Owen Benjamin TERMINATED from YouTube!

[MardyBum]

I'm pretty sure that anti semitism and global jew control theory is just as prevalent on the left.

Anti-semitism, absolutely. Global jew control theory is a CT rooted in the far right and ultra-nationalist identities.

 

[MardyBum]

I can't read you link. Would you like me to provide you with links showing libel and defamation laws are not static throughout the world?

I can help if you like.

Spoiler

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication”, but this right, along with all rights guaranteed by The Charter, is not absolute.

Some types of free expression in Canada are crimes, such as perjury, distributing obscene material, and hate speech. The right to free expression is subject to “reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” Free expression crimes in Canada are constitutional issues, and the onus is on the government to prove that the infringement is justifiable.

However, some limits on free expression in Canada have nothing to do with government restrictions or the right to free expression as defined in the Charter. One such limit is the civil tort of defamation.

Defamation refers to harming another person’s reputation by making a false written or oral statement about that person to a third party. Defamation law is not about protecting pride; it is about protecting reputation and offering restitution to people whose reputations have been wrongly damaged. Although courts will very occasionally issue an injunction to stop defamation that has not yet occurred, almost all defamation cases involve one person suing another for damages from defamatory statements that have already been made.

Tort law surrounding defamation law does not directly curb your right to free expression; it is not illegal per se. Rather, defamation is generally about paying damages to people that have been harmed by your speech. You can still say whatever you want, but you may have to pay for it (and you may have to pay a lot).

It should also be noted that defamation law in Canada varies from province to province. In Ontario, for example, legislation on defamation is found in the Libel and Slander Act. Defamation can be subdivided into libel and slander:

• Libel: defamation with a permanent record, such as an email, a radio or TV broadcast, a newspaper, a website posting, etc.
  
  
• Slander: defamation with no permanent record, such as a spoken statement or even a hand gesture.
  

If you are suing for libel in Canada, you do not need to prove that you suffered damages—you only need to prove that a false statement with a permanent record was made about you to a third party, and the court will presume that damages were suffered. If you are suing for slander, however, you usually do need to prove that damages were suffered. Proving that slander caused you financial loss is difficult, which is why slander cases are far less common than libel cases. There are a number of legal defenses against defamation:

1. You can claim that the statement was true; a true statement cannot be defamatory.

2. You can claim “absolute privilege,” which means that the communication was made in a venue where people ought to have absolute privilege to speak freely; this includes Parliament or giving evidence in a trial.

3. You can claim “qualified privilege,” which means that the communication was given in a non-malicious and well-intentioned context and therefore ought to be excused: for example, giving an honest but negative reference for a former employee.

4. You can claim “fair comment,” which means that your statement was a non-malicious opinion about a matter of public interest: for example, an editorial in a newspaper about a politician.

5. You can claim “responsible communication on matters of public importance,” which allows journalists to report false allegations if the news is urgent and of public importance, and if the journalist made an effort to verify the information. Even if the statement is false, the public has an interest in this type of discussion being legally permissible.

https://www.cjfe.org/defamation_lib...ation with a permanent,or even a hand gesture.

 

[all caps]

Anti-semitism, absolutely. Global jew control theory is a CT rooted in the far right and ultra-nationalist identities.

 

[MardyBum]

She said Jews rule the world?

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

Spoiler

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication”, but this right, along with all rights guaranteed by The Charter, is not absolute.

Some types of free expression in Canada are crimes, such as perjury, distributing obscene material, and hate speech. The right to free expression is subject to “reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” Free expression crimes in Canada are constitutional issues, and the onus is on the government to prove that the infringement is justifiable.

However, some limits on free expression in Canada have nothing to do with government restrictions or the right to free expression as defined in the Charter. One such limit is the civil tort of defamation.

Defamation refers to harming another person’s reputation by making a false written or oral statement about that person to a third party. Defamation law is not about protecting pride; it is about protecting reputation and offering restitution to people whose reputations have been wrongly damaged. Although courts will very occasionally issue an injunction to stop defamation that has not yet occurred, almost all defamation cases involve one person suing another for damages from defamatory statements that have already been made.

Tort law surrounding defamation law does not directly curb your right to free expression; it is not illegal per se. Rather, defamation is generally about paying damages to people that have been harmed by your speech. You can still say whatever you want, but you may have to pay for it (and you may have to pay a lot).

