正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

The Core Issue with C-9: Who should get to decide what is and is not acceptable speech?

Garnett Genuis

46,909 subscribers

14,035 次观看 • 6 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

Palantir CEO Alex Karp on controversial uses of AI: “Do you really think a warfighter is going to trust a software company that pulls the plug because something becomes controversial, with their life?” “The small island of Silicon Valley— that would love to decide what you eat, how you eat, and monetize all your data— should not also decide who lives in a country and under what conditions.” “The core issue is— who decides?”

Palantir CEO Alex Karp on controversial uses of AI: “Do you really think a warfighter is going to trust a software company that pulls the plug because something becomes controversial, with their life?” “The small island of Silicon Valley— that would love to decide what you eat, how you eat, and monetize all your data— should not also decide who lives in a country and under what conditions.” “The core issue is— who decides?”

Jawwwn

1,259,467 次观看 • 7 个月前

The situation in Brazil is getting ugly, with X and Elon Musk fighting for the right of the people of Brazil to voice their free speech. The problem, though, is that the highest court in the land says that some of this free speech is not legal speech. Musk doesn't get enough credit for his free speech advocacy, but at the same time, he did say that X will obey the laws of the countries where people reside. So who should decide if speech is or is not in line with the laws of Brazil? Should it be Elon Musk and his lawyers or should it be the highest court in Brazil? Even if they are misinterpreting their own laws, who should decide that? What are your thoughts?

The situation in Brazil is getting ugly, with X and Elon Musk fighting for the right of the people of Brazil to voice their free speech. The problem, though, is that the highest court in the land says that some of this free speech is not legal speech. Musk doesn't get enough credit for his free speech advocacy, but at the same time, he did say that X will obey the laws of the countries where people reside. So who should decide if speech is or is not in line with the laws of Brazil? Should it be Elon Musk and his lawyers or should it be the highest court in Brazil? Even if they are misinterpreting their own laws, who should decide that? What are your thoughts?

Ed Krassenstein

277,690 次观看 • 2 年前

🚨 FREE SPEECH UNDER THREAT IN CANADA A Western government is now openly talking about restricting access to foreign platforms because citizens are speaking in ways the authorities don’t like. When governments decide which opinions are acceptable… when they label dissent as “harm”… when they frame speech itself as a security threat… That is not protection. That is control. The moment a state claims the power to decide what its population is allowed to hear, read, or say — democracy itself is weakened. Citizens raising concerns about immigration, culture, or national identity are not criminals. They are participants in public debate. Free societies do not silence disagreement. They tolerate it — even when it is uncomfortable. Because once censorship begins, it never stays limited to one issue. The real question now is simple: Who decides what is “acceptable speech” — the people, or the government?

🚨 FREE SPEECH UNDER THREAT IN CANADA A Western government is now openly talking about restricting access to foreign platforms because citizens are speaking in ways the authorities don’t like. When governments decide which opinions are acceptable… when they label dissent as “harm”… when they frame speech itself as a security threat… That is not protection. That is control. The moment a state claims the power to decide what its population is allowed to hear, read, or say — democracy itself is weakened. Citizens raising concerns about immigration, culture, or national identity are not criminals. They are participants in public debate. Free societies do not silence disagreement. They tolerate it — even when it is uncomfortable. Because once censorship begins, it never stays limited to one issue. The real question now is simple: Who decides what is “acceptable speech” — the people, or the government?

Jim Ferguson

147,157 次观看 • 7 个月前

"The Bible is not hate speech. "Biblical teaching must never be criminalized, even apart from the issue of outlying religious speech that Liberals find offensive. "I oppose Bill C-9 for its unconstitutional and unjustified attempt at censorship."

"The Bible is not hate speech. "Biblical teaching must never be criminalized, even apart from the issue of outlying religious speech that Liberals find offensive. "I oppose Bill C-9 for its unconstitutional and unjustified attempt at censorship."

