Fox News North can't launch because regulation against lying in the news won't be repealed

[notyoueither]

One solution... If advertisements try to mimic a "news" story, we have to label them as ADVERTISEMENTS. Maybe Fox News should be forced to run a disclaimer at the bottom of the screen... something like "This may contain lies" or "Total BS" or "If you believe this, you are brain dead"... now that would be interesting

I wish we did that. There are publications that run newsy looking articles that are in fact paid ads.

[Egbert]

I wish we did that. There are publications that run newsy looking articles that are in fact paid ads.

So do we BUT they have to clearly disclose that it is an advertisement.

BTW This requirement has nothing to do with the US constitution, the US courts, George Bush or anything to do with HC's pet cat.

[Asher]

If Thomas Jefferson had his way, you wouldn't have to label fake news article advertisements as advertisements.

[Kuciwalker]

Classic.

Even more classic is that the HuffPo article is lying.

1) Fox News is available in Canada.

2) The proposal wasn't launched by Stephen Harper.

3) The CRA provision has never been enforced and was being repealed because it was viewed as unenforceable.

[Asher]

Even more classic is that the HuffPo article is lying.

Yep, we've covered that.

[Kuciwalker]

I can't be bothered to read an entire thread's worth of your inanity.

[Asher]

It's pretty amusing.

HC is starting to become a fun toy.

[Kuciwalker]

skimming... you are trying to defend a moronic position. His inability (?) to refute it (it's impossible to tell without reading further, because you usually cling to positions long after you've been totally destroyed) doesn't make it any less stupid.

[Kuciwalker]

Also, the Supreme Court of Canada agrees with him.

[Egbert]

I can't be bothered to read an entire thread's worth of your inanity.

As if Asher was the only contributor to this thread. I made some inane posts, I'll have you know.

Inane posts

[Asher]

Also, the Supreme Court of Canada agrees with him.

Doesn't matter. The government is not pressing for the regulation to change, which is passive acceptance. If they ever do want to enforce it, it can be enforced. The majority of Canada supports the regulation. And our constitution is much easier to change than yours.

[notyoueither]

Not really.

[Asher]

skimming... you are trying to defend a moronic position.

There's nothing moronic about preventing people from intentionally misleading the public under the guise of public news.

What is moronic is the idea that allowing such activities is beneficial to society.

[Kuciwalker]

Doesn't matter. The government is not pressing for the regulation to change, which is passive acceptance. If they ever do want to enforce it, it can be enforced.

Not without amending your constitution. The regulation existing on the books is irrelevant if the first time it's used it will trigger an immediate and automatically successful court challenge.

And our constitution is much easier to change than yours.

If no one amended it for Zundel why would they do so for Fox?

[Asher]

Not really.

Eh? The Charter is far easier to change than the US constitution. It's been amended a few times since the 80s. How many times has the American Constitution been amended since the 80s?