Group items tagged

link seems broken... try this http://openparliament.ca/bills/41-1/C-309/

I think its a good law, people should be able to know who you are. If you really wanna protest, you shouldn't care.

I believe that if you truly believe in the cause, then you should have to face the consequences, even if that means losing your job or your reputation and status.

This bill makes sense. Public safety is at the forefront of this bill, if a protest gets violent or other harmful/unlawful acts occur the persons the are held responsible will be able to be identified. But looking at it from the other side, people might want to conceal their identity at protests, or the masks are part of their protest(example Anonymous). If this bill passes people will be made, if it doesn't pass other people will be mad. Who is the Canadian government ok will making mad?

This bill should be passed because if you're risking yourself by already being there, you should have to show your face. Also, if the situation ever turned violent, that person wouldn't get away with it because their face wasn't exposed so they could be identified.

I think that this bill should be passed because the police should have the right to identify anyone who is protesting. If you want to protest, protecting your identity shouldn't be a major concern because you would want people to know who you are, and what you are speaking out against.

I think if you are going to protest, you are there for a reason, that you strongly believe in, so you should not want to hide who you really are

It should be considered that this is a trade for security by means of liberty. Sacrificing freedom for a small degree of protection. If this bill passes, it could easily snowball to other things (this may be a bit of a reach) such as controlling what you can wear altogether just so that you can be identified at all times just in case you might be possibly considering intending to commit a crime.

As said in earlier comments, I think that if you want to protest IN PUBLIC then the public has the right to know who you are. If you want you can protest in your house and no one needs to know who you are. But out side of you cant hide from the public if your are going to stand outside with a big sign and yell out things in front of people.

I think this should be a bill that becomes a law.

I see it as your there or your protesting for a reason so why hide it. If your protesting you believe something is ether wrong or right so why hide your believes. If you don't want to be seen or noticed here's an easy answer don't go!

I think that you should be able to wear a mask, because if you're protesting something that you believe in, or don't believe in, than it is a personal matter and you should be able to conceal your identity from the public.

"It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use any electronic or digital device and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person." This is some of the language of the out of the bill (I found it in another article on Forbes). It seems reasonable, at least this section as I haven't read the whole law, except for the parts that say, "annoy or offend" and "use any obscene, lewd, or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act". We have laws that say you cant threaten, intimidate, threaten, or harass people in person or to threaten to inflict harm on another or their property so it makes to do the same thing over the internet. The fact that they added the annoy or offend and other parts I mentioned is a little ridiculous because just stating your opinion, and what you believe, on Facebook or in a comment section on a news article could "offend" someone. There is a big difference between being offensive, which is and should be legal, and trying to threaten, harass,terrify, and intimidate someone.

I can see why they want to remove the whole terrify, intimidate, and threaten part, but in all reality, the rest of the law is what is accountable to what most consider, "trolling." I personally don't get why annoying people would be against the law, it's human nature, and you cannot change that. And offending someone online means you do so verbally, and have a separate opinion from the person you are offending.You would be violating freedom of speech if you put that last bit in.

the expressed opinion that annoying someone else is human nature makes me question if you truly understand human nature. However, you are also incorrect about your freedom of speech theory. The law states that it is illegal to post something with "the intent to terrify, intimidate, threatend, harass, annoy or offend" which clearly removes it from freedom of speech parameters. Do you honestly believe that it is your free right to harass a person, or to intentionally offending someone, which can logically be derived as a branch of harassment? I don't mean to sound rude or agressive, but I really don't see that falling under a freedom of speech infraction

I agree with Alex plus it says the intent to do those things... If you're stating your opinion you aren't really intentionally setting out to annoy or offend anyone. You are just stating what you think

I have to disagree that intentionally offending a person is a form of harassment. Casually stating god isn't real to a person you know to be a devote Christian could potentially be offensive but it isn't harassment. On another note being intentionally offensive has been upheld by the Supreme Court, in the case of R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, as being in the parameters of protected speech. However, in Virginia v. Black the Court said that being offensive as to intimidate a person or group is not protected speech. Some comedians are intentionally offensive to specific groups but because they aren't being offensive as to intimidate, harass, terrify, or threaten others their offensive speech is protected.