It should also be noted that defamation law in Canada varies from province to province. In Ontario, for example, legislation on defamation is found in the Libel and Slander Act. Defamation can be subdivided into libel and slander:

• Libel: defamation with a permanent record, such as an email, a radio or TV broadcast, a newspaper, a website posting, etc.
  
  
• Slander: defamation with no permanent record, such as a spoken statement or even a hand gesture.

If you are suing for libel in Canada, you do not need to prove that you suffered damages—you only need to prove that a false statement with a permanent record was made about you to a third party, and the court will presume that damages were suffered. If you are suing for slander, however, you usually do need to prove that damages were suffered. Proving that slander caused you financial loss is difficult, which is why slander cases are far less common than libel cases. There are a number of legal defenses against defamation:

1. You can claim that the statement was true; a true statement cannot be defamatory.

2. You can claim “absolute privilege,” which means that the communication was made in a venue where people ought to have absolute privilege to speak freely; this includes Parliament or giving evidence in a trial.

3. You can claim “qualified privilege,” which means that the communication was given in a non-malicious and well-intentioned context and therefore ought to be excused: for example, giving an honest but negative reference for a former employee.

4. You can claim “fair comment,” which means that your statement was a non-malicious opinion about a matter of public interest: for example, an editorial in a newspaper about a politician.

5. You can claim “responsible communication on matters of public importance,” which allows journalists to report false allegations if the news is urgent and of public importance, and if the journalist made an effort to verify the information. Even if the statement is false, the public has an interest in this type of discussion being legally permissible.

https://www.cjfe.org/defamation_libel_and_slander_what_are_my_rights_to_free_expression#:~:targetText=Libel: defamation with a permanent,or even a hand gesture.

OANN is the new rightwing news station Trump is starting to prefer over Fox

 

[Islam Imamate]

This outrage every time some right wing racist gets banned from an online platform is boring.

And the same people crying over bans will obfuscate or even play apologist for the state arresting peaceful protestors if those protesters are, or at least seem, leftist.

 

[TheGreatA]

Anti-semitism, absolutely. Global jew control theory is a CT rooted in the far right and ultra-nationalist identities.

Surprisingly enough, it was Karl Marx and Benjamin Disraeli, both of Jewish origin, who were among the first that I've read about, to have put that "theory" out there.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Private company. Can kick whoever they want off their lawn for any reason they want.

That's true but at the same time I am sympathetic to concern that a small handful of tech companies have come to have an outsize impact on our discourse. That said, this guy is really not the hill you want to die on for that cause.

 

[TheGreatA]

That's true but at the same time I am sympathetic to concern that a small handful of tech companies have come to have an outsize impact on our discourse. That said, this guy is really not the hill you want to die on for that cause.

They're not in the business of giving people hills to die on.

 

[all caps]

That's true but at the same time I am sympathetic to concern that a small handful of tech companies have come to have an outsize impact on our discourse. That said, this guy is really not the hill you want to die on for that cause.

Hes the perfect guy to use to usher in our own silencing. By the time it gets to us we'll be begging for it.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

That's true but at the same time I am sympathetic to concern that a small handful of tech companies have come to have an outsize impact on our discourse. That said, this guy is really not the hill you want to die on for that cause.

My conservative ethos makes it a core belief that individuals and businesses should have the ability to do, or not to do business with anyone for any reason.

That being said, shifting platforms isn't as easy as say...finding another bakery. Nevertheless, there are pathways for these fringe wingnuts to still share their views.

 

[tonni]

Should Kyrie Irving be "shunned by society"?

Wasn't Rogan into all that moon stuff?

Should Rogan not only disfriend Bravo, but tell people that society should shun him?

Should Rob Schneider be shunned from society?

Definitely

 

[IamStryker]

Ok wait a second, this Nick guy refuses to say the N word and he claims that Owen criticized him for it. That doesn't sound like Nick is WN.

I wasn't saying that Nick never uses the N word. Owen was mocking him for not using it specifically on youtube because if he did he would get demonetized. If you do any digging into Nick you would see how obvious it is that he is a white nationalist.

Owen on the other hand, there might be something there. I'm of the opinion that nobody should say that word, but in the context of conversations we should be able to say it. If we're not allowed, nobody is allowed.

This bullshit with black artists selling and perpetuating the N word to make an outward display of being hip with the culture, but then advocating violence against others for even uttering it is disgusting.

I suspect that some of the radical leftists around here would slander me as "white nationalist" for this post.

We have to be careful with this stuff.

