Lawful Speech
2 posters
R2N :: Archives :: 2018-9 Archives :: Memes
Page 1 of 1
Lawful Speech
by Hobb Fri 26 Jan 2018 - 17:37
Andree Noel, Chair of Canadian Broadcast Standards Council wrote:Further to your complaint in the above-mentioned matter, the CSSC Secretariat has listened to the segment of Rewind Mornings that aired on April 26, 2017 at 8:00 am.
On April 26, hosts Terry Callaghan and Laura Hampshire were discussing a situation in Toronto where a woman had to be rescued after climbing up a construction crane. The hosts had the following exchange:
rc: Uh, they reached her and, uh, they're going to pull her up now and then we'll, I guess we'll find out why she was up there in the first place, right?
LH: Hmm.
TC: Nobody really knows. But. uh, -
LH: I don't think it matters. She's going to get charged with mischief. Hopefully she'll get a bill for the rescue.
rc: Well, that's usually what happens in these kinds of situations.
LH: Exactly.
TC: If you put yourself in the situation -
LH: Mm hm.
TC: - then you're going to get a bill for the rescue. And I tell ya, it's not going to come cheap. And this is why I always say our first responders never get paid enough.
LH: No, definitely not.
TC: Because they have to deal with this.
LH: They have to risk their lives to save the lives of someone who maybe shouldn't have been saved.
Your complaint was that it was inappropriate for Ms. Hampshire to suggest that the woman should not have been saved.
The CBSC Secretariat has examined your complaint under Clause 6 of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters' (CAS) Code of Ethics which requires that broadcasters ensure the "full, fair and proper" presentation of opinion, editorial, news and commentary.
In previous decisions, the CBSC has explained that hosts are entitled to criticize individuals and groups on the basis of their actions or opinions. The CBSB has considered such criticism acceptable even when it has been quite harsh or controversial.(1) For example, in one previous case, a radio host complained about a government-funded program that sent volunteers out to help drug addicts inject
themselves. He objected to the use of public money for that purpose and stated that he did not care if the addicts died because they have made the choice to engage in illegal, high-risk behaviour. The CBSC concluded that the comments were a bit "over the top", but considered them to be in the category of "tough but fair" rather than code-breaching material.(2)
Applying those principles to the matter at hand, the CSSC similarly finds that the comments made on Rewind Mornings were acceptable under the code. At the time of the broadcast, there was speculation that the woman had climbed the crane just to cause mischief or for fun.
Although this had yet to be confirmed, Ms. Hampshire was merely expressing her opinion that it is unfair that first responders sometimes
have to risk their own lives for people who have chosen to put themselves in danger. While likely not shared by all listeners, this was a legitimate opinion on an issue of public interest.
In conclusion, the CSSC Secretariat can see no aspect of this file which requires adjudication by the English Language Panel. If there is, however, any way in which the CSSC may be of help regarding any future issue, please do not hesitate to be in touch.
(1) CKNW-AM re an episode of Adler on Line (CSSC Decision 05/06-0539, May 9, 2006);
CFRS·AM re an episode of the Michael Coren Show (CSSC Decision 06/07-1428, April 14, 2008);
Sportsnet Ontario re comments made on an episode of Prime Time Sports (CSSC Decision 07/08-1500, October 22, 2008}
Sun News Network re Canada Live (Margie Gillis interview) (CSSC Decision 10/11-1803+, December 15, 2011);
Sun News Network re The Source (Idle No More) (CSSC Decision 12/13-0985, October 23, 2013)
(2) CKNW-AM re an episode of Bruce Allen's Reality Check (CSSC Decision 05/06-0651, May 9,2006)
Hobb- Admin
- Posts : 1671
Join date : 2015-03-31
Age : 49
Re: Lawful Speech
by Hobb Fri 26 Jan 2018 - 18:01
Four points
1) It's bizarre to see the CBSC transform the host's plain words that the climber "shouldn't have been saved" if their reason for climbing didn't met her personal criteria into the far-more nuanced concept that "[it is] unfair that first responders sometimes have to risk their own lives for people who have chosen to put themselves in danger."
