Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Town Outlaws Online Insults To Police and Officials
Pig Hogger writes: The Canadian town of Granby, Québec, just strengthened its municipal bylaw that prohibits insulting police officers and town officials by extending its "jurisdiction" to online postings. Fines range from $100 to $1,000. The town's mayor said, "In my opinion, if I threaten you via my keyboard, it's as though I am making that threat right in front of you. For me, it's the same thing." Critics worry about the implications for freedom of speech, and wonder why police and officials should get protection an average citizen does not.
Threats and insults aren't the same thing. What a bunch of idiots, someone should nuke them.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I hope they made it pretty darned clear what exactly constitutes an "insult". Or is it just "posts I don't like"?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
They see their existing privileges and understandably conclude that they are above the plebs.
"For me, it's the same thing". For the rest of us, it's obviously very different. Now shut up and go run your little moon.
*Threats* are already crimes. Opinions are protected by freedom of speech.
Let me be the first to say that the mayor of Granby is an idiot.
This is muslim-like mentality - ban saying something we don't like because our feelings are more important than free speech. I wonder if this Canadian town will take this to Muslim extremes where pointing out any moral issues with the officials, or that they are ineffective in their jobs will be seen as a reason to arrest someone.
The problem is that you're usually offered another lot of idiots to choose from...
Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Caesar answer'd it.
Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest--
For Brutus is an honourable man;
So are they all, all honourable men--
Come I to speak in Caesar's funeral.
He was my friend, faithful and just to me:
But Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.
He hath brought many captives home to Rome
Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill:
Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?
When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept:
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.
You all did see that on the Lupercal
I thrice presented him a kingly crown,
Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And, sure, he is an honourable man.
I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
police injury rates are _much_ higher than most work. According to Governing Magazine they're only surpassed by nursing care, and I can easily believe that.
That is not what your citation says:
Occupations recording the highest injury and illness rates include nursing and residential care facilities, police and fire personnel.
Note the weasel word "including" - there is no inherent ranking there, not even to say that the listed occupations are even at the top. The fact that they don't mention construction, which accounts for 20% of all workplace fatalities, more than any other occupation, suggests that site is being sneaky to promote their own agenda.
I don't really care about the numbers, but if you do, I recommend putting in the effort to analyze the BLS data yourself. I couldn't find an easy summary with less than 2 minutes of googling so I gave up.