[mpalmer]

Appreciate the info. That it's not new doesn't change my opinion about it all that much. I'm sure that in practice it probably resembles a restraining order, and requires a certain level of likelihood that said harm will come to pass.

But in the end it's the state that has the latitude to broadly restrict the movement and behavior of an individual who hasn't committed an offense.

That is too much power to entrust in the state, and poorly justified.

[harwoodr]

In so far as the state is a provincial/federal judge making the decision based on the presented evidence and setting the conditions as appropriate.

It looks like it will probably be used in the "you made these threats and if you follow through, you'll be tried for that _and_ suffer some penalty for breaking the conditions of this order" kind of way...

That said, you won't get much traction in Canada with an argument that free speech includes things like "we should rid ourselves of all [members of some group]".

From: https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/how-righ...

"Even though these freedoms are very important, governments can sometimes limit them. For example, freedom of expression may be limited by laws against hate propaganda or child pornography because they prevent harm to individuals and groups."

[mpalmer]

I don't think I addressed the case of calling for mass murder at any point.

My point is that "it will probably be used" is the problem. The power exists to be abused, so it's a matter of trust that it isn't.