The host is prompting the concept that there is an acceptable category of people that can be left to die and that is the crux of the complaint. The host was advocating for the possible death and injury of the climber by the withholding of public emergency services. That is a far, far step from worrying about the "unfairness" to emergency responders in answering nuance calls. To call for fines and legal sanctions or to sympathize with emergency crews is one thing - to suggest that life-saving public services be withheld is something far more sinister.
[See https://roadtonowhere.forumotion.org/t564-gaming-and-emotions#2017]
2) After that white-washed rephrasing the rest of their response does actually address the core issue by referencing that if is legal to say you "do not care if addicts died because they have made the choice" and therefore wanted "public money" withheld from helping them. So it is legal to advocate for the death of people on Canadian public airwaves by asking that life-saving public services be withheld from them if the blurry concept of 'choice' is evoked.
3) The CSBC reasoning is that "over the top" calls for killing Canadians by withholding vital public services is "tough but fair". There is a deep corporate/neo-liberal ideology underlying these terms that should probably be unpacked...
4) Time to explore those footnotes....
1) It's bizarre to see the CBSC transform the host's plain words that the climber "shouldn't have been saved" if their reason for climbing didn't met her personal criteria into the far-more nuanced concept that "[it is] unfair that first responders sometimes have to risk their own lives for people who have chosen to put themselves in danger."
The host is prompting the concept that there is an acceptable category of people that can be left to die and that is the crux of the complaint. The host was advocating for the possible death and injury of the climber by the withholding of public emergency services. That is a far, far step from worrying about the "unfairness" to emergency responders in answering nuance calls. To call for fines and legal sanctions or to sympathize with emergency crews is one thing - to suggest that life-saving public services be withheld is something far more sinister.
[See https://roadtonowhere.forumotion.org/t564-gaming-and-emotions#2017]
2) After that white-washed rephrasing the rest of their response does actually address the core issue by referencing that if is legal to say you "do not care if addicts died because they have made the choice" and therefore wanted "public money" withheld from helping them. So it is legal to advocate for the death of people on Canadian public airwaves by asking that life-saving public services be withheld from them if the blurry concept of 'choice' is evoked.
3) The CSBC reasoning is that "over the top" calls for killing Canadians by withholding vital public services is "tough but fair". There is a deep corporate/neo-liberal ideology underlying these terms that should probably be unpacked...
4) Time to explore those footnotes....
Last edited by Hobb on Fri 26 Jan 2018 - 18:34; edited 1 time in total
Hobb- Admin
- Posts : 1671
Join date : 2015-03-31
Age : 49
Re: Lawful Speech
by Hobb Fri 26 Jan 2018 - 18:30
Let me try out the CBSC rules:
"I think that CBSC chairpersons endanger their own lives by making extremely poor ruling and so police and legal protection should be withdrawn from them, so we can chain them in public places where they can killed and eaten by those people they themselves were willing to condemn to death.
I look forward to seeing the youtube videos of 'drug addicts' killing the CBSC chair and I think all Canadian should join me in holding this viewpoint. No more misspending of public money on protecting such people from the consequences of their unwise actions."
I think this fulfills the CBSC criteria:
1) The victims own actions endangered them
2) Without publicly-funded services they would suffer the consequence of their actions
3) I'm over the top.
4) I'm tough but fair.
If I wanted to be less over-the-top than replace "CSBC chairs" with "reporters who promote military invasions that are illegal according to international law"....
"I think that CBSC chairpersons endanger their own lives by making extremely poor ruling and so police and legal protection should be withdrawn from them, so we can chain them in public places where they can killed and eaten by those people they themselves were willing to condemn to death.