an interesting point, Jeremy. However, if I may ask, would hunting down a specific group on the internet in order to state a belief against theirs for the sole purpose of antagonizing that group not be harassment? I cannot argue against the logic presented in those cases that intentionally being offensive would be protected... however, entering a church in order to proclaim that there is no god (as an example) would be the equivalent of hunting a group down and posting that on their forums. I know that isn't the only reason that a post would show up like that, but it seems the most likely to me. I do enjoy a good, offensive comedian, but if he were to come to me specifically because he wanted to tell me how my beleifs were incorrect, I think that would fall under religeous harassment, (spelling?) just like a religeous person can be charged for harassment for hunting down a person with opposing beleifs and proclaiming their message, shouldn't people trying to tell them that their beleifs are incorrect be treated in kind?

Great discussion... another issue to consider is whether or not the listeners are "captive audience" or not. Freedom of speech is an incredibly complex topic (which we will discuss more soon in class) There is a big difference between an offensive comedian that I choose to go watch at a club and the same comedian that shows up on my doorstep to deliver an offensive message... if the second scenario continued it would seem to rise to the level of harassment pretty fast. The bigger question in my mind is do we want to prevent "offensive speech" at all or would that be a slippery slope to taking away more of our right to expression?

I don't think that being annoying or offensive (so long as it's not harassment) should be illegal. It's kind of like cussing - it's frowned upon, but shouldn't necessarily be illegal (unless used in an act of violence or threatening someone).

Alex, you stated earlier that, "The law states that it is illegal to post something with "the intent to terrify, intimidate, threatend, harass, annoy or offend" which clearly removes it from freedom of speech parameters." That is false, and why the law has not been passed as of now, and unlikely to be passed ever. Not to mention that it is to unclear upon its wording to be held up in court. I also do know that this law clearly states, "annoy." I annoy people, I do it daily, should I be jailed for 25 years for it? (The maximum time period in which this law can jail a person for). Also, I can go into a church and say, "God is not real." What exactly can you legally do against me? Can you jail me for going in there and stating my beliefs? At the most, you can make me leave by request or have me jailed for trespassing. That's like being jailed for saying, "I hate the U.S. government," which I have a clear right to say as in our first amendment. As for the idea of "Religious Harassment," one can have there beliefs. If I go to a church, and decide to start screaming on the top of my lungs, "God is not real!" I am stating my beliefs were I please, which is protected under the first amendment. A Christen probably would not like it, but if one comes up to me and says God is real, there is not much either on can do to convince the other the other that they are wrong, and both are entitled to there own opinion. This law would jail someone for stating there religious beliefs, which is not legal by our constitution. Would that not be "Religious Harassment?"

Payton, you state that my reference to the law is false, however I took that as a direct quote from Jeremy. Perhaps you should do a little reading? as for what I can legally do, I can report you for religious harassment and get you a ticket. By there you mean to post "thier", just so you know. Simple mistake. Anyways, specifically looking for someone to aggrivate by stating thier beliefs are no longer just looking to state their beliefs. I am not arguing against one's ability to annoy, by the way. I do tend to do this on a regular basis. I am stating that it is harassment to seek out persons that I know will be offended by my remarks and verbally assault them, and they may do as they please with this assault. I do appreciate your use of 'reductum ad absurdum' or the reduction of an opposing argument to its most rediculous or nonsensical interpretation. However, I am not suggesting jail time.

Alex, you do realize the law itself suggests a minimum sentence of 6 months, to the max of 25 years in prison for one simply stating something as simple as beliefs on the internet. As well as that 2nd hand reference, that I assume you simply went off the word of another with, is still false, the bill did not pass because it broke the first amendment. As for that ticket, I would be ticketed for expressing myself about my religion, and in no way did I say anything bad about another religion, that would be freedom of speech before religious harassment.

That ticket would be for harassing a group of people for their beliefs, and you know it. If I were to hunt you down and assault your every belief, whether it be right or wrong, and do it, not just for no reason, but simply because I want to cause anger and controversy? That goes against everything our country stands for. We have certain inalienable rights, including the pursuit of happiness, and dealing with someone who just wants to make you angry directly interferes with that.

