Fact check: Trump makes more false claims about Canada in advance of meeting with prime minister (1 Viewer)

[Hamish Howl]

Let's see what we have ... one country tries to reduce Government and the other passes laws to allow censorship by Government.
Guess which one is yours.

These Words Are Disappearing in the New Trump Administration

Federal agencies have issued guidance to employees on hundreds of terms to limit or avoid using. An analysis of government websites shows many of the same words being removed.

www.nytimes.com

Or free article

The 199 Things You Can’t Say in the Trump Administration

It’s no surprise that the president deleted “climate change” from government websites. But why forbid “advocate” and “institutional”?

newrepublic.com

 

[Quag]

These Words Are Disappearing in the New Trump Administration

Federal agencies have issued guidance to employees on hundreds of terms to limit or avoid using. An analysis of government websites shows many of the same words being removed.

www.nytimes.com

Or free article

The 199 Things You Can’t Say in the Trump Administration

It’s no surprise that the president deleted “climate change” from government websites. But why forbid “advocate” and “institutional”?

newrepublic.com

Except from the NR article made me chuckle

The Times’ list of Trump’s banned words, the paper said, is necessarily incomplete. It does not, for instance, include “Enola Gay,” banned as part of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s DEI purge for the hilarious reason that it included the offending word “gay.” (The dropping of the first atom bomb has long been controversial, but never for being woke.)

 

[bubbabgone]

Well let's also view those and other forms of censorship without the prejudiced optics shall we

Which country is celebrating a leader who embraces censorship by restricting freedom of the press, even disallowing certain press members from Presidential press events?
Which country has the administrative branch of it's government instructing the judicial branch to go after those who merely disagree with their leader in what intelligent people would categorize as the WORST form of censorship?
Which country is it that requires you, at all entry points, to hand over any personal communication devices along with all passwords and disallows entry if there is anything contained within even slightly criticizing it's leader?
Which country is it that is currently purging any and all government agencies, even the military, of any form of cultural centric publications in the most glaring example of governmentally driven censorship?
Which country has allowed itself to be wholly legislated by a stream of Executive Orders precepted upon one man's fake "national emergency"?
Which country has steadily dropped on the scale of freedoms as measured using metrics of "individual", "economic" and "freedoms of the press" due to authoritarian edicts from just one man?

Golly; I think that would be yours.

Examples please.

 

[bubbabgone]

These Words Are Disappearing in the New Trump Administration

Federal agencies have issued guidance to employees on hundreds of terms to limit or avoid using. An analysis of government websites shows many of the same words being removed.

www.nytimes.com

Or free article

The 199 Things You Can’t Say in the Trump Administration

It’s no surprise that the president deleted “climate change” from government websites. But why forbid “advocate” and “institutional”?

newrepublic.com

Yes, DEI is being expunged from the government as discrimination should be.

 

[Allan]

Examples please.

Hey speaking of examples you still haven't backed this up...

Well let's take a look at the facts.

Our new PM has reduced the size of his Cabinet and is planning to reduce the federal government which grew 40% under Trudeau.

As for "censorship" our Constitution protects free speech. What law has been passed that violates that protection?

 

[bubbabgone]

An addendum to post #221

An Inconvenient Truth

GIGO

 

[bubbabgone]

Hey speaking of examples you still haven't backed this up...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/c11-online-streaming-1.6824314

 

[Allan]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/c11-online-streaming-1.6824314

That does not controvene our free speech laws. Try again.

 

[bubbabgone]

That does not controvene our free speech laws. Try again.

It’s government control of Internet content.

 

[Allan]

It’s government control of Internet content.

Your own government controls some aspects of media.

Doing so does not restrict speech.

 

[Brusan]

GIGO

As expected, you cannot refute so go with an obvious irrelevant offering.

 

[Brusan]

Examples please.

Not as if this stuff hasn't been very obvious for months now:

Censorship in action.

Weaponizing the DOJ

Electronic devices at border entry points:
Here's a more detailed explanation:

• No need for a reason:
  CBP officers can request access to your devices without a reason, even if you are a U.S. citizen.
  
  
• Consequences of refusal:
  If you refuse to provide a password or unlock your device, CBP can detain or seize it for further examination, delay your travel, deny you entry (if not a U.S. citizen), or make it difficult for you to enter the U.S. in the future.
  
  
• Limited remote access:
  CBP officers are not permitted to access data stored remotely in the cloud. They must ask you to turn off Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or put your device in airplane mode.
  
  
• Search of device contents:
  Officers can search the contents of your phone, including text messages, emails, social media, and other data accessible on the device.
  
  
• Potential for denial of entry:
  While U.S. citizens cannot be denied entry for refusing to unlock their devices, other factors, such as the contents of your phone, could lead to a denial of entry for non-citizens.
  
  
• Importance of encryption:
  If you choose to refuse access to your device, it's important to ensure your data is encrypted to protect its privacy.
  
  
• Tips for navigating the border:
  Consider removing private or sensitive material from your phone before your trip, turning your device to airplane mode, and potentially wiping your phone (but be aware that a nearly blank device can raise suspicion).

I chose to copy the requirement because you have a tendency to demand links proving what has been world wide public knowledge for many months. Then your habit is to ignore those factual offerings completely by coming back with something inane like "GIGO".

 

[bubbabgone]

Your own government controls some aspects of media.

Doing so does not restrict speech.

That does not controvene our free speech laws. Try again.

You need to read the link again ... or maybe for the first time?