I look forward to seeing the youtube videos of 'drug addicts' killing the CBSC chair and I think all Canadian should join me in holding this viewpoint. No more misspending of public money on protecting such people from the consequences of their unwise actions."
I think this fulfills the CBSC criteria:
1) The victims own actions endangered them
2) Without publicly-funded services they would suffer the consequence of their actions
3) I'm over the top.
4) I'm tough but fair.
If I wanted to be less over-the-top than replace "CSBC chairs" with "reporters who promote military invasions that are illegal according to international law"....
Hobb- Admin
- Posts : 1671
Join date : 2015-03-31
Age : 49
Re: Lawful Speech
by Hobb Sat 27 Jan 2018 - 15:39
Wow - I'm going through theses cases and I had not realized how spiteful and de-humanizing radio hosts in Canada had become... 
Hobb- Admin
- Posts : 1671
Join date : 2015-03-31
Age : 49
Re: Lawful Speech
by just_sum_guy Sat 27 Jan 2018 - 15:50
Excellent topic and fantastic material to dig into. Many thanks for posting this. I will leave the social / cultural phenomenon behind this in your capable hands. 
For all intents and purposes, the following is simply an opinion and I would be open to feedback and clarification if I misconstrue.
At 1st glance, I'm seeing the typical "look at what this hand is doing" tactic along with failing to isolate the code with subject of complaint.
While accurate, it is not in my opinion, a wholly accurate description of the issues and what section of the code the complaint may fall within.
CODE OF ETHICS
Clause 2 - Human Rights
Recognizing that every person has the right to full and equal recognition and to enjoy certain fundamental rights and freedoms, broadcasters shall ensure that their programming contains no abusive or unduly discriminatory material or comment which is based on matters of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status or physical or mental disability.
Clause 7 - Controversial Public Issues
Recognizing in a democracy the necessity of presenting all sides of a public issue, it shall be the responsibility of broadcasters to treat fairly all subjects of a controversial nature. Time shall be allotted with due regard to all the other elements of balanced program schedules, and the degree of public interest in the questions presented. Recognizing that healthy controversy is essential to the maintenance of democratic institutions, broadcasters will endeavour to encourage the presentation of news and opinion on any controversy which contains an element of the public interest.
I think that has yet to be determined by the CAB
Considering that Ms. Hampshire was never even asked about the issue / complaint, it seems there was a failure to make a full and proper investigation into the matter. The CAB failed to understand the pith and substance of the complaint and failed to properly consider under which sections of the code were applicable to the subject of complaint.
On a side note, the member seems to be parroting Mrs. Lovejoy from the Simpsons... "Won't someone please think of the Children?!?!?" This is more commonly and easily repackaged now. ie. "Won't someone please think of the [insert outrage subject here]?!?!?" In this case. 1st responders...but I digress....
So, should the CAB have considered the issue controversial? It does acknowledge that it is a matter of public interest, but controversial? Of course it is! Just a quick google search will identify that this has been ongoing for years. Above you alluded to the issue of drug addiction and people wanting to let them die should they OD.
Should adventurers rescued by public services be responsible for covering the cost?
Pressure mounts to bill lost skiers for rescue costs
Who should pay for backcountry search and rescue?
Now, the above is related to thrill seekers and how it affects the public purse for actions by individuals who aren't in any way compromised in making those choices. Separate, but correlative to the degree that the public is trying to quantify the cost of human life and whether that cost should be borne by them, the taxpayer. It's a curiously morbid concept to me.
The situation with the woman on the crane is different and has a plethora of unknown elements. The issue was one of emergency and someone who was in distress. It's the duty and obligation of 1st responders to act in those circumstances. To opine, like Ms. Hampshire alluded to, that a "stupid" action dictates whether human life has value or not, is not only offensive, but morally and ethically bankrupt when referring to the sanctity of human life. To define that value / quantum of human life and break it down to numbers is controversial but more commonplace than many would like to admit.
