2006-11-07

Toronto Debate Question (in French): Should the federal government regulate the content offered on the Internet? Gerard Kennedy (in French): Yes.

1:11:00 into the debate. (Google the error message if you can't open it).

The YouTube link I posted earlier missed the best part (the question):

In French (my translation):
Question: Should the federal government continue to regulate the contents of the electronic press? Should the federal government regulate the content offered on the Internet? Should foreign ownership rules continue to apply?

Gerard Kennedy: Yes. The short answer is yes. A federal government presence is necessary to regulate the contents of the Internet and new forms of communication. Switched to English (see English version).

Original quote:
La réponse simple est oui. Il est necessaire d'avoir une presence du gouvernement fédéral, de réglementer le contenu de l'Internet et des nouvelles technologies.

Earlier post: The CRTC Should Regulate the Internet: Gerard Kennedy

9 comments:

Devon said...

So you are not for stopping child pornography and other illegal activities? And if you are against such actions, what do you propose? Regulations perhaps? Such as the regulations that are in existant today?

If you pose the argument, that Gerard wants to control the internet to enhance Canadian culture that can mean a simple regulation such as a department dedicating to publish Canadian content.

I honestly do not understand how your little world works and what method you use instead of logic. How old are you?

Altavistagoogle said...

Gerard Kennedy was not talking about curently illegal activities. He was talking about regulating the Internet in a similar way as is television and radio.

A department dedicated to publish Canadian content is not regulation.

Kennedy didn't say he wanted "a" regulation, he wanted "to" regulate the Internet.

The question was clear and so was the answer.

Devon said...

So are you to say regulating criminal activity on the internet is not regulating?

And you are to assume Kennedy did not refer to criminal activity or the policies I mentioned?

You in no way responded to my comment, let me publish it again:2 Comments -Show Original Post
Collapse comments


Devon said...
So you are not for stopping child pornography and other illegal activities? And if you are against such actions, what do you propose? Regulations perhaps? Such as the regulations that are in existant today?

If you pose the argument, that Gerard wants to control the internet to enhance Canadian culture that can mean simple regulations such as a department dedicating to publish Canadian content.

I honestly do not understand how your little world works and what method you use instead of logic.

How old are you?

NOW ANSWER, especially the age question.

Altavistagoogle said...

Child pornagraphy, in any medium, is illegal. Illegal activities are illegal, Internet or not.

The question asked at the debate had to with regulating the content of the Internet, such as the CRTC regulates content on TV and radio.

Kennedy was very clear and said "Yes, the government should regulate the content of the Internet."

I'm older than you Devon, but I'm not sure how that it relevant to anything.

Devon said...

Age wasn't relevant to the discussion, its just nice to know.

But as you did not understand my comment a second time let me state it a third.

If you pose the argument, that Gerard wants to control the internet to enhance Canadian culture that can mean simple regulations such as a department dedicating to publish Canadian content.

Regulate does not mean control. Canada regulates crime, does it control it?

You make Kennedy into a straw-man. If you look at the superficial, let alone the real meaning of what he said it is quite clear.

I inquired about age because I think it is odd someone older then 18 has such an obvious propensity to reach illogical conclusions.

Rob Huck said...

reg?u?late? [reg-yuh-leyt]
?verb (used with object), -lat?ed, -lat?ing.
1. to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.

Altavistagoogle said...

And since it was asked and he answered in French:

Réglementer: Assujettir à un ensemble de règles, organiser. (Micro Robert).

Devon said...

Both you and Rob are poor arguers and just demonstrated lying.

A lie is not telling the whole truth, and that is exactly what you both did.

Go pick up a dictionary, or to dictionary.com. You'll find this definition:

reg?u?late? /?r?gy??le?t/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[reg-yuh-leyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

?verb (used with object), -lat?ed, -lat?ing. 1. to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.: to regulate household expenses.
2. to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.: to regulate the temperature.
3. to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch.
4. to put in good order: to regulate the digestion.


You chose one of four possible definitions. You lied.

You have demonstrated not only weak arguments as you've retreated to foul methods, but you are a liar.

Altavistagoogle said...

Devon, I can assure you that in the Micro Robert, there is only one definition.

Why haven't you approved the comment I left on your blog? If you don't let me comment on your blog, I fail to see why I should let you comment on mine.

Labels

Canada (204) Internet (124) TV (104) iPhone (103) World (99) Liberal Party (65) New Brunswick (44) OUI (43) Ipod touch (33) Media (33) haha (29) Bus (26) Environment (16) StreetView (16) La politique (15) Twitter (15) Travel (12) wmtc (12) Books (11) iPad (11) Gadgets (10) Cancer (7) Monde (6) tetesaclaques (6) HOC (5) Shoshana (4) Games (2) Index (1) tac (1)

Twitter Updates

Places to See