I'll first start off by saying that in my last post I misspoke when I said that I didn't believe that being intentionally offensive is harassment. I should have said that it isn't necessarily harassment. Payton the law did pass the Arizona Legislator and it reached the Governor's desk, that is why people were worried about First Amendment Violations. The Legislator then pulled it back before Governor Brewer signed it into law, stating that they may rework the wording of the Bill to narrow the broad language in hopes to remove parts that could potentially violate Free Speech. The revised bill has since been signed into law. This is the first form of the Bill passed by the Legislator but was brought back to be reworked: http://mediacoalition.org/mediaimages/AZ-HB-2549s-as-passed-by-legislature.pdf This is the reworked Bill as to narrow it's scope which became law: http://www.mediacoalition.org/mediaimages/HB2549-as-amended-most-recent-04_2012-full-bill.pdf Alex and Mr. Pregon do make a good point about seeking out specific groups. I think after looking into it a little more Mr. Pregon is right about Freedom of Speech being a complex topic. Looking at the two court cases I mentioned and then two others I ran into while looking things up seem to contradict each other in someways yet support each other at the same time. Snyder v. Phelps and the parts of the majority ruling that were in an article I read, actually found the full ruling and opinions and plan on reading them, make it seem like, to me at least, it is in fact okay to seek out a group and say things that are unpopular, potentially offensive, and controversial as long as you aren't trying to intimidate, threaten, etc. that group as V

Alex, there is a difference between stating a belief, such as not believing in god, and discrediting a religion based on that belief. That would be an odd situation, but as long as one does not go into detail as to how a religion is superior/inferior to another, it should not be considered offensive. Jeremy, this article was written previously to the revised bill, due to it being highly ambiguous. I also agree as to the newly revised bill. The bill previously was going strictly reduce freedom of speech, which will no longer be that well restricted, although I doubt it will be easy to enforce.

Of course you would put this up Payton....

There have two different attempts at this in Arkansas and North Dakota, were found unconstitutional in court when they tried to make it a law. It hasn't been said if the 'heartbeat' abortion bill will apply to victim's of rape or in the case of incest. There are too many variables involved to make a clear cut decision.

I feel like this bill will cause women to do abortions illegally and go back to old methods. In one of the paragraph it said they wont do abortions even if its rape or incest. it gives me a little hope that he said he is pro-life when it come to rape, incest, and the life of the mother.

I think that if someone was raped they should be able to have an abortion because that could affect their life in a lot of bad ways if they had a baby from someone that raped them.

I can see both the pros and cons of this bill. I hate the thought of ending a life before it has barely begun, but if a woman had the reason of abortion because she was a rape victim 6 weeks might not be a long enough time to reveal that she is pregnant. Women are scarred from these experiences and by telling her she has to keep proof of the memory may be worse than abortion. A new life is suppose to be celebrated not forced into someone's body. I don't like abortion, but I can see why some women would.

Everything that Macy said, I agree with. I don't agree with abortion but the reasoning behind it of rape makes sense and is an exception. Keeping something that'll remind the mother is torturing herself, again celebration not force.

I agree with Macy. I also think that abortion is a bad thing and you shouldn't be able to end someones life just because you weren't responsible enough, but what if someone was rapped and had to live with that because they didn't realize they were pregnant until after 20 something weeks. I think it's unfair in those situations.

I agree with everything Macy said. 6 weeks may not be enough time to fine out you're pregnant. If it was rape women should be able to abort the child. No woman should have to have a that mans baby. Would scar her for life.

It is a women's choice to choose abortion but you have to make sure it's what you want. if you feel you made the wrong choice, you should deal with it because the doctors did what you wanted.

I think that this is stupid because the article says that it's a difficult decision for the woman, and that they should get a recourse if they have mental health issues because of the decision. It's the woman's choice to have it done so why should she get money back for her mistake, the doctor has no choice in doing the procedure so they should not get sued for doing their job.