It seems Ms. Hampshire is alluding to certain actions by persons, which dictate whether you can / should live or die. To say that decision making, whether impaired or otherwise should dictate life or death has been around for some time and the justice system has grappled this, but it's far from resolved and properly defined. To do as Ms. Hampshire has done, well, it's a radical view that fails to consider the principle behind the sanctity of human life. The last time I checked we all have a right to life in this country.
If Ms. Hampshire wants to opine that if she was "god", stupidity would be eliminated and life snuffed based on mistakes or bad choices, so be it....but where's the other side?
Where's the voice of sanity, logic, compassion and consideration for human life? Fairness? Balance? Largely absent from the transcript that's been posted.
Sounds like the preliminary process in which a member determines the validity of complaint to send to adjudication. It should be possible to send another letter capturing the other aspects of the code, alluding to the lack of a proper investigation, narrowing in on the issue of complaint with a few more specifics and ask for a reconsideration if there is any desire to pursue further.
For all intents and purposes, the following is simply an opinion and I would be open to feedback and clarification if I misconstrue.
At 1st glance, I'm seeing the typical "look at what this hand is doing" tactic along with failing to isolate the code with subject of complaint.
The CBSC Secretariat has examined your complaint under Clause 6 of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters' (CAS) Code of Ethics which requires that broadcasters ensure the "full, fair and proper" presentation of opinion, editorial, news and commentary.
While accurate, it is not in my opinion, a wholly accurate description of the issues and what section of the code the complaint may fall within.
CODE OF ETHICS
Clause 2 - Human Rights
Recognizing that every person has the right to full and equal recognition and to enjoy certain fundamental rights and freedoms, broadcasters shall ensure that their programming contains no abusive or unduly discriminatory material or comment which is based on matters of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status or physical or mental disability.
Clause 7 - Controversial Public Issues
Recognizing in a democracy the necessity of presenting all sides of a public issue, it shall be the responsibility of broadcasters to treat fairly all subjects of a controversial nature. Time shall be allotted with due regard to all the other elements of balanced program schedules, and the degree of public interest in the questions presented. Recognizing that healthy controversy is essential to the maintenance of democratic institutions, broadcasters will endeavour to encourage the presentation of news and opinion on any controversy which contains an element of the public interest.
- Was there consideration for the woman and her circumstances? Even basic Human rights applicable to CAB code of ethics?
- Was an opposing view on this controversial issue of public interest provided?
- Was she afforded and given fairness and a balanced opinion in this little spot?
- Was there a modicum of consideration given in the circumstances? This could be a simple comment such as "We don't know all the information at this time, so let's just be glad nobody was hurt?"
- Was the woman on the crane given full, fair and proper consideration as per the Code?
- Was this woman asked for comment or her opinion on the issue? (Not sure if it would be required, but should it be?)
I think that has yet to be determined by the CAB
Although this had yet to be confirmed, Ms. Hampshire was merely expressing her opinion that it is unfair that first responders sometimes
have to risk their own lives for people who have chosen to put themselves in danger. While likely not shared by all listeners, this was a legitimate opinion on an issue of public interest.
Considering that Ms. Hampshire was never even asked about the issue / complaint, it seems there was a failure to make a full and proper investigation into the matter. The CAB failed to understand the pith and substance of the complaint and failed to properly consider under which sections of the code were applicable to the subject of complaint.
On a side note, the member seems to be parroting Mrs. Lovejoy from the Simpsons... "Won't someone please think of the Children?!?!?" This is more commonly and easily repackaged now. ie. "Won't someone please think of the [insert outrage subject here]?!?!?" In this case. 1st responders...but I digress....
So, should the CAB have considered the issue controversial? It does acknowledge that it is a matter of public interest, but controversial? Of course it is! Just a quick google search will identify that this has been ongoing for years. Above you alluded to the issue of drug addiction and people wanting to let them die should they OD.
Should adventurers rescued by public services be responsible for covering the cost?
