with praise for Blizzard banning him...

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    I don't think you get it.

    Facisim bans speech it doesn't like.
    Freedom says. "I don't like what you say, but I will defend, to the death, your right to say it."
    ? What is there not to get? It doesn’t change how people would react if the shoe was on the other foot one bit, freedom of speech is often very relative when people start saying things “we” don’t like.

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    Where do you come up with this stuff?  People who actually believe in free speech are not in any way relative about it.  We apply it consistently.  The same with liberty and freedom - we don't want it only for specific groups.  This is just utter rubbish and nonsense.  

    The only line we usually draw is agreeing inciting violence should be illegal, or the old yelling fire in a theatre adage.  

    Why are you having such a hard time understanding or grasping this?  Can you give any examples of proponents of free speech being selective of who can say what?  
  • NorseGodNorseGod Member EpicPosts: 2,361
    blamo2000 said:
    lahnmir said:
    lahnmir said:

    Where do you come up with this stuff?  People who actually believe in free speech are not in any way relative about it.  We apply it consistently.  The same with liberty and freedom - we don't want it only for specific groups.  This is just utter rubbish and nonsense.  

    The only line we usually draw is agreeing inciting violence should be illegal, or the old yelling fire in a theatre adage.  

    Why are you having such a hard time understanding or grasping this?  Can you give any examples of proponents of free speech being selective of who can say what?  
    "Inciting violence" (which I'd love to know how you define that) and yelling "fire" in a theater is already illegal.

    What you are describing is a Call to Action, which is not protected under Free Speech.
    To talk about games without the censorship, check out https://www.reddit.com/r/MMORPG/
  • JensynJensyn Member UncommonPosts: 63
    Okay, but all these quoted quotes are starting to look like a work of art. B)
    Torvalvandal5627
  • blamo2000blamo2000 Member RarePosts: 953
    NorseGod said:
    blamo2000 said:
    lahnmir said:
    lahnmir said:

    Where do you come up with this stuff?  People who actually believe in free speech are not in any way relative about it.  We apply it consistently.  The same with liberty and freedom - we don't want it only for specific groups.  This is just utter rubbish and nonsense.  

    The only line we usually draw is agreeing inciting violence should be illegal, or the old yelling fire in a theatre adage.  

    Why are you having such a hard time understanding or grasping this?  Can you give any examples of proponents of free speech being selective of who can say what?  
    "Inciting violence" (which I'd love to know how you define that) and yelling "fire" in a theater is already illegal.

    What you are describing is a Call to Action, which is not protected under Free Speech.
    No, what I am explaining is the general limits free speech advocates (even the ones who consider themselves absolutists) put on their idea of the right to free speech.

    And free speech is illegal in the vast majority of the world, including Canada and GB.  What does legality have to do with an ideal and value?
  • NorseGodNorseGod Member EpicPosts: 2,361
    blamo2000 said:
    NorseGod said:
    blamo2000 said:
    lahnmir said:
    lahnmir said:


    No, what I am explaining is the general limits free speech advocates (even the ones who consider themselves absolutists) put on their idea of the right to free speech.

    And free speech is illegal in the vast majority of the world, including Canada and GB.  What does legality have to do with an ideal and value?
    I'm approaching this from an American perspective. I understand free speech doesn't exist in other countries. However, isn't Free Speech something good to promote throughout the world?

    There are no general limits on Free Speech. Again, you're describing "Call to Action". The two are separate.
    alkarionlogblamo2000
    To talk about games without the censorship, check out https://www.reddit.com/r/MMORPG/
  • OGDeathRowOGDeathRow Member UncommonPosts: 124
    Phry said:
    Phry said:
    synn said:
    lahnmir said:

    That is a good question. Unfortunately I know of no other similar cases so I don't get much further then 'I don't know.' I do think its appropriate that he got punished though.