It was the women's choice to get the abortion in the first place. Which means that they wanted the doctor to the procedure. It is NOT the doctors fault if you get an abortion and then feel bad about it. You should NOT be able to sue the doctor for emotional damage. I can understand physical damage only if the doctor did not do the procedure right and the physical damage is because of that. But emotional damage is total ..... Anyway, in the article it says "that many studies show that only a small percentage of women regret their abortions." Regret is NOT the same as emotional damage. Just because you REGRET something that YOU did does NOT mean that you can put all blame on the doctor because of a decision that YOU made. "Chelgren's emotional distress bill says a woman could sue the doctor who performed the abortion anytime during her lifetime." this means that you could have had an abortion 20 years ago and then sue the doctor. It doesn't even make sence and it is NOT the doctors fault for doing his or her job.

I agree with Kelsi because it is the women's choice to have the abortion in the first place and its the doctors job to do the procedure. The doctor did not make the choice, the women did, the doctors are just doing their job. It's like suing a dog for peeing in the wrong place. It's just ridiculous. The only thing it will accomplish is putting abortion clinics out of business causing people to try aborting the child on their own which can cause a lot more deaths.

I agree with kelsi, I don't think women should be able to sue a doctor for an abortion she choose. The doctor gives you a choose if you want an abortion. You can't blame the doctor of your mistake.Women have a choice and if they decide to have an abortion and if she regret later, then you have to deal with it.

I agree with Sydney, this is ridiculous. It was the woman's decision in the first place, the doctor is just doing his job so I think it's unjust to sue them if they later regret their decision.

I agree with Kelsi! The doctor is doing his job and I think that once a woman has made a choice to or to not to get an abortion, there should be a contract signed that before the doctor does the actual abortion the woman can not sue later in the future. Its not like the doctor is forcing you to get an abortion they are only doing it for the sake of the woman's decision.

I agree with Sydney and Lauren. It was the woman's choice to get the abortion. Not the Doctor. They shouldn't be able to sue because they had a change of heart and thought they made the wrong decision.

I think that when women choose to have an abortion they are giving the doctor permission to kill their baby. Its not the Doctors fault their just there to make sure you have the procedure done right. Everyone is aware of the emotion damage of losing a child.

Its the woman's decision not the doctors. There just doing there job and if they could be sued for it then no doctor is gonna do it.

Women should not have the right to sue the doctor for carrying out their act kill their baby, because with their body their choice saying, their choice, their consequence not the doctors.

I don't think that women should be able to sue a doctor due to emotional distress after they gave consent to the doctor to go through with the procedure. If they have emotional distress they should blame themselves because they were the one who decided to have an abortion. Now if a doctor forced it then i can see why she would sue.

I disagree with the bill that prevents companies, such as Facebook and Twitter, from banning politicians. According to the bill, companies would have to notify people that their post will be removed/censored seven days before. I think that's too much time. The Capitol riot occurred within hours, not days. Also, it would also suggest that politicians are "special" and can get away with hateful posts for some time.

I don't think they understand the first amendment only covers government institutions. They always site freedom of speech for things like this but companies have no reason to hold up that standard, they can censor any content they want because they aren't government institutions.

I don't think this bill should be put in place. Like Jackie said, it makes it seem like politicians are special cases, and that they don't have to follow the online guidelines that we all follow.

Florida shouldn't be able to control media outlets at all because they are all private entities that aren't affiliated with politics.

I don't think that Flordia should be able to do this. They shouldn't be able to regulate what a privately own company does when a person using their product violates their rules.

I don´t understand how giving food or water would be criminal. You think that voters would be encouraged to vote but apparently not. I can see how needing an ID to vote would be necessary but not allowing time to get a voting ballot makes no sense. I feel like the only people this will hurt are the politicians.

This new bill is just making it harder for people to vote, it doesn't look like it will do any good.

this bill is and will going to make it harder for people to vote but i still dont understand how giving food and water would be criminal

I don't think giving people food or water while they wait in line to vote is a crime. It will just make people not want to vote and it won't help anything.

This bill will make it harder for people to vote but I still don't understand how giving food and water would be criminal!!

The stimulus bill sounds like a good deal for Americans. COVID-19 negatively impacted many people, so it's good that the government is trying to help get the country going after COVID-19.

I think this stimulus bill is necessary and will be a step forward in the right direction. Although things seem to be slowly moving in the right direction there are still a lot of people without a job and in need of assistance so I think this will help those people out tremendously.

