CRTC considering banning Fox News from Canadian cable packages
nationalpost.com
nationalpost.com
I'm inclined to believe this is an example of the system working as intended. A complaint was filed and now the public has their opportunity to voice their opinions in response.
[0] https://applications.crtc.gc.ca/instances-proceedings/Defaul...
One can be simultaneously supportive of the freedoms of LGBT people and against the malefactors who have co-opted this and other legitimate popular movements for some very insideous ends. The primary need of these actors behind the movements is for the majority of people to do nothing. It's called neutralization - where they don't have to actually defeat you if you don't resist. Bizarre behavior, extreme statements, disproportionate aggression over seemingly minor transgressons are all designed to cow people into not confronting their representatives or the activists who operate on their behalf.
The reason they're going after Fox is because their commentators embolden viewers to become disagreeable to official narratives. In Canada, Fox News represents dissent, and dissent represents both hope and belief that can create resistance to the revolutionaries who have seized our institutions while we were being polite and civil. I've been watching the canaries pile up for years, but maybe this one will be the one that alerts the people in the cave.
But it's not the government "publicizing it like this", it the National Post, probably the most right wing newspaper in Canada.
Canada has many reasonable regulatory alternatives including:
- condition libel protection to retractions made with the same prominence if fox is made aware of falsity
- create individual liability for libel in addition to corporate
- require public broadcast messages on certain topics
- require a fairness doctrine on certain topics
This recent complaint came from Tucker's weird Canada is under a dictatorship documentary.
Given he spread blatantly false and harmful information, the CRTC is forced to review the complaint. People need to read beyond the headlines.
This is the regulatory framework at work.
"News regulations" should include all the stuff the comment you replied to listed, for everyone (as they used to, at least in the US). Ideally, they'd also include a few more good ideas the US used to enforce: Limits on market share, and bans against foreign ownership.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHOI-FM#Dispute_with_the_CRTC
Crtc should be no more able to ban Fox than, say porn.
By the way, I used to listen to that radio station and it was pretty mild compared to what you often hear on American talk shows. They were occasionally disrespectful towards some celebrities and politicians, but that's it. It's clear to me that they were unfairly targeted for being the only libertarian-leaning radio station in the province. 50,000 people marched in Quebec city to contest the decision, the largest such march since the 1960s.
Whether you describe the issue as "bad words" or failing to obtain a broadcast license due to non compliance, is just semantics
(I'm not saying either move is a sign of a healthy society, but this latest proposed ban is a step beyond. It's basically communicating to channel operators that absolutely all of their content has to fall in line, or they risk an end to their business. It doesn't even matter if the CRTC ultimately decides not to impose a ban here -- there is now a content-based sword of damocles over every channel.)
Interestingly, religious beliefs are a defense for "inciting or promoting hatred" in Canada[0]: "in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;"
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada#Sec...
As an example, the most obvious example of hate speech would be nazi stuff about jews being evil. They don't get a pass because they are making an opinion about a religious group.
He's not saying he hates trans people because he's christian, which would be protected I guess maybe. He's saying trans people hate christians because they are trans. These don't seem that similar to me but I also understand how they could be confused.
I also agree with the assessment that the first one is personally shitty but the second is an incitement to violence.
There is no longer any tolerance for anything but a narrow slice of views an opinions to be available to people.
What's worse is that I generally agree with all the views of mainstream western media it still pisses me off that it seems to be biased in agreement with me... Unless I'm now part of the sheeple?
I get that you're soap-boxing, but...
"trans people are targeting Christians" isn't a viewpoint. It's a statement of fact that may be false or true. In the context used (a vile statement by a trashy fear monger), it seems to be an intentional statement, and further one designed to incite hatred over a lie.
Carlson literally disputed the results of an election, and that despite heaps of evidence that there never has been fraud.
At that point, he and his gullible viewers become a threat to democracy itself - and that is not an exaggeration given the events of Jan 6th.
It used to be the case that such events got classified and prosecuted as high treason.
> It used to be the case that such events got classified and prosecuted as high treason.
I wasn't aware that stating an opinion on a government election was illegal in the United States. Isn't that literally what the First Amendment is for?
“Biden conspired with Dominion to tamper with votes” is a statement which can be assessed factually, and which has significant impact. Carlson and others knowingly lied like that – hence the first massive lawsuit settlement – and the J6 insurgents show every sign of having believed those lies and being motivated by them to assault the legitimate government trying to prevent a fair election result.
