I think it's worth looking for a common ground that accommodates free speech and sleeping?
My personal opinion: your threshold to kill free speech is way, WAY too low.
My personal opinion: your threshold to kill free speech is way, WAY too low.
Free speech has nothing to do with it.
Anyone here with on the ground experience about the nighttime situation?
Perhaps reading the comment in context of the comment chain is necessary. I am making no claims as to the truckers, I am stating that the onus is on those who are causing damage by their "Free Speech" to adjust to avoid causing that damage, rather than on the people suffering the damage.
Took 5s to find.
Look at how casually you make these connections: speech -> noise -> sleeplessness -> damage ... therefore implying, purposefully or not, that speech = violence.
No. Speech is NOT violence. I suggest you get a pair of earplugs.
Sadly, I doubt you even recognise your contribution to the polarisation of society and removal of nuance from social discourse.
> No. Speech is NOT violence. I suggest you get a pair of earplugs.
Threats. That's one form of violence. Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, that's another.
Threat is instigating fear of injury. Violence is causing injury. You can have your own personal definition, but from a legal perspective, threat is not a violent crime.
Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre isn't even illegal. Let alone a violence. Inciting panic is illegal. If you incite panic through yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, you'll answer for inciting panic and will bear responsibility for the actual consequences, if any, not for the yelling.
https://dictionary.thelaw.com/violence/
this violence is not confined to an actual assault of the person, [..] whatever goes to intimidate or overawe, by the apprehension of personal violence, or by fear of life [..] equally falls within its limits
Instead, read a little further: The term “violence” is synonymous with “physical force,” and the two are used interchangeably, in relation to assaults
Speech is not physical force, and is not an assault, and is not violence.
It doesn't have to be either one or the other. A more conciliatory approach by the Canadian government would pay off better. My personal opinion, only. I might be wrong, who knows?...
I cannot have a festival out on my lawn for similar reasons...
This whole thread is people arguing about something they evidently know nothing about.
If that is the only type of demonstration that gets your point across, ok, but I seriously doubt that is the case.