Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Canada Social Networks The Internet

Canadian Government Accused of Trying to Introduce Internet Censorship (vancouversun.com) 293

Posted by EditorDavid from the blaming-Canada dept.
"After more than 25 years of Canadian governments pursuing a hands-off approach to the online world, the government of Justin Trudeau is now pushing Bill C-10, a law that would see Canadians subjected to the most regulated internet in the free world," argues the Vancouver Sun (in an article shared by long-time Slashdot reader theshowmecanuck): Although pitched as a way to expand Canadian content provisions to the online sphere, the powers of Bill C-10 have expanded considerably in committee, including a provision introduced last week that could conceivably allow the federal government to order the deletion of any Facebook, YouTube, Instagram or Twitter upload made by a Canadian. In comments this week, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh indicated his party was open to providing the votes needed to pass C-10, seeing the bill as a means to combat online hate...

The users themselves may not necessarily be subject to direct CRTC regulation, but social media providers would have to answer to every post on their platforms as if it were a TV show or radio program. This might be a good time to mention that members of the current Liberal cabinet have openly flirted with empowering the federal government to control social media. In a September Tweet, Infrastructure Minister Catherine McKenna said that if social media companies "can't regulate yourselves, governments will." Guilbeault, the prime champion of Bill C-10, has spoken openly of a federal regulator that could order takedowns of any social media post that it deems to be hateful or propagandistic...

Basically, if your Canadian website isn't a text-only GeoCities blog from 1996, Bill C-10 thinks it's a program deserving of CRTC regulation. This covers news sites, podcasts, blogs, the websites of political parties or activist groups and even foreign websites that might be seen in Canada...

The penalties prescribed by Bill C-10 are substantial. For corporations, a first offence can yield penalties of up to $10 million, while subsequent offences could be up to $15 million apiece. If TikTok, Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are suddenly put in a situation where their millions of users must follow the same rules as a Canadian cable channel or radio station, it's not unreasonable to assume they may just follow Facebook's example [in Australia] and take the nuclear option.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Canadian Government Accused of Trying to Introduce Internet Censorship More

Canadian Government Accused of Trying to Introduce Internet Censorship

Comments Filter:

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday May 03, 2021 @06:43AM (#61340516)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Baki ( 72515 )

      Online hatred is a problem (offline as well). The solutions are often overreach and worse than the problem.

      But this type of name calling against those that, at least partially, might be naive but have good intentions, is uncivilized and unnