Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjunkie
Maybe. Since everyone is so caught up on 'internationally recognized tests', let's review and make sure we are actually using the right language, because the two paragraphs are being conflated.
So b#2 applies much moreso than #1.
Is the science on this 'settled'? Probably not, as there are a lot of caveats with CCS. But if the company can produce sufficient evidence from reliable sources (most likely peer-reviewed publications held in high regard...aka internationally recognized methodology), then sure.
But more likely, as we see is so many other promotional statements, I would expect to see an * that qualifies any statement on a CCS proposal that specifies the scope and parameters.
And you know, we could also just trust that the Competition Bureau is competent, like we do* with most other law enforcement agencies (*for the most part...).
|
I wasn’t getting hung up internationally recognized. It’s more the level of certainty required to make that statement is unclear. It’s clearly had a chilling affect on speech in the short term and while the law is reviewed. When I read the pathways information I didn’t find anything objectionable about it. Yet it’s gone. Did you find anything specifically objectionable about the content there?
So while you say trust the courts to be reasonable, until there is clear understanding of what reasonable is this will have a chilling affect on speech regardless of if courts are reasonable.