Pressure mounts to bill lost skiers for rescue costs
Who should pay for backcountry search and rescue?
Now, the above is related to thrill seekers and how it affects the public purse for actions by individuals who aren't in any way compromised in making those choices. Separate, but correlative to the degree that the public is trying to quantify the cost of human life and whether that cost should be borne by them, the taxpayer. It's a curiously morbid concept to me.
The situation with the woman on the crane is different and has a plethora of unknown elements. The issue was one of emergency and someone who was in distress. It's the duty and obligation of 1st responders to act in those circumstances. To opine, like Ms. Hampshire alluded to, that a "stupid" action dictates whether human life has value or not, is not only offensive, but morally and ethically bankrupt when referring to the sanctity of human life. To define that value / quantum of human life and break it down to numbers is controversial but more commonplace than many would like to admit.
It seems Ms. Hampshire is alluding to certain actions by persons, which dictate whether you can / should live or die. To say that decision making, whether impaired or otherwise should dictate life or death has been around for some time and the justice system has grappled this, but it's far from resolved and properly defined. To do as Ms. Hampshire has done, well, it's a radical view that fails to consider the principle behind the sanctity of human life. The last time I checked we all have a right to life in this country.
If Ms. Hampshire wants to opine that if she was "god", stupidity would be eliminated and life snuffed based on mistakes or bad choices, so be it....but where's the other side?
Where's the voice of sanity, logic, compassion and consideration for human life? Fairness? Balance? Largely absent from the transcript that's been posted.
In conclusion, the CSSC Secretariat can see no aspect of this file which requires adjudication by the English Language Panel. If there is, however, any way in which the CSSC may be of help regarding any future issue, please do not hesitate to be in touch.
Sounds like the preliminary process in which a member determines the validity of complaint to send to adjudication. It should be possible to send another letter capturing the other aspects of the code, alluding to the lack of a proper investigation, narrowing in on the issue of complaint with a few more specifics and ask for a reconsideration if there is any desire to pursue further.
Last edited by just_sum_guy on Sun 28 Jan 2018 - 2:22; edited 9 times in total
just_sum_guy- Posts : 54
Join date : 2015-07-02
Age : 52
Re: Lawful Speech
by just_sum_guy Sat 27 Jan 2018 - 15:55
Hobb wrote:Wow - I'm going through theses cases and I had not realized how spiteful and de-humanizing radio hosts in Canada had become...
Are there any there you can't find? I downloaded them in word format and can send by email. Not sure if I'm able or you want me to post any.
Is there something in them that really sticks out?
just_sum_guy- Posts : 54
Join date : 2015-07-02
Age : 52
Re: Lawful Speech
by Hobb Tue 30 Jan 2018 - 13:13
Here is a link to the CABC 2002 code of ethics - http://www.cbsc.ca/codes/cab-code-of-ethics/ for anyone else interested
Here is a link to the CBSC previous decisions - http://www.cbsc.ca/decisions/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part of the problem is that format for presenting news on most music stations is to read some wire-service story and then have the host banter and make a few moralist quips. This practice sounds innocent but it directly violates clause 5 "They shall also ensure that news broadcasts are not editorial" and leads to daily violations of clauses 6 & 7 because the hosts are constantly editorializing on issues with no time allotted for even a pretense of balance. It is an industry practice that leads to endless abuse.
Part of the original complaint was arguing that this 'banter' was editorializing and had to be judged as such. I can't tell if their acceptance and ruling is de facto recognition of this - but it seems to be.
Footnotes
Here is a link to the CBSC previous decisions - http://www.cbsc.ca/decisions/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part of the problem is that format for presenting news on most music stations is to read some wire-service story and then have the host banter and make a few moralist quips. This practice sounds innocent but it directly violates clause 5 "They shall also ensure that news broadcasts are not editorial" and leads to daily violations of clauses 6 & 7 because the hosts are constantly editorializing on issues with no time allotted for even a pretense of balance. It is an industry practice that leads to endless abuse.