This could go both way's as in good and bad. Good:So people can get some help from the government to help pay off debts or just put food on the table. Bad: some people can become to reliant on the government for money.

this stimulus check is going to help a lot of families especially the ones who already struggle.

I feel like the stimulus is a good thing for a lot of families that have been struggling throughout the pandemic. It is also bad in the way of tax inflation and things of that nature. Although I feel like it was needed for some, it might be damaging in the future.

technically we could get 12,000 for a stimulus check but the government is not willing to do that.

I feel like this is a relatively good amount for a stimulus check because the amount of inflation it will create will be far less than if the check was bigger.

i think the check is a step in the right direction. it's giving families coverage and more cushion to their budget.

I think this is a good check cause it will help people in the mere future and possibly in the present.

So depending on who you are it could be a good thing or an iffy thing I believe that most people around our area would all agree that it's a good thing and I think so too.

I think its good cause people could use this money during this time

I think it's about perspective. a more privileged person can live without this change, they would be fine. But for others, going to college is not an option. Either because they don't have enough money, or they're just too busy with kids and keeping the house for them. Money should be livable. 1000$ a month is great for normal teens who just want some cash, but for people who work to live, 1000$ is not enough. People need to pay bills, hospital bills, food, water, shelter. It's not just "poor people", it everyone who is struggling, which is a lot more than you think.

I feel like its normal all its going to do is up the price to everything making no change besides the price to things

This can have many outcomes but personally, I think it will cause inflation and nothing will change other than the price of items

The idea of raising the minimum wage is a good idea however 15 dollars an hour is a good amount of money which is more likely to raise the cost of living bringing us back to square one.

I think the minimum wage should be raised. The minimum wage in many other countries makes so much more sense, as people can actually live off them. With how low ours is, people are struggling immensely.

I do not think raising the minimum wage is the right move because there are very many small businesses that will not be able to survive also, I believe that this will cause major inflation, making everything more expensive, so overall raising the minimum wage wouldn't be making things any better.

Inflation is making the prices of houses go up anyway regardless of the minimum wage, so we need to make the minimum wage compatible with modern prices. I don't know if I believe it should be 15$ but it should be more than it is now.

i don't think that raising the minimum wage to $15 is necessary, with the way the wage is set up now it give people an incentive to move up in life for a better job better pay. You may work at burger king for $9 an hour, that's not a lot so you want to do better and get a better job that pays 15 an hour but if you start out at 15 there is not really any incentive to move up in life when you can do better and achieve higher for your self and your family

I think it is a good idea to raise the minimum wage because it is pretty low but we should not raise it that much because It could be hard for the smaller businesses

I think raising the minimum wage would only cause a business to increase their prices on products to make up the amount of money they're paying employees so we would just have another problem to deal with.

I think that raising the minimum wage could be good but also bad. I personally think $15 would be too high and somewhere around $9-$11 would be a better option as it is a little low right now. Would raise costs of living but not by too much, and raising the minimum wage already could increase tax revenue. But from the article, it says they aim to increase to $9.25 then $15 by 2025, but I still believe by then it still is a pretty high number and prices of things will increase by a lot.

I think raising the minimum wage will only cost businesses to suffer especially small businesses because they aren't making a lot, to begin with, and businesses will have to raise their prices to make back the money they are losing.

I agree with both Thomas and Amirah we all had the same points and seem to have pretty much the same point of view on the subject.

I feel like if we raise the minimum wage people that worked for the pay they deserved will feel like they did all that for nothing and eventually all the workers will lose their work ethic and we will have worse products. On the other hand people that are already doing subpar work will be getting decent pay for terrible work. This just means there getting rewarded for doing a bad job. Just makes no sense.

I think that raising the minimum wage can be beneficial; for those who are working long days and not making enough to live without help from the government. If we raise the minimum wage, then those who are suffering will able to live a little better.

I think raising the minimum wage would just have a negative effect on smaller businesses and the economy in general. It would be pointless raising the minimum wage because of inflation. Some of you guys are saying the cost of living is currently too high so raising the wage would be a good thing for them. What some of y'all don't understand is that raising the minimum wage will also raise the cost of living.

