this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2023
49 points (70.6% liked)

Canada

7206 readers
348 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Universities


💵 Finance / Shopping


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca/


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Don't be dense, read the article. The story is not about legality or free speech absolutism. It is about how the window of acceptable political speech in what is considered mainstream has narrowed to a stifling degree to exclude very reasonable milquetoast peacenik sentiments.

[–] rbesfe@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

the story is not about legality

Then it shouldn't use the words "free speech" in the headline. Free speech is very much a legal term.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So is theft and murder and inheritance. We use legal terms in regular parlance all the time.

[–] rbesfe@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Ok, and? Regular parlance can be about legal implications too, I've never heard the words "free speech" used in a context with no connection to their legal meaning. Do you have a counter example?

[–] frostbiker@lemmy.ca -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’ve never heard the words “free speech” used in a context with no connection to their legal meaning. Do you have a counter example?

Yes. The very article in this post.

[–] rbesfe@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

You ever heard of a circular argument?