Juno News

44,568 次观看 • 7 个月前

Zohran Mamdani is moving the goalpost of what is acceptable in the Democratic party and their leadership is powerless to stop it. We should not underestimate this man. Click here to watch my full conversation with Rachael Bade:

Zohran Mamdani is moving the goalpost of what is acceptable in the Democratic party and their leadership is powerless to stop it. We should not underestimate this man. Click here to watch my full conversation with Rachael Bade:

Meghan McCain

43,637 次观看 • 1 年前

Rep. Mike Johnson says the federal government used Twitter to censor American's speech: "Twitter was basically an FBI subsidiary before Elon Musk took it over... The Twitter files should be a matter of bipartisan concern for every member of Congress and every American citizen because it is a bedrock principle of our Constitution that the government does not get to decide what speech is acceptable or true." Voting is currently in progress, and it appears like Rep. Mike Johnson will become the next Speaker of the House.

Rep. Mike Johnson says the federal government used Twitter to censor American's speech: "Twitter was basically an FBI subsidiary before Elon Musk took it over... The Twitter files should be a matter of bipartisan concern for every member of Congress and every American citizen because it is a bedrock principle of our Constitution that the government does not get to decide what speech is acceptable or true." Voting is currently in progress, and it appears like Rep. Mike Johnson will become the next Speaker of the House.

KanekoaTheGreat

71,146,603 次观看 • 2 年前

Canadians mail should not be accessed without a warrant. Canadians should not be kicked off the internet without due process. Canadians should not be threated with unprecedented police powers to suppress speech online. But for every societal problem, the Liberals' first instinct is to erode the freedoms of Canadians. Thank you to the many residents of York-Durham who have written to me about this. I will keep fighting against the kinds of attacks on personal freedom the government has introduced in Bills C-2, C-8, and C-9.

Canadians mail should not be accessed without a warrant. Canadians should not be kicked off the internet without due process. Canadians should not be threated with unprecedented police powers to suppress speech online. But for every societal problem, the Liberals' first instinct is to erode the freedoms of Canadians. Thank you to the many residents of York-Durham who have written to me about this. I will keep fighting against the kinds of attacks on personal freedom the government has introduced in Bills C-2, C-8, and C-9.

Jacob Mantle

76,218 次观看 • 11 个月前

Who controls the narrative? The DSA treats speech as a form of commodity to be regulated, yet we know that freedom of expression is a fundamental right in any free society. It is not the role of government to determine which opinions are acceptable or permissible. If Croatia adopts such a model of governing the public sphere, we risk granting institutions; including fact-checkers, such as Faktograf, and political leadership, excessive power and influence to decide what is true and what is not. Video: ECR Group

Who controls the narrative? The DSA treats speech as a form of commodity to be regulated, yet we know that freedom of expression is a fundamental right in any free society. It is not the role of government to determine which opinions are acceptable or permissible. If Croatia adopts such a model of governing the public sphere, we risk granting institutions; including fact-checkers, such as Faktograf, and political leadership, excessive power and influence to decide what is true and what is not. Video: ECR Group

Stephen Nikola Bartulica

184,899 次观看 • 4 个月前

Goldman: "The notion that because he won an election that he should be able to ignore the Constitution or violate our laws is preposterous. Every president wins an election. That does not mean they get to just make up whatever laws they want and decide which ones they're going to comply with. Donald Trump does not get to decide what the law is."

Goldman: "The notion that because he won an election that he should be able to ignore the Constitution or violate our laws is preposterous. Every president wins an election. That does not mean they get to just make up whatever laws they want and decide which ones they're going to comply with. Donald Trump does not get to decide what the law is."

