Trump 'authorizing Full Force, if necessary' as military deploys to another US city

[UltraBudgie]

Not to be a pop-up MOD, but the Republic isn't dead, or we wouldn't have a board like this

So you think this board couldn't exists in, for example, Canada? That's not a republic. There is an actually definition you know, not just "muh freedom". This board has plenty of participants from around the world.

seems to mimic today's youth in some ways by being manic and antisocial paranoid twits.

Yeah, stay in your lane, Portland! Just be weird. Manic and antisocial paranoid twit is my jam!

[DBCowboy]

So you think this board couldn't exists in, for example, Canada? That's not a republic. There is an actually definition you know, not just "muh freedom". This board has plenty of participants from around the world.


Yeah, stay in your lane, Portland! Just be weird. Manic and antisocial paranoid twit is my jam!

Illegal aliens are against the law.

QED

[putnam6]

So you think this board couldn't exists in, for example, Canada? That's not a republic. There is an actually definition you know, not just "muh freedom". This board has plenty of participants from around the world.


Yeah, stay in your lane, Portland! Just be weird. Manic and antisocial paranoid twit is my jam!

My dementia comes and goes, and Im not 100% but Im pretty sure

Half the non-Americans here, Ive been reading thier posts for years on ATS 

Show me just one Canadian example of a conservativish message board, and I won't start a thread or post replies for a month... 

and a real message board, im not talking about the political section of some survivalist blog north of Edmonton with 19 members... 

I mostly enjoy your posts, have no doubt you are intelligent AF... 

I don't want to stop your jam, man.
Just spread your "jam" liberally as hell as you want
on your slice of bread...
not the whole loaf 



FWIW....

Does Canada have stricter message boards and social media standards than the US

In summary, yes—Canada has (and is pursuing) stricter standards, driven by harm-prevention priorities over absolute platform protections. This could lead to more censored but safer spaces, though at the risk of chilling speech.
 
 
Overview of Regulations
Canada and the United States both regulate online content to varying degrees, but their approaches differ fundamentally due to constitutional priorities. The U.S. emphasizes broad free speech protections under the First Amendment, leading to lighter-touch federal standards that largely shield platforms from liability. Canada, while also valuing freedom of expression (under Section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms), prioritizes combating harms like hate speech and child exploitation, resulting in more proactive regulatory mandates on platforms. This makes Canada's framework stricter overall for content moderation on social media and message boards (e.g., forums, chatrooms, bulletin boards).
Key differences stem from:

• Platform Liability: U.S. law protects platforms; Canadian law imposes duties on them.
  
• Scope: Canada targets specific "harmful" categories with enforcement bodies; the U.S. relies on general laws without dedicated online moderation regulators.
  
• Enforcement: Canada introduces fines and commissions for non-compliance; U.S. efforts are fragmented and often challenged in court.
  

As of October 2025, Canada's Online Harms Act (proposed in Bill C-63, 2024) died on the order paper in January 2025 but remains a priority for reintroduction, signaling ongoing momentum for stricter rules. No equivalent comprehensive U.S. federal law exists.
Comparison Table
Aspect
Canada
United States
Primary Framework
Online Harms Act (proposed; focuses on 7 harmful content types: child sexual victimization, non-consensual intimate content, child bullying/self-harm, hate-fomenting, violence incitement, violent extremism/terrorism). Applies to social media, forums, livestreams, and adult content services accessible in Canada.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (1996): Shields platforms from liability for user-generated content and allows voluntary moderation without penalty. No federal "harms" act; relies on existing laws (e.g., COPPA for child privacy, FTC enforcement for deception).
Platform Duties
- Duty to mitigate exposure to harmful content via design features (e.g., age verification, flagging tools). - Remove child exploitation/non-consensual content within 24 hours of notice. - Submit annual transparency reports on moderation. - Special protections for children (e.g., default restrictions).
- Voluntary moderation encouraged but not mandated. - Must remove illegal content (e.g., CSAM via NCMEC reporting) but no broad duties for "harmful" speech. - State laws (e.g., Florida/Texas) attempt to limit moderation but face First Amendment challenges.
Liability for Platforms
Platforms held accountable; fines up to 6% of global revenue for non-compliance. Digital Safety Commission enforces audits, orders, and penalties.
Immunity for third-party content; moderation decisions are protected as editorial speech. Reforms proposed (e.g., EARN IT Act) but stalled.
User Liability
Individuals liable for posting hate speech (amendments to Criminal Code and Human Rights Act); complaints can lead to fines or removal.
Users liable for illegal posts (e.g., defamation, threats), but platforms not vicariously responsible.
Message Boards/Forums
Explicitly included as "social media services" if they enable public sharing; same duties apply (e.g., mitigate hate/bullying).
Protected under Section 230; forums can moderate freely without liability risk.
Child Protection
Strict: Platforms must prevent child exposure to harms; mandatory reporting and design safeguards.
COPPA (1998) requires parental consent for data collection from kids under 13; KOSA (proposed 2024) aims for broader harms but not passed.
Free Speech Balance
Charter limits allow restrictions on harms; critics argue overreach (e.g., vague "hate" definitions).
First Amendment strongly protects "lawful but awful" speech; government pressure on platforms (e.g., via jawboning) is litigated as coercion.
Recent Developments
Bill C-63 (2024) lapsed but slated for rewrite/reintroduction in 2025; Online News Act (2023) forces platform-news payments, leading to blocks.
Supreme Court cases (e.g., Moody v. NetChoice, 2024) uphold platform moderation rights; no major federal overhauls.
Key Substantiations

• Stricter in Canada: The proposed Online Harms Act creates a "duty of care" for platforms, requiring proactive risk assessments and removals—absent in the U.S. This aligns with global trends (e.g., UK's Online Safety Act) but exceeds U.S. laissez-faire approach. Canada's human rights framework also criminalizes more online hate speech than U.S. equivalents.
  