"It also requires the platforms to promote Canadian content. Specifically, the bill says "online undertakings shall clearly promote and recommend Canadian programming, in both official languages as well as in Indigenous languages."
The changes give the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), Canada's broadcast regulator, broad powers over digital media companies, including the ability to impose financial penalties for violations of the act."

 

[CANON]

You need to read the link again ... or maybe for the first time?

"It also requires the platforms to promote Canadian content. Specifically, the bill says "online undertakings shall clearly promote and recommend Canadian programming, in both official languages as well as in Indigenous languages."
The changes give the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), Canada's broadcast regulator, broad powers over digital media companies, including the ability to impose financial penalties for violations of the act."

How does that restrict speech?

 

[Allan]

You need to read the link again ... or maybe for the first time?

"It also requires the platforms to promote Canadian content. Specifically, the bill says "online undertakings shall clearly promote and recommend Canadian programming, in both official languages as well as in Indigenous languages."
The changes give the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), Canada's broadcast regulator, broad powers over digital media companies, including the ability to impose financial penalties for violations of the act."

Cool.

Nothing new.

 

[bubbabgone]

As expected, you cannot refute so go with an obvious irrelevant offering.

Let me explain something you clearly don't understand.
When you cobble together a group of Globalization ideologists to gather data, whether valid or questionable, who then are charged with analyzing that data from their own perspective to produce reports that reflect their inherent cognitive biases, you get GIGO.

 

[bubbabgone]

How does that restrict speech?

"give the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), Canada's broadcast regulator, broad powers over digital media companies,"

Cool.

Nothing new.

If it was nothing new you wouldn't have needed a new law, would you.

 

[Allan]

If it was nothing new you wouldn't have needed a new law, would you.

The concept is not new.

It does not restrict speech.

 

[bubbabgone]

Not as if this stuff hasn't been very obvious for months now:

Censorship in action.

Weaponizing the DOJ

Electronic devices at border entry points:
Here's a more detailed explanation:

• No need for a reason:
  CBP officers can request access to your devices without a reason, even if you are a U.S. citizen.
  
  
• Consequences of refusal:
  If you refuse to provide a password or unlock your device, CBP can detain or seize it for further examination, delay your travel, deny you entry (if not a U.S. citizen), or make it difficult for you to enter the U.S. in the future.
  
  
• Limited remote access:
  CBP officers are not permitted to access data stored remotely in the cloud. They must ask you to turn off Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or put your device in airplane mode.
  
  
• Search of device contents:
  Officers can search the contents of your phone, including text messages, emails, social media, and other data accessible on the device.
  
  
• Potential for denial of entry:
  While U.S. citizens cannot be denied entry for refusing to unlock their devices, other factors, such as the contents of your phone, could lead to a denial of entry for non-citizens.
  
  
• Importance of encryption:
  If you choose to refuse access to your device, it's important to ensure your data is encrypted to protect its privacy.
  
  
• Tips for navigating the border:
  Consider removing private or sensitive material from your phone before your trip, turning your device to airplane mode, and potentially wiping your phone (but be aware that a nearly blank device can raise suspicion).

I chose to copy the requirement because you have a tendency to demand links proving what has been world wide public knowledge for many months. Then your habit is to ignore those factual offerings completely by coming back with something inane like "GIGO".

Okay, you favor open borders, got it. But you, as a Liberal Party (read Socialist) Canadian citizen, I already suspected that.

But as a side note, you couldn't have picked more comically Left-wing nutballs for your sources. You really hurt yourself with that.

 

[bubbabgone]

The concept is not new.

It does not restrict speech.

Then why the new law?
"The changes give the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), Canada's broadcast regulator, broad powers over digital media companies,..."

 

[Allan]

Then why the new law?
"The changes give the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), Canada's broadcast regulator, broad powers over digital media companies,..."

To include streaming and related services in current requirements.

It does not restrict speech.

 

[Brusan]

Okay, you favor open borders, got it. But you, as a Liberal Party (read Socialist) Canadian citizen, I already suspected that.

But as a side note, you couldn't have picked more comically Left-wing nutballs for your sources. You really hurt yourself with that.

So once again you choose to respond with something totally irrelevant to any discussion with the silly and "off the wall" assumption I favoured open borders with a side dose of "Liberal Party socialist Canadian" thrown in? We already dealt with America being proven to having way more "socialism" in actual practice than Canada.

"Nutball left wing sources"? Oh that's right, I forgot, if it comes from other than Faux News, MAGA's are totally incapable of disseminating fiction.

Those sources are merely reporting what Trump himself has publicly stated and has been widely accepted public knowledge for months now. You should be aware that discounting the sources rather than debating the facts they provide is generally received as the default position of the "ineffectual".

MAGA's being known for their inability to cognitively reason is one thing; boy, you're in a league all your own.

The quintessential irony of you suggesting "sources being comical"; given your offerings on these boards totally escapes you doesn't it?

Oh and here's another for you to ignore: press freedoms Scroll down to view the map. The U.S. is in the same league with Ghana and the Congo.

 

[CANON]

"give the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), Canada's broadcast regulator, broad powers over digital media companies,"

So nothing about restricting speech?

Companies are still allowed to promote almost anything, but if they want to make money from the Canadian market they need to ensure that Canadian content gets the opportunity to be promoted to other Canadians.

Seems only fair that Canadians get to benefit from services provided via infrastructure that was paid for with Canadian tax payer money.