Guest MikeSC Report post Posted July 16, 2004 Apparently, Michael Moore came up to Canada and campaigned against Harper for PM. A Canadian business student is now seeking to have the courts charge Moore with violation of Section 331 of the Canadian Elections Act. It will either force Canada to charge Moore --- or to effectively kill the law, and either result would be perfect. www.chargemoore.com I actually think this is brilliant. I don't want to see Moore get charged --- but if doing this kills ANY asinine laws against political speech, I'm completely behind it. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted July 16, 2004 Interesting, actually. I never knew Canada had restrictive laws like that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted July 16, 2004 Interesting, actually. I never knew Canada had restrictive laws like that. From what I've read, it seems like a fairly new law. It forbids non-Canadian citizens from imploring Canadians to vote for or NOT vote for a certain candidate. These laws completely and totally violate the First Amendment (which is also why I want somebody to charge "F 9/11" under the McCain/Feingold Bill --- honestly not to punish Moore, but to hopefully kill that idiotic Alien & Sedition Act for today) -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted July 16, 2004 I've read some columns by John Leo in U.S. News and World Distort that talked about some of Canada's free-speech laws. Makes you glad to be American (no offense to my TSMers north of the border.) From what I've read, it seems like a fairly new law. It forbids non-Canadian citizens from imploring Canadians to vote for or NOT vote for a certain candidate. Can't wait to see Mikey turn this into a Bush-is-creating-a-witchhunt-against-LITTLE-ol'-me campaign... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Highland 0 Report post Posted July 16, 2004 (edited) We have a ridiculously restrictive law, yet was mostly swept under the rug lost amidst the ad scandal. It basically makes it a crime for anyone not of a political party to express views reflected by an established party during an election. Anyway, Section 331 appears to be similar. I'm a huge proponent of free speech and this law is far too broad in its wording. Edited July 16, 2004 by Highland Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanadianChris 0 Report post Posted July 16, 2004 You think that's bad? Before this year, we had a law that made it a criminal offence to report on polling results on election night until all polls were closed in the region the reporting body was in. Apparently, someone at some point thought that people on the west coast would be too lazy to vote if they knew how it was going in the rest of the country. We have some pretty draconian laws when it comes to free speech. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted July 16, 2004 You think that's bad? Before this year, we had a law that made it a criminal offence to report on polling results on election night until all polls were closed in the region the reporting body was in. Apparently, someone at some point thought that people on the west coast would be too lazy to vote if they knew how it was going in the rest of the country I believe we have that law, too. Not sure, but people have told me that we have and it does make sense. People on the west coast tend to give up on voting if one candidate is getting a clear victory on the East. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cheech Tremendous 0 Report post Posted July 16, 2004 That actually sounds like a tremendous idea. I live on the west coast and I hear about so many people being discouraged because they hear the results coming in from the east. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest BDC Report post Posted July 17, 2004 Which is weird considering how heavy of a state Cali. is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cue_meanie 0 Report post Posted July 17, 2004 California is voting Liberal, no matter what happens. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest cobainwasmurdered Report post Posted July 17, 2004 You think that's bad? Before this year, we had a law that made it a criminal offence to report on polling results on election night until all polls were closed in the region the reporting body was in. Apparently, someone at some point thought that people on the west coast would be too lazy to vote if they knew how it was going in the rest of the country. that law makes perfect sense. I live on the west coast. Most of us feel like our votes are meaningless and unless things look close alot of people won't vote. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest combat_rock Report post Posted July 17, 2004 I also like the law. Personally, I think we should all just find out in the morning who won. The media has been fucking up their election night reporting ever sense Truman/Dewey. I've often been amazed at what censorship laws other "free" countries get away with. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slayer 0 Report post Posted July 17, 2004 Interesting, actually. I never knew Canada had restrictive laws like that. From what I've read, it seems like a fairly new law. It forbids non-Canadian citizens from imploring Canadians to vote for or NOT vote for a certain candidate. These laws completely and totally violate the First Amendment Canada doesn't have a First Amendment They may have a Freedom of Speech provision (I think, help me out Northies), but they don't have a First Amendment That's just my anal side talking though Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted July 17, 2004 California is voting Liberal, no matter what happens. Uh, Arnold? Stereotypical voting pattern aside, one in seven Americans is a Californian, and by the time the polls close over here, so many flyover states as well as a few big ones have already had their voice heard that many over here (which is quite a handful of Americans) chooses just not to vote. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Highland 0 Report post Posted July 17, 2004 Interesting, actually. I never knew Canada had restrictive laws like that. From what I've read, it seems like a fairly new law. It forbids non-Canadian citizens from imploring Canadians to vote for or NOT vote for a certain candidate. These laws completely and totally violate the First Amendment Canada doesn't have a First Amendment They may have a Freedom of Speech provision (I think, help me out Northies), but they don't have a First Amendment That's just my anal side talking though We have the same freedoms of speech as you have, which is to say none when you really think about it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted July 17, 2004 I believe we have that law, too. Not sure, but people have told me that we have and it does make sense. People on the west coast tend to give up on voting if one candidate is getting a clear victory on the East. Hmm, I think after 2000 the law now is a state can't be reported on until all its polls are closed -- meaning if a state is in more than one time zone you have to wait until everybody's done voting (like Florida, and I think Indiana is another place with two time zones). Personally, I don't care if someone from CA decides not to vote because their candidate isn't ahead. Fuck that, get your lazy ass out there and vote anyway (unless you were going to vote Democrat, of course). I knew Dole wasn't goining to win PA in '96, but I still voted for him... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