The First Amendment is not absolute and has long-standing exceptions. One of those are false statements about specific people, which Carlson clearly made knowing they were false before he made them, and another is incitement to violence. The bar for that is high but it seems likely that at least some of these calls are debatably close to that level.
It’s also worth remembering that the first amendment isn’t relevant to what a Canadian regulator allows to be broadcast in Canada.
My criticism of the parent poster was with the phrase "high treason" which implies a crime against the government (who would be bound by the First Amendment if this was taking place in America).
that was a pretty popular thing to do, circa 2000
> that is not an exaggeration
not something normally included in non-exaggerations.
There was no outrage then. It’s just become acceptable to despise and ostracize the Right.
There's plenty of evidence of some fraud occuring, it was just never discussed by the regime-aligned media and tech companies, which is the vast majority of them. The same way they conspired to cover up the Hunter Biden laptop story, and claimed in unison that the covid vaccines could prevent transmission and infection when there was no evidence to support this.
>At that point, he and his gullible viewers become a threat to democracy itself
If all your sources of truth are partisan media outlets aligned with you regime, then if the fraud really was large enough to alter the election results, you'd never know. That's the real threat to democracy.
HN does not need people repeating long-debunked lies, especially when you’re not even willing to put your personal credibility on the line by stating what specifically you assert to be true and why.
The website for which couldn't be bothered with even basic accessibility requirements. None of which are difficult.
The statement in question is also not entirely inaccurate. My entire friend group is LGBTQIA2+ and consistently makes comments against Christianity that would satisfy Carlson's statement. Frankly however, a lot of Christian's deserve it and the LGBTQIA2S+ community has been the target by a large sum of Christian's for long enough to warrant such a view in my opinion.
With all of that being said, and with understanding of what the article is about, the CRTC should not be doing this. It doesn't serve anyone in the long run except some extremely well off, probably straight, probably white, and probably lifelong male persons. As well as the group. The same group that doesn't care about other disadvantaged people enough to comply with simple legislation enabling technology to assist those with differing ability to read and navigate the web.
For those not following Canadian politics. Bill C-11 recently became law and they are combining this with our lack of free speech.
>The group said the Fox News “coverage aimed to provoke hatred and violence against 2SLGBTQI communities, particularly those who are Two Spirit, trans, nonbinary and gender non-conforming (2STNBGN).”
This is about censorship. You claim your political opponents are 'inciting hatred' toward yourself or others and the government has the ability to censor your shared political opponents.
I will be shocked if they don't completely ban Fox news from Canada.
Wasn't there an organization for standards in journalism? or can anyone start up a news org now and start reporting stuff?
Like any true compromise, it's probably an amount that made both sides unhappy, so I'd estimate about half the requested 800m.
If you think cnn is deserving of a complaint, you can file one about them too.
i.e.: In Portugal, a left wing party (they call themselves Socialist Party, but most are just moderate left) is in power, so CNN Portugal, to get views from running the contradictory viewpoint, most of the time is a quasi alt-right mouthpiece.
We are fortunate to live in an era when groups like the CRTC are incapable of silencing opinions that they disagree with. Still distasteful though.
I'd recommend reading the article.
> The CRTC has opened a public consultation on a complaint from an LGBTQ rights group asking the broadcast regulator to ban Fox News from cable packages in Canada.
Someone made a complaint, CRTC is following up. That's all.
So while lying about what is happening is supremely unhelpful; this is an area where the freest of free speech standards should be applied. Cracks in the technical foundations of how votes are tallied are extremely dangerous and all scrutiny should be invited. Voting processes should be held to an extremely high standard of transparency.
My preferred outcome here is that Dominion gets its 700 billion from Fox News in settlement for all the lies then closes its doors and ceases trading.
But by god it was a fun show to watch!
They're going to cellar to CNN.
They're going to cellar to CNN.
-- someone else, 6 years ago
The man was such a joke that it took Jon Stewart all of about 5 minutes to get him deleted from Crossfire.
That job has two requirement: the ability to look directly into the camera and lie, and the ability to keep the elderly afraid of non-white and non-binary people. If you can do that, congratulations, you can have that job.
The government literally banning what speech can reach it's citizens. To be fair, it's not really a surprise. The government decided at one point to suspend the constitution (because that's a thing over there?) during peaceful protests by truckers...