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    I understand your perspective about being punished for breaking the rules, but I do think there should be exceptions to the rule whether its written or not. Oh well, Blitzchung should be extremely happy with himself. This controversy has put even more eyes on the Hong Kong protests and Gods Unchained will be giving Blitzchung the prize money that was stripped away as well as an invite to their $500k tournament.
    I suspect that it is only the first of many Companies making statements/actions to publicly humiliate Blizzard for their actions, youtubers are already on their case! i did hear about the Gods Unchained thing, they were pretty quick on that one! ;)
    What I find amusing is with all the social media outlets he could have used, he chose a esports event. Nobody watches esports for politics.

    Gods Unchained is just using him as a puppet for marketing, and people are drooling over it. There plan worked. fools being fooled. People talking about blizzard being greedy, these guys are worse imo, sure there "donating" him money to cover his loss, but all that is a investment into a marketing ploy to try and rake in more by preying on weak minded people. Weak minded people like the ones saying blizzard is in the wrong.

    Same with these youtubers, they just do whatever rakes in views. They dont have to believe in what the say, enjoy what they play. As long as that view counter goes up they dance w/e dance they need to. I mean, tidepod challenge.........
    This reminded me of the old adage, 'never enter into a battle of wits with an unarmed man' besides, it looks like you are constructing your arguments using google translate. :p
    Thats not cool man, google translate? If you think this wasnt a market ploy for Unchained, thats bad. It is almost always PR when this stuff goes down. You also dont think the youtuber comment isnt true?  Im not sure how you think, but lets be real here, what I said has a decent potential of being facts. People ate tidepods because it gave views, tidepods, people do some really dumb stuff.....for views. Whatever it takes. So of course they would. 

    I suppose you found Greta Thunberg speech to be real uplifting. Wild world we live in.
  • NycteliosNyctelios Member EpicPosts: 3,507
    Nyctelios said:
    lahnmir said:
    Torval said:
    lahnmir said:
    lahnmir said:
    lahnmir said:
    Imagine the guy having yelled “Glory to China, down with the opposition.” You guys would have been tumbling all over each other with praise for Blizzard banning him...

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    I don't think you get it.

    Facisim bans speech it doesn't like.
    Freedom says. "I don't like what you say, but I will defend, to the death, your right to say it."
    ? What is there not to get? It doesn’t change how people would react if the shoe was on the other foot one bit, freedom of speech is often very relative when people start saying things “we” don’t like.

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    My point is, I think you are misunderstanding the motives of people who want freedom of speech vs. people who want to ban it.

    To simply turn the tables and ban the opposing argument is still fascism.
    Phry said:
    lahnmir said:
    lahnmir said:
    Imagine the guy having yelled “Glory to China, down with the opposition.” You guys would have been tumbling all over each other with praise for Blizzard banning him...

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    I don't think you get it.

    Facisim bans speech it doesn't like.
    Freedom says. "I don't like what you say, but I will defend, to the death, your right to say it."
    ? What is there not to get? It doesn’t change how people would react if the shoe was on the other foot one bit, freedom of speech is often very relative when people start saying things “we” don’t like.

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    Because freedom of speech means you have the right to say things that others might find offensive. Unfortunately we live in times when freedom of speech is under attack, where having the wrong opinions is frowned upon, because when you say, you can have freedom of speech 'but' then you don't have freedom of speech anymore.
    The Rules that Blizzard have should be scrapped and rewritten in a less ambiguous manner, because when they omit actual reasons and use terminology such as 'in their opinion' then they can shift the goalposts however they like. :/
    Guys, I know. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy if the tables were turned. Because many people would actually be applauding those bans.

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    That is complete hyperbolic conjecture. In non-fancy words, you made that bullshit up to lend weight to your argument. You don't know that. You can't make that call because now you're judging motives in the same way you claim others shouldn't. More than that you're judging imaginary motives for imaginary people in an imaginary situation that never happened. We're discussing moral weight and global social implications of an actual event that did happen.
    90% of this entire discussion is made up of assuming things we don’t know, we just deem them plausible. Can you with a straight face say that it is plausible that Blizzard is doing this to appease to the Chinese overlords but it isn’t plausible that people would applaud shutting those same Chinese overlords up? Come on man, I expected a bit more here.