Aaron Rupar

141,907 次观看 • 1 年前

𝗪𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗜𝗺𝗺𝗶𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝘃/𝘀 𝗡𝗼𝗻-𝗪𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗜𝗺𝗺𝗶𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘁𝘀: Who gets to decide who is acceptable and who isn’t? 👏 Nailed it. 🎥 Credit:

𝗪𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗜𝗺𝗺𝗶𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝘃/𝘀 𝗡𝗼𝗻-𝗪𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗜𝗺𝗺𝗶𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘁𝘀: Who gets to decide who is acceptable and who isn’t? 👏 Nailed it. 🎥 Credit:

Kanwar Sierah, RCIC

40,732 次观看 • 1 个月前

The problem with a pause is pause means play and play is not acceptable. We all condemn Hamas, we all want Hamas gone. But what is happening to ordinary citizens of Palestine, who have nothing to do with Hamas, is only fuelling more insurgency, not less.

The problem with a pause is pause means play and play is not acceptable. We all condemn Hamas, we all want Hamas gone. But what is happening to ordinary citizens of Palestine, who have nothing to do with Hamas, is only fuelling more insurgency, not less.

Layla Moran 🔶🕊️

16,852 次观看 • 2 年前

JUST IN: German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius starts whining about JD Vance's speech, says it was "not acceptable." Looks like Vance's speech was a success. The whining came after Vance ripped European nations for criminalizing free speech and acting like tyrants. "If I understood him correctly, he compares the condition of Europe with the condition that prevails in some authoritarian regimes." "Ladies and gentlemen, this is not acceptable. This is not acceptable. This is not the Europe where I live."

JUST IN: German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius starts whining about JD Vance's speech, says it was "not acceptable." Looks like Vance's speech was a success. The whining came after Vance ripped European nations for criminalizing free speech and acting like tyrants. "If I understood him correctly, he compares the condition of Europe with the condition that prevails in some authoritarian regimes." "Ladies and gentlemen, this is not acceptable. This is not acceptable. This is not the Europe where I live."

Collin Rugg

4,982,944 次观看 • 1 年前

Today, I rose in the House to speak on Bill C-9. Bill C-9 is a direct attack on fundamental freedoms in this country. I will stand with the Canadians who wrote to me and with faith communities across this country. I cannot and will not support Bill C-9.

Today, I rose in the House to speak on Bill C-9. Bill C-9 is a direct attack on fundamental freedoms in this country. I will stand with the Canadians who wrote to me and with faith communities across this country. I cannot and will not support Bill C-9.

David Bexte

80,788 次观看 • 6 个月前

10 years in prison… for words? Bill C-9 proposes defining “hate speech” in the Criminal Code as anything more than disdain — opening the door to criminal charges for speech many Canadians may not even realize could be illegal. Critics warn this could effectively criminalize emotions, not just actions. Should the government be able to decide what opinions cross the line? Find the full video 👇

10 years in prison… for words? Bill C-9 proposes defining “hate speech” in the Criminal Code as anything more than disdain — opening the door to criminal charges for speech many Canadians may not even realize could be illegal. Critics warn this could effectively criminalize emotions, not just actions. Should the government be able to decide what opinions cross the line? Find the full video 👇

Nico Lagan

50,615 次观看 • 6 个月前

"This is an injustice with all the victims in the country... Whatever happened to the girl from Unnao is not acceptable... We want to register our presence in the Parliament for this issue...

"This is an injustice with all the victims in the country... Whatever happened to the girl from Unnao is not acceptable... We want to register our presence in the Parliament for this issue...

Yogita Bhayana योगिता भयाना

10,437 次观看 • 9 个月前

Trump violated due process and defied court orders, including a 9-0 SCOTUS decision. We are not a country of dictators and kings—Presidents don’t get to decide what the law is or whether it should be followed. Democracy only survives when the rule of law is followed by us all.

Trump violated due process and defied court orders, including a 9-0 SCOTUS decision. We are not a country of dictators and kings—Presidents don’t get to decide what the law is or whether it should be followed. Democracy only survives when the rule of law is followed by us all.

Daniel Goldman

81,870 次观看 • 1 年前