Him being a white nationalist has little to do with how much he uses the N word. It has a lot to do with his strong belief that America belongs to white people and the only immigrants that we should be bringing in should be white Europeans.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

Spoiler

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication”, but this right, along with all rights guaranteed by The Charter, is not absolute.

Some types of free expression in Canada are crimes, such as perjury, distributing obscene material, and hate speech. The right to free expression is subject to “reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” Free expression crimes in Canada are constitutional issues, and the onus is on the government to prove that the infringement is justifiable.

However, some limits on free expression in Canada have nothing to do with government restrictions or the right to free expression as defined in the Charter. One such limit is the civil tort of defamation.

Defamation refers to harming another person’s reputation by making a false written or oral statement about that person to a third party. Defamation law is not about protecting pride; it is about protecting reputation and offering restitution to people whose reputations have been wrongly damaged. Although courts will very occasionally issue an injunction to stop defamation that has not yet occurred, almost all defamation cases involve one person suing another for damages from defamatory statements that have already been made.

Tort law surrounding defamation law does not directly curb your right to free expression; it is not illegal per se. Rather, defamation is generally about paying damages to people that have been harmed by your speech. You can still say whatever you want, but you may have to pay for it (and you may have to pay a lot).

It should also be noted that defamation law in Canada varies from province to province. In Ontario, for example, legislation on defamation is found in the Libel and Slander Act. Defamation can be subdivided into libel and slander:

• Libel: defamation with a permanent record, such as an email, a radio or TV broadcast, a newspaper, a website posting, etc.
  
  
• Slander: defamation with no permanent record, such as a spoken statement or even a hand gesture.

If you are suing for libel in Canada, you do not need to prove that you suffered damages—you only need to prove that a false statement with a permanent record was made about you to a third party, and the court will presume that damages were suffered. If you are suing for slander, however, you usually do need to prove that damages were suffered. Proving that slander caused you financial loss is difficult, which is why slander cases are far less common than libel cases. There are a number of legal defenses against defamation:

1. You can claim that the statement was true; a true statement cannot be defamatory.

2. You can claim “absolute privilege,” which means that the communication was made in a venue where people ought to have absolute privilege to speak freely; this includes Parliament or giving evidence in a trial.

3. You can claim “qualified privilege,” which means that the communication was given in a non-malicious and well-intentioned context and therefore ought to be excused: for example, giving an honest but negative reference for a former employee.

4. You can claim “fair comment,” which means that your statement was a non-malicious opinion about a matter of public interest: for example, an editorial in a newspaper about a politician.

5. You can claim “responsible communication on matters of public importance,” which allows journalists to report false allegations if the news is urgent and of public importance, and if the journalist made an effort to verify the information. Even if the statement is false, the public has an interest in this type of discussion being legally permissible.

https://www.cjfe.org/defamation_libel_and_slander_what_are_my_rights_to_free_expression#:~:targetText=Libel: defamation with a permanent,or even a hand gesture.

Defamation and libel convictions are practically non existent in Canada compared to US, so you're missing something here.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

Anti-semitism, absolutely. Global jew control theory is a CT rooted in the far right and ultra-nationalist identities.

I think it use to be, but in the last decade I meet tons of conspiracy theorists on the left. Particularly with regards to the Rothschilds stuff.

 

[all caps]

Apparently Owen had 8-9,000 people watching him on dlive today, whereas he would get 4-5000 on youtube consistently. YouTube really is done.

 

[MardyBum]

Defamation and libel convictions are practically non existent in Canada compared to US, so you're missing something here.

And yet the laws still exist, and you were still incorrect on the difference between Slander and Libel. I agree they're rarely used in Canada, but they're there.

I think it use to be, but in the last decade I meet tons of conspiracy theorists on the left. Particularly with regards to the Rothschilds stuff.

The biggest "jews control the world" CTers on here are conservatives. Nearly all far-right or ultra-nationalist groups in countries like the US or Russia believe in the Jewish Global conspiracy. What liberal groups promote it?

I mean, have you ever read The Turner Diaries'?

 

[MardyBum]

Apparently Owen had 8-9,000 people watching him on dlive today, whereas he would get 4-5000 on youtube consistently. YouTube really is done.

9,000 people.

Wowwwwww.

 

[Happy Man]

Apparently Owen had 8-9,000 people watching him on dlive today, whereas he would get 4-5000 on youtube consistently. YouTube really is done.

good for him!

power to the people, not governments and corporations