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    Watch latest South Park episode Band in China.
    China is doing a hell of a lot more than banning South Park. They are at war with The American People, and they want us dead. Remember that massive shipment of Fentanyl ICE seized comming in from Mexico? The shipment that was capable of killing every man woman and child in America several times over? Where do you suppose that Fentanyl is manufactured? I'll give you a clue
    (China.....and manufacturing in China is State owned.)
    https://www.ice.gov/features/opioid-crisis



    You go Blizzard!
    China is our friend!

    I meant the episode content in which they comment on western companies adjusting to chinese market and dragging it's censorship to western market as result.
    Torval
    Steam ID Discord ID: Night # 6102 - GoG ID - 

    "There is a fine line between consideration and hesitation. The former is wisdom, the latter is fear." Izaro Phrecius, Holy Emperor of the Eternal Empire, Last of Royal Phrecius Family.
  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer Member EpicPosts: 8,775
    edited October 9
    Nyctelios said:


    I meant the episode content in which they comment on western companies adjusting to chinese market and dragging it's censorship to western market as result.


    Oh yes! I saw that too. I wasn't in any way challenging that, in fact I agree with you there, I was pointing out that China's censorship is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to their cultural war on America.

    NycteliosTorval
  • Asm0deusAsm0deus Member EpicPosts: 2,969
    Nyctelios said:
    lahnmir said:
    Torval said:
    lahnmir said:
    lahnmir said:
    lahnmir said:
    Imagine the guy having yelled “Glory to China, down with the opposition.” You guys would have been tumbling all over each other with praise for Blizzard banning him...

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    I don't think you get it.

    Facisim bans speech it doesn't like.
    Freedom says. "I don't like what you say, but I will defend, to the death, your right to say it."
    ? What is there not to get? It doesn’t change how people would react if the shoe was on the other foot one bit, freedom of speech is often very relative when people start saying things “we” don’t like.

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    My point is, I think you are misunderstanding the motives of people who want freedom of speech vs. people who want to ban it.

    To simply turn the tables and ban the opposing argument is still fascism.
    Phry said:
    lahnmir said:
    lahnmir said:
    Imagine the guy having yelled “Glory to China, down with the opposition.” You guys would have been tumbling all over each other with praise for Blizzard banning him...

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    I don't think you get it.

    Facisim bans speech it doesn't like.
    Freedom says. "I don't like what you say, but I will defend, to the death, your right to say it."
    ? What is there not to get? It doesn’t change how people would react if the shoe was on the other foot one bit, freedom of speech is often very relative when people start saying things “we” don’t like.

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    Because freedom of speech means you have the right to say things that others might find offensive. Unfortunately we live in times when freedom of speech is under attack, where having the wrong opinions is frowned upon, because when you say, you can have freedom of speech 'but' then you don't have freedom of speech anymore.
    The Rules that Blizzard have should be scrapped and rewritten in a less ambiguous manner, because when they omit actual reasons and use terminology such as 'in their opinion' then they can shift the goalposts however they like. :/
    Guys, I know. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy if the tables were turned. Because many people would actually be applauding those bans.

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    That is complete hyperbolic conjecture. In non-fancy words, you made that bullshit up to lend weight to your argument. You don't know that. You can't make that call because now you're judging motives in the same way you claim others shouldn't. More than that you're judging imaginary motives for imaginary people in an imaginary situation that never happened. We're discussing moral weight and global social implications of an actual event that did happen.
    90% of this entire discussion is made up of assuming things we don’t know, we just deem them plausible. Can you with a straight face say that it is plausible that Blizzard is doing this to appease to the Chinese overlords but it isn’t plausible that people would applaud shutting those same Chinese overlords up? Come on man, I expected a bit more here.

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    Watch latest South Park episode Band in China.
    Just watched it, friggin good I say!

    Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.

    case: Coolermaster HAF932
    PSU: Antec EA 750watt
    RAM: 4x2g G-SKILL DDR3-1600mhz 9-9-9-24
    Mb:Gigabyte GA-P55-UD4P
    CPU: i5-750 @4ghz
    GPU: gtx msi N760 TF 2GD5/OC
    cooling: Noctua NH-D14
    storage: seagate 600 240GB SSD, samsung evo 860 500gb SSD, 500GB x7200rpm HDD


  • Asm0deusAsm0deus Member EpicPosts: 2,969
    edited October 9
    blamo2000 said:
    NorseGod said:
    blamo2000 said:
    lahnmir said:
    lahnmir said:

    Where do you come up with this stuff?  People who actually believe in free speech are not in any way relative about it.  We apply it consistently.  The same with liberty and freedom - we don't want it only for specific groups.  This is just utter rubbish and nonsense.  

    The only line we usually draw is agreeing inciting violence should be illegal, or the old yelling fire in a theatre adage.  

    Why are you having such a hard time understanding or grasping this?  Can you give any examples of proponents of free speech being selective of who can say what?  
    "Inciting violence" (which I'd love to know how you define that) and yelling "fire" in a theater is already illegal.

    What you are describing is a Call to Action, which is not protected under Free Speech.
    No, what I am explaining is the general limits free speech advocates (even the ones who consider themselves absolutists) put on their idea of the right to free speech.

    And free speech is illegal in the vast majority of the world, including Canada and GB.  What does legality have to do with an ideal and value?
    Just let me correct you about Canada we have freedom of speech even though it's not absolute and does have some limits just like it does in the USA.



    1 It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,

    (a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;

    (b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;

    (c) freedom of religion;

    (d) freedom of speech;

    (e) freedom of assembly and association; and

    (f) freedom of the press.


    TorvalNorseGod

    Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.

    case: Coolermaster HAF932
    PSU: Antec EA 750watt
    RAM: 4x2g G-SKILL DDR3-1600mhz 9-9-9-24
    Mb:Gigabyte GA-P55-UD4P
    CPU: i5-750 @4ghz
    GPU: gtx msi N760 TF 2GD5/OC
    cooling: Noctua NH-D14
    storage: seagate 600 240GB SSD, samsung evo 860 500gb SSD, 500GB x7200rpm HDD


  • vandal5627vandal5627 Member UncommonPosts: 786
    blamo2000 said:
     Can you give any examples of proponents of free speech being selective of who can say what?  

    I don't agree or disagree in any way but people who are proponents of free speech have been shutting down people kneeling for the anthem because they don't agree with what he's doing or where and when he's doing it. :smile:
  • lahnmirlahnmir Member EpicPosts: 2,880
    edited October 9
    blamo2000 said:
     Can you give any examples of proponents of free speech being selective of who can say what?  

    I don't agree or disagree in any way but people who are proponents of free speech have been shutting down people kneeling for the anthem because they don't agree with what he's doing or where and when he's doing it. :smile:

    On a more important note, this thread and the other one haven’t been locked yet, I guess that means MMORPG.com isn’t owned by the Chinese.... yet  ;)

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    alkarionlogNyctelios
    'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'

    Kyleran on yours sincerely 


    But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.

    Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
  • PhryPhry Member LegendaryPosts: 11,004
    Phry said:
    Phry said:
    synn said:
    lahnmir said:

    That is a good question. Unfortunately I know of no other similar cases so I don't get much further then 'I don't know.' I do think its appropriate that he got punished though.

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    I understand your perspective about being punished for breaking the rules, but I do think there should be exceptions to the rule whether its written or not. Oh well, Blitzchung should be extremely happy with himself. This controversy has put even more eyes on the Hong Kong protests and Gods Unchained will be giving Blitzchung the prize money that was stripped away as well as an invite to their $500k tournament.
    I suspect that it is only the first of many Companies making statements/actions to publicly humiliate Blizzard for their actions, youtubers are already on their case! i did hear about the Gods Unchained thing, they were pretty quick on that one! ;)
    What I find amusing is with all the social media outlets he could have used, he chose a esports event. Nobody watches esports for politics.