Part of the original complaint was arguing that this 'banter' was editorializing and had to be judged as such. I can't tell if their acceptance and ruling is de facto recognition of this - but it seems to be.
Footnotes
Hobb- Admin
- Posts : 1671
Join date : 2015-03-31
Age : 49
Re: Lawful Speech
by Hobb Tue 30 Jan 2018 - 14:08
FOOTNOTES
Justifying that hosts are entitled to be "quite harsh or controversial" in their criticism.
1) The 'Adler on Line' host screaming at a striking teacher who called into to discuss the strike that are stupid and should be fired.
"Brent, are you stupid?! Do you understand what the rule of law is?! I’d like to sue your pants off if you’re teaching anybody! ... I’m sorry, Brent, you don’t matter! You are the problem, Brent! from my perspective, little old me, I hope you never go back to the classroom!"
[CKNW-AM re an episode of Adler on Line (CSSC Decision 05/06-0539, May 9, 2006)]
2) Michael Coren stating that we should kill the moronic, cretinous pit-bull owning poor - lol jk!
"Everyone who owns a pit-bull is a cretin. Like a moron, slightly less intelligent. I’ve never, ever even seen a pit-bull owner who was anything other than, than a moron. They’re just going to go out and, you know, get their cheap beer and play bingo, whatever they do. We can have a public hunt, I suppose, of pit-bulls. We can charge. Reduce the financial problems of the City of Toronto. Not only should we take the pit-bulls away ... I'm serious about this ... not hurt them but kill them ... don't inflict pain on them ... and the owners ... kill them ... but inflict pain ... no, no, no obviously you can't do do that ... would it be more fun to shoot pit-bulls or their owners ... no ... I'm only joking ..."
[CFRS•AM re an episode of the Michael Coren Show (CSSC Decision 06/07-1428, April 14, 2008);]
3) A sports host relishing in physical injuries to players
A clip is repeatedly shown where a player "struggles to get up, but did manage to walk off the ice. A medic was shown attending to his mouth." To which the host comments, "I loved it! I was waitin’ for his head to roll all the way down the ice with his helmet and see which one got farther."
[Sportsnet Ontario re comments made on an episode of Prime Time Sports (CSSC Decision 07/08-1500, October 22, 2008}]
4) Sun Media ambushes a guest invited on to defend arts funding:
"Sun News displayed on the screen the dollar amounts of various government-administered grants that Gillis and her dance foundation had received since 1998. The host waved her arms to imitate Gillis’ style of dance and played a clip of a statement Gillis saying she no longer felt she was living in a compassionate society and asked her if she felt that Canada had not demonstrated sufficient compassion by giving her large amounts of government grants and by sending soldiers to fight and die in Afghanistan (?!?). Gillis asserted that her comment had not at all meant to refer to the compassion of, or 'ultimate sacrifice' made by, Canadian soldiers."
[Sun News Network re Canada Live (Margie Gillis interview) (CSSC Decision 10/11-1803+, December 15, 2011);]
5) Ezra Levant falsely accuses two people of "breaking the law" and being "not Indian" at an Idle No More protest. Their names are read out and their facebook photos are aired. The two people smeared were in a different city at the time of the protest. A pissy half-apology was sufficient recourse:
"Remember the episode we did when we tried to identify some of the angry, left-wing activists who were protesting outside the Sun’s office last month? [clips of the episode are visible on a television set in the background] Well, we thought that a couple of the activists outside were the husband and wife team of protestors named [S. S.] and [D. M.]. They’ve got a history of protesting - for example, they were down at the illegal blockade of a rail line during the Idle No More protests in Sarnia. Well, [S.] wrote to us saying that her [sic] and her husband weren’t even in Toronto. We originally compared other photos of them to our footage and believed it was them, but I’ll take [S.]s’ word for it."