• U.S. Leniency: Section 230 fosters innovation by avoiding mandatory moderation, but critics say it enables harms; state attempts at stricter rules (e.g., anti-censorship laws) are often struck down.
  
• Implications for Message Boards: In Canada, forums must comply with harms duties, potentially increasing moderation burdens. In the U.S., they enjoy broad immunity, allowing lighter standards.
  

In summary, yes—Canada has (and is pursuing) stricter standards, driven by harm-prevention priorities over absolute platform protections. This could lead to more censored but safer spaces, though at the risk of chilling speech. For the latest on Bill C-63's revival, monitor Canadian parliamentary updates.

[Video: https://youtu.be/ScxZwXH09Ws?si=8BqbPqHm4rzFPdnn]

[Bush Master]

I agree with many of those points.

ICE has a job to do, whether people like it or not, this is one of the major issues voted on. There is no question there is an illegal immigrant problem in the US, and it hurts both our country, and many of the immigrants who end up being exploited.

For people who violently interfere with that, I agree that's illegal and they should be arrested.

The issues I start to have is when people lose sight of how rights are supposed to be weighed. Individual>State>Federal. This is why the political compass is not just left and right. It is also authoritarian and libertarian.

Sadly, many who used to champion individual and state rights over federal, and trying to lessen the power of the federal government are happy to wield it now that they're in power. And while it may not be as alarming as many claim it is now with hyperbole, this is all a foundation.

The military is mainly just present. In most cases, they can't intervein due to posse comitatus. But, people are becoming desensitized to their mere presence, and it's becoming normal. I can appreciate the notion that in some places, crime is a large problem. There are cities I wouldn't go to. But I don't think federal military is the right tool for the mission. For one, our police is already a problem in some places. I think a lot of that is lack of training, and being underpaid. They don't know the laws they're supposed to enforce. Soldiers know far less than that, at best they get a couple weeks training.

The problem is, if these kinds of reactions become normalized, eventually someone will abuse them. That's just history of power, and people in power. The whole point of a lot of our constitution is to prevent that from even being a possibility, which is one of the reasons we have the 2nd amendment.

[Bush Master]

You support a 34 count felon, so how are we supposed to take your statement?
Seems contradictive yes.

If you could hear yourself, you'd know how lame that sounds.

[ReturnofBroccoli]

Soon it will be winter and I think this will be over. Children are not strong in their convictions.

[UltraBudgie]

Trump calling up National Guard from Texas, as well as California, for deployment in Portland, Chicago, and "other locations":



Yee-haw!

[ReturnofBroccoli]

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1538312372912662

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

Trump calling up National Guard from Texas, as well as California, for deployment in Portland, Chicago, and "other locations":

[Image: https://denyignorance.com/uploader/image...wiqarm.jpg]

Yee-haw!

[Image: https://denyignorance.com/uploader/image...116039.jpg]

Looks at live stream of Portland ICE Protest

So with 400 more coming, I guess he's up to like 700 or 800 now. That appears to be a ratio of around 7 National Guard members for every protestor.

So one to take away the sign, one to shoot tear gas, one with a taser, and the others to supervise the ones taking away the sign, shooting the tear gas, and tasing?

But wait, the judge he appointed ruled again AFTER Oregon and California got a restraining order. 

https://abc7.com/post/federal-judge-temp.../17947486/

A federal judge on Sunday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from deploying any National Guard units to Oregon, after a legal whirlwind that began hours earlier when the president sent California troops to Portland to protect federal buildings from ongoing protests.
 
During a hastily called evening telephone hearing, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut granted the temporary restraining order sought by California and Oregon.

Guess he cant use any Guard now..

But since when does trump acknowledge the judicial branch? 

Now I bet he's gonna try active duty military troops, and if that gets blocked, I guess he can still declare martial law? 

Or just deploy the Guard anyway against the court order.

[RazorV66]

Looks at live stream of Portland ICE Protest

So with 400 more coming, I guess he's up to like 700 or 800 now. That appears to be a ratio of around 7 National Guard members for every protestor.

So one to take away the sign, one to shoot tear gas, one with a taser, and the others to supervise the ones taking away the sign, shooting the tear gas, and tasing?

But wait, the judge he appointed ruled again AFTER Oregon and California got a restraining order. 

https://abc7.com/post/federal-judge-temp.../17947486/

Guess he cant use any Guard now..

But since when does trump acknowledge the judicial branch? 

Now I bet he's gonna try active duty military troops, and if that gets blocked, I guess he can still declare martial law? 

Or just deploy the Guard anyway against the court order.