8
YesMovement 8 points ago +8 / -0

FUN FACT: According to the Canadian Association of Journalists, you don't have to protect a source if they lied to you- yet CBC won't reveal this source, I wonder why?? https://archive.is/bN0s5

Are there any cases in which it is acceptable or morally advisable to reveal a source?

In certain rare circumstances, yes. When journalists use confidential sources, their contract and their obligation is, as always, first and foremost to the public, not to the source. Revealing a source would be justified, for example, if a government source or agency leaked erroneous information – but only if they knew it to be wrong, not if they too were fooled or misled. Governments, police or other groups often leak information with the deliberate attempt to “spin” the news. If they have lied to you to get their version of the story out, they deserve to be exposed. That is why it is all the more important to check your sources and their motives.

RECOMMENDATION: If a source knowingly lies or hides an important part of the truth about a major issue or fact in the story, your obligation is to the truth, not the source. He or she has broken his contract with you and you can break your promise of confidentiality to the source.

1
YesMovement 1 point ago +1 / -0

Apparently it wasn't true: https://tnc.news/2023/07/06/ontario-trucker-training/

EDITOR’S NOTE: A previous version of this article stated that white males could not apply to this program. This is not the case. We regret this error.

Archive of original: https://archive.is/BTA3Y

5
YesMovement 5 points ago +5 / -0

I was scared about how awful this one would be but Matt Walsh was right again- he was excited for it and while we've had the now standard BS of child drag shows and the cops hunting down people for leaving tire marks on the rainbow road it's been largely a success for normal people.

Muslim Canadians stomping on pride flags when liberals tell them they shouldn't be allowed to stay in the country has been chef's kiss.

5
YesMovement 5 points ago +5 / -0

They dodn't need to go thru them- just unban everyone banned for "harassment", "hate speech" and the other standard BS excuses they used.

Or just unban everyone but CP or spambots and say "everybody now gets a 2nd chance"

26
YesMovement 26 points ago +26 / -0

https://nitter.net/MattWalshBlog/status/1674785411984674816#m

What a great way to end Pride Month. Gay activists do not have the right to force you to work for them. You are not a slave. You have freedom of association. It never should have been necessary to clarify this, but thank God sanity prevailed

https://nitter.net/MattWalshBlog/status/1674785704159879170#m

The Pride Month has been an absolute disaster for the LGBT cult. They’ve taken one L after another. And now it ends with them losing in the Supreme Court. Awesome stuff.

https://nitter.net/MattWalshBlog/status/1674798382223859714#m

Compelling people to work for you against their will is slavery, yes. That’s literally the definition. I know you think you should have the privilege to force people to do anything you want them to do, but the Supreme Court disagrees.

38
YesMovement 38 points ago +38 / -0

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson

Of course they did. All Obama/Biden appointees.

Gorsuch spent some of his majority opinion heavily criticizing Sotomayor’s dissent.

“It is difficult to read the dissent and conclude we are looking at the same case,” Gorsuch wrote.

The question at hand is, “Can a State force someone who provides her own expressive services to abandon her conscience and speak its preferred message instead?” Gorsuch said. “When the dissent finally gets around to that question— more than halfway into its opinion—it reimagines the facts of this case from top to bottom,” he wrote.

“In some places, the dissent gets so turned around about the facts that it opens fire on its own position,” Gorsuch said.

2
YesMovement 2 points ago +2 / -0

Nitter is somewhat borked- you can't see "tweets & replies" just tweets and they no longer get around the "18+ you must be logged in to view"

24
YesMovement 24 points ago +24 / -0

https://archive.is/bFVBe

Critic: Google is stealing

Me: If linking to news is stealing, you must be very pleased that they have promised to stop

Critic: No I wish for them to continue stealing as much as they can but now be required to pay me a handsome fee as compensation for this outrageous theft

27
YesMovement 27 points ago +27 / -0

https://nitter.net/duncandee/status/1674473599044821008#m

Shocking to see just how much damage a single Gov has done to Canadian businesses from media to oil & gas to air transportation & tourism. Is the objective to have all Canadians dependent on public sector jobs?

Yes.

3
YesMovement 3 points ago +3 / -0

They've been doing that for years.

Pre-Musk I don't believe there was anything other than a "plz signup" popup for reading tweets. It was limited to seeing who accounts were following, liking & their media posts.

This is complete blocking- Musk started doing it with searches a few weeks ago and now it's everything.

6
YesMovement 6 points ago +6 / -0

definitely makes it annoying as someone without a Twitter account.

Very annoying for us with banned Twitter accounts that Elon has yet to unban like he promised he would.

20
YesMovement 20 points ago +20 / -0

Lol the host bitch is so stupid.

She was very Cathy Newman-esque:

RFK: points out top 4 vax makers were fined $35 Billion in last 10 yrs for things like bribing doctors to lie about their drugs

CUNT: "So you're saying all doctors are evil liars?"

2
YesMovement 2 points ago +2 / -0

From the US, oddly enough- thru the Roxham Road illegal border crossing.

15
YesMovement 15 points ago +15 / -0

My favorite part of this "restricted event" was that literally dozens of people are seen on camera coming in without even being questioned at all while this 1 reporter must have photos of his ID taken and go on a Tinder date with the officer going over his whole background.

6
YesMovement 6 points ago +6 / -0

None could possibly be more attractive of a woman than "Ash". Nothing makes a woman sexier than male pattern baldness.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›