    Gods Unchained is just using him as a puppet for marketing, and people are drooling over it. There plan worked. fools being fooled. People talking about blizzard being greedy, these guys are worse imo, sure there "donating" him money to cover his loss, but all that is a investment into a marketing ploy to try and rake in more by preying on weak minded people. Weak minded people like the ones saying blizzard is in the wrong.

    Same with these youtubers, they just do whatever rakes in views. They dont have to believe in what the say, enjoy what they play. As long as that view counter goes up they dance w/e dance they need to. I mean, tidepod challenge.........
    This reminded me of the old adage, 'never enter into a battle of wits with an unarmed man' besides, it looks like you are constructing your arguments using google translate. :p
    Thats not cool man, google translate? If you think this wasnt a market ploy for Unchained, thats bad. It is almost always PR when this stuff goes down. You also dont think the youtuber comment isnt true?  Im not sure how you think, but lets be real here, what I said has a decent potential of being facts. People ate tidepods because it gave views, tidepods, people do some really dumb stuff.....for views. Whatever it takes. So of course they would. 

    I suppose you found Greta Thunberg speech to be real uplifting. Wild world we live in.
    Not really, personally i think Greta is a vulnerable child that has been taken advantage of, primed with myths and falsehoods and unleashed upon the world as a propoganda piece, her parents are in my honest opinion, despicable people. 
    alkarionlogXodicNorseGodOGDeathRow
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 21,076
    After further deliberation, I have concluded that Blizzard's actions are not justifiable under a "no politics" rule, on the basis that they had no such rule.  That they had to cite some catchall of "we can ban anyone whenever we feel like it" demonstrates that.  If they had such a rule, and had cited in in the ban, and had enforced it consistently, then their actions would have been completely justified.  But they had no such rule, and are just making it up as they go.  If you're just making things up as you go, then "do whatever the dictator of China wants" is a pretty terrible way to do it.
    Phry
  • NorseGodNorseGod Member EpicPosts: 2,361
    Asm0deus said:
    blamo2000 said:
    NorseGod said:
    blamo2000 said:
    lahnmir said:
    lahnmir said:


    Just let me correct you about Canada we have freedom of speech even though it's not absolute and does have some limits just like it does in the USA.



    1 It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,

    (a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;

    (b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;

    (c) freedom of religion;

    (d) freedom of speech;

    (e) freedom of assembly and association; and

    (f) freedom of the press.


    >limits
    >free speech
    Just because you agree with the limitations, doesn't make it Free Speech. The entire point of Free Speech is protecting unpopular speech. Canada does protect unpopular speech, therefore does not have Free Speech.

    I am of the belief that if your ideas cannot withstand criticizing, the answer isn't censorship, the answer is, re-evaluating your ideas. Censorship is for cowards who ideas are so weak, they cannot stand up on their own merit.

    Just to clarify:

    Free Speech only applies between citizens and their government, not consumers and businesses.

    Call to Action is not the same as Free Speech (i.e yelling "fire" in a theater).
    To talk about games without the censorship, check out https://www.reddit.com/r/MMORPG/
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 21,076
    Asm0deus said:
    Just let me correct you about Canada we have freedom of speech even though it's not absolute and does have some limits just like it does in the USA.



    1 It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,

    (a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;

    (b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;

    (c) freedom of religion;

    (d) freedom of speech;

    (e) freedom of assembly and association; and

    (f) freedom of the press.


    Many countries have something that they call "free speech" (or that translates to it in English for those that speak a different language), but it is commonly narrower than the American notion of it.  The details vary by country, but giving the same name to two substantially different concepts does not make them the same.

