[zaksoup]

Why is the commentary of far-right reactionary, who is not a legal expert, commenting on a canadian law, that has nothing to do with warrants, with a citation pointing out that legal experts disagree with him, at all relevant to this conversation?

[callalex]

This forum requires a basic assumption of good faith for posters, especially when it comes to such a trivial mistake like having the wrong anchor section on a link to a short article. It was probably an artifact of their browser trying to be “helpful” when they were copying the link to the full article. Your aggression is unwarranted.

[MattPalmer1086]

No aggression I can see, remember the good faith assumption!

[flangola7]

What aggression? Nothing they said was aggressive.

[TylerE]

Probably the giant “United States” section with dozens of examples?

[Dylan16807]

But they linked a specific section, and it wasn't the United States section.

[apostacy]

I do not think that the United States section of that article is valid. It seems to equate speech with communication.

It does not feel right to call an IRS tax return "speech".