Raising the minimum wage is a good idea. As the article says it would be over 5 years and there are many cities that have a $15 minimum wage and inflation isn't jacking up prices to an unbearable extent. No matter if the minimum wage was increased inflation will continue to rise and that will just put minimum wage workers in a worse situation with the same amount of money for more expensive food, water, clothes, etc.

It seems better because you have the chance to make more money, but in my opinion all this does is inflate everything else over time.

Raising the minimum wage will cause all businesses who have people working for under $15 an hour to raise their prices on their goods, this would make pretty much everything you buy more expensive like groceries, gas, and everyday necessities more expensive. Also across the US the minimum wage changes so for example Denver CO which is an expensive city to live in already had their minimum wage set at $14.77. There are also small rural towns in Iowa which are cheap to live in so there is no need to have a $15 minimum wage there.

It's not just important for the minimum wage to rise, it's a necessity. In fact, 15$ isn't enough! It's what was asked for years ago, and inflation has changed since then. Our minimum wage has, in fact, fallen over the years due to inflation. Prices won't raise by any significant margin. According to business insider (https://www.businessinsider.com/denmark-mcdonalds-pays-20-hourly-wages-2014-10), we could double the wages of employees, and give them benifits, and the prices of goods would be barely changed. Inflation will increase with or without an increase in the minimum wage, because it has increased in the past few years without one. An increase in the minimum wage would help people buy more. Finally, the idea that prices *have* to go up is bull. Nothing *has* to happen. McDonalds doesn't *have* to raise prices if wages were increased, because they would still make a massive profit, just not as absurd of one as they make now.

I believe if they raise the minimum wage they would need to increase every job as well,for example if you make above $15 and hour you would need to raise your wage as well. This would need to be done over the course of years however. We can't raise it all in such a small amount of time.

Brandon, according to your source, McDonald's "has warned that wage increases would force franchisees to raise menu prices." Also, I have read your article and have failed to find the spot where it says that after wages have been doubled and employees have been given extra benefits that prices of goods wouldn't change. It was comparing Denmark to the US when Denmark was one of the most expensive places to live in the world so it would also not be fair or accurate to compare them.

I think this will affect different groups differently. with people who never had money problem's not really being affected by this, and those who have will be greatly affected because of the change in income.

What I think is that it is good and I think it is bad in a way because if we raise the minimum wage to $15 and hour we would most likely have to raise the good paying jobs as well, and I want to think it is good because for the people who do only make minimum wage right now they would be able to afford more and be able to live better and not have to worry as much but then again, I think that would raise the prices to live and its would just be a big loop coming back to this.

We should increase minimum wave because those who have money problems or are in debt will be ebal to get back on their feet quicker and with less help.

It would seem useless to a lot of people, but I kinda see it as an opportunity for teens who are saving money for the future. With that additional money, a teen can save much more than they usually do. The minimum wage might not help people who are struggling to get by, but for teens, it would be a nice boost.

I think raising the minimum wage is a good idea because as of right now the minimum wage isn't a livable wage. The cost of living along with inflation has been rising consistently but the minimum wage hasn't changed in a very long time. So as of now, even the richest companies have no incentive to raise wages. Forcing them to raise their wages is really the only solution to cut into the massive wealth difference between the upperclass and the lower middle class.

i think we should raise minimum wage because even now its a lot more common for teens to be left on their own to buy things they need. some teens have more responsibilities than others and the current minimum wage does next to nothing in terms of help. i know tons of people in the same situation as me where they are struggling to buy things for their children while paying other bills because the highest paying job theyre able to get is still only $11 an hour. i just think minimum wage needs to be changed to reflect current situations in america.

The minimum wage isn't enough to live on right now, and with inflation being an economic factor the price of living with follow the phasing in of a $15 minimum wage. We don't need to keep on raising the minimum wage, but instead work on lowering the cost of living.

I think we should definitely raise the minimum wage. If we raise it students can put more into savings and prepare themselves for the world. If a student makes 15 dollars an hour, works 18 hours a week, and puts half of it away for 2 years they will have $12,312 dollars after taxes. This can cover everything a graduate needs to keep on their feet for a good half-year.

I think we should raise the minimum raise to $15 dollars because $7 dollars isn't enough to help others that have a big family in their house.