    The key consideration is whether there are any opinions that are so offensive and abhorrent that advocating them is illegal.  For example, would it be legal to seriously argue that some particular group of people (e.g., a particular race or religion) is sub-human and it ought to be legal to torture and murder them, but without advocating actually doing so before the law is changed?  Any place where the answer is "no", on the basis that it constitutes hate speech or whatever is a place that does not believe in the American notion of free speech.  That's a fairly extreme example, but that's the point:  in the American notion of free speech, there are no abstract ideas too extreme to merit constitutional protection.

    The exceptions to free speech in the American system are generally for things that aren't merely advocating abstract ideas, such as advocating or threatening to do some illegal actions.  It is also important to note that the American version of free speech only says that the government can't do anything to you, and not that others can't ostracize you.
    vandal5627Phry
  • alkarionlogalkarionlog Member RarePosts: 2,853
    NorseGod said:
    Asm0deus said:
    blamo2000 said:
    NorseGod said:
    blamo2000 said:
    lahnmir said:
    lahnmir said:


    Just let me correct you about Canada we have freedom of speech even though it's not absolute and does have some limits just like it does in the USA.



    1 It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,

    (a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;

    (b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;

    (c) freedom of religion;

    (d) freedom of speech;

    (e) freedom of assembly and association; and

    (f) freedom of the press.


    >limits
    >free speech
    Just because you agree with the limitations, doesn't make it Free Speech. The entire point of Free Speech is protecting unpopular speech. Canada does protect unpopular speech, therefore does not have Free Speech.

    I am of the belief that if your ideas cannot withstand criticizing, the answer isn't censorship, the answer is, re-evaluating your ideas. Censorship is for cowards who ideas are so weak, they cannot stand up on their own merit.

    Just to clarify:

    Free Speech only applies between citizens and their government, not consumers and businesses.

    Call to Action is not the same as Free Speech (i.e yelling "fire" in a theater).
    is not call to action what people like greta love to do?

    yet no one says she should be banned from talking only she is being manipulated by her parents and goverments, because lets get real here a 1st world kid who don't go to school to complain to other nations they stole her childhood is kinda lie to a degree I can't even measure


    PhryNorseGod
    FOR HONOR, FOR FREEDOM.... and for some money.
  • NycteliosNyctelios Member EpicPosts: 3,507
    Steam ID Discord ID: Night # 6102 - GoG ID - 

    "There is a fine line between consideration and hesitation. The former is wisdom, the latter is fear." Izaro Phrecius, Holy Emperor of the Eternal Empire, Last of Royal Phrecius Family.
  • PhryPhry Member LegendaryPosts: 11,004
    NorseGod said:
    Asm0deus said:
    blamo2000 said:
    NorseGod said:
    blamo2000 said:
    lahnmir said:
    lahnmir said:


    Just let me correct you about Canada we have freedom of speech even though it's not absolute and does have some limits just like it does in the USA.



    1 It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,

    (a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;

    (b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;

    (c) freedom of religion;

    (d) freedom of speech;

    (e) freedom of assembly and association; and

    (f) freedom of the press.


    >limits
    >free speech
    Just because you agree with the limitations, doesn't make it Free Speech. The entire point of Free Speech is protecting unpopular speech. Canada does protect unpopular speech, therefore does not have Free Speech.

    I am of the belief that if your ideas cannot withstand criticizing, the answer isn't censorship, the answer is, re-evaluating your ideas. Censorship is for cowards who ideas are so weak, they cannot stand up on their own merit.

    Just to clarify:

    Free Speech only applies between citizens and their government, not consumers and businesses.

    Call to Action is not the same as Free Speech (i.e yelling "fire" in a theater).
    is not call to action what people like greta love to do?

    yet no one says she should be banned from talking only she is being manipulated by her parents and goverments, because lets get real here a 1st world kid who don't go to school to complain to other nations they stole her childhood is kinda lie to a degree I can't even measure


    Which in large part is why i think her parents are despicable people, the things some people will do to their children for $$ and/or an ideology are beneath contempt.

    You can shout 'fire' in a Cinema/Theatre though if the premise is indeed on fire, of course, these days some are determined to ignore said fire. :o
    NorseGod
This discussion has been closed.