[{Sun News Network re The Source (Idle No More) (CSSC Decision 12/13-0985, October 23, 2013)]
Justifying "over the top" but "tough but fair" calls for humans to be left to die
Radio hosts call for "human vermin" to be killed to prevent them "suck more dough out of the public purse":
"Well here’s the newest way we’ve come up to look after those junkies who have nothing to do but eat up public money and turn our city
into a pig sty. We now have groups of volunteers who roam the back alleys on the East Side looking for drug addicts. Forty people out there trying to keep this human vermin alive to suck more dough out of the public purse. What’s the down side if these people don’t get their fix? They die? Yeah, so? Are we losing big contributors here? There’s something terribly wrong about people out there making sure that our junkie population is well looked after drug-wise. Maybe if we got rid of those would-be guardian angels, the drug problem would decrease."
[CKNW-AM re an episode of Bruce Allen's Reality Check (CSSC Decision 05/06-0651, May 9,2006)]
Justifying that hosts are entitled to be "quite harsh or controversial" in their criticism.
1) The 'Adler on Line' host screaming at a striking teacher who called into to discuss the strike that are stupid and should be fired.
"Brent, are you stupid?! Do you understand what the rule of law is?! I’d like to sue your pants off if you’re teaching anybody! ... I’m sorry, Brent, you don’t matter! You are the problem, Brent! from my perspective, little old me, I hope you never go back to the classroom!"
[CKNW-AM re an episode of Adler on Line (CSSC Decision 05/06-0539, May 9, 2006)]
2) Michael Coren stating that we should kill the moronic, cretinous pit-bull owning poor - lol jk!
"Everyone who owns a pit-bull is a cretin. Like a moron, slightly less intelligent. I’ve never, ever even seen a pit-bull owner who was anything other than, than a moron. They’re just going to go out and, you know, get their cheap beer and play bingo, whatever they do. We can have a public hunt, I suppose, of pit-bulls. We can charge. Reduce the financial problems of the City of Toronto. Not only should we take the pit-bulls away ... I'm serious about this ... not hurt them but kill them ... don't inflict pain on them ... and the owners ... kill them ... but inflict pain ... no, no, no obviously you can't do do that ... would it be more fun to shoot pit-bulls or their owners ... no ... I'm only joking ..."
[CFRS•AM re an episode of the Michael Coren Show (CSSC Decision 06/07-1428, April 14, 2008);]
3) A sports host relishing in physical injuries to players
A clip is repeatedly shown where a player "struggles to get up, but did manage to walk off the ice. A medic was shown attending to his mouth." To which the host comments, "I loved it! I was waitin’ for his head to roll all the way down the ice with his helmet and see which one got farther."
[Sportsnet Ontario re comments made on an episode of Prime Time Sports (CSSC Decision 07/08-1500, October 22, 2008}]
4) Sun Media ambushes a guest invited on to defend arts funding:
"Sun News displayed on the screen the dollar amounts of various government-administered grants that Gillis and her dance foundation had received since 1998. The host waved her arms to imitate Gillis’ style of dance and played a clip of a statement Gillis saying she no longer felt she was living in a compassionate society and asked her if she felt that Canada had not demonstrated sufficient compassion by giving her large amounts of government grants and by sending soldiers to fight and die in Afghanistan (?!?). Gillis asserted that her comment had not at all meant to refer to the compassion of, or 'ultimate sacrifice' made by, Canadian soldiers."
[Sun News Network re Canada Live (Margie Gillis interview) (CSSC Decision 10/11-1803+, December 15, 2011);]
5) Ezra Levant falsely accuses two people of "breaking the law" and being "not Indian" at an Idle No More protest. Their names are read out and their facebook photos are aired. The two people smeared were in a different city at the time of the protest. A pissy half-apology was sufficient recourse:
"Remember the episode we did when we tried to identify some of the angry, left-wing activists who were protesting outside the Sun’s office last month? [clips of the episode are visible on a television set in the background] Well, we thought that a couple of the activists outside were the husband and wife team of protestors named [S. S.] and [D. M.]. They’ve got a history of protesting - for example, they were down at the illegal blockade of a rail line during the Idle No More protests in Sarnia. Well, [S.] wrote to us saying that her [sic] and her husband weren’t even in Toronto. We originally compared other photos of them to our footage and believed it was them, but I’ll take [S.]s’ word for it."
[{Sun News Network re The Source (Idle No More) (CSSC Decision 12/13-0985, October 23, 2013)]
Justifying "over the top" but "tough but fair" calls for humans to be left to die
Radio hosts call for "human vermin" to be killed to prevent them "suck more dough out of the public purse":
"Well here’s the newest way we’ve come up to look after those junkies who have nothing to do but eat up public money and turn our city
into a pig sty. We now have groups of volunteers who roam the back alleys on the East Side looking for drug addicts. Forty people out there trying to keep this human vermin alive to suck more dough out of the public purse. What’s the down side if these people don’t get their fix? They die? Yeah, so? Are we losing big contributors here? There’s something terribly wrong about people out there making sure that our junkie population is well looked after drug-wise. Maybe if we got rid of those would-be guardian angels, the drug problem would decrease."
[CKNW-AM re an episode of Bruce Allen's Reality Check (CSSC Decision 05/06-0651, May 9,2006)]
Hobb- Admin
- Posts : 1671
Join date : 2015-03-31
Age : 49
Re: Lawful Speech
by Hobb Wed 31 Jan 2018 - 19:14
Hobb wrote:Wow - I'm going through theses cases and I had not realized how spiteful and de-humanizing radio hosts in Canada had become... Shocked
Is there something in them that really sticks out?
http://www.cbsc.ca/cfny-fm-re-the-dean-blundell-show-remembrance-day-protest/
CBSC wrote:A group of people had attended the Remembrance Day ceremony to protest Canada’s military involvement in Afghanistan. On the audio clip, one could hear women shouting about “freedom” and the “illegal occupation”. Blundell commented that he thought they were Afghan women. He referred to the female protestors repeatedly as “bitches” and “skanks”.
Blundell and his co-hosts then described that the videoclip showed a man who “basically walked up and just drilled” one of the men protesting. Blundell and Shapiro repeatedly and enthusiastically expressed approval for what Logan had done. In his view, this type of “vigilante justice” was “fair” and that “when you’re spitting in the face of people that have lost so much" [despite no mention or evidence of spitting]
They asked for details about how hard, how many times and where Logan had hit the protestor. They commended Logan for his actions with comments like “Oh, you dummied him!”, “Good for him!”, “I’m lovin’ it, man!”, “thanks for doin’ that” and “good ol’ Canadian boy!”. They also asked Logan whether he got “laid” by his girlfriend afterwards because she was proud of him, to which Logan answered in the affirmative."
Going through these reports, if they have any political edge to them (i.e not just complaining about contest rules or nudity) they are almost all uniformly about aggressive right-wing hosts 'punching downwards' by attacking strikers, protesters, minorities and anyone in favor of public funding for anything but the police & military. Most of which the CBSC has absolutely no problem with, being a bunch of wealthy corporate hacks who also hate the same things!
CSBC Ruling wrote:CBSC has established, the word “bitch” can be broadcast at any time of day; as for the word “skank”, the Panel finds that it falls into same category.
CSBC Ruling wrote: Calling drug addicts "human vermin" who should be killed to prevent them "suck more dough out of the public purse" is "tough but fair"
CSBC Ruling wrote: A radio host screaming at a striking teacher that are "stupid" and should be sued and fired is legal
CSBC Ruling wrote: Airing false information accusing innocent people of "breaking the law" is legal if you later apologize
Hobb- Admin
- Posts : 1671
Join date : 2015-03-31
Age : 49
R2N :: Archives :: 2018-9 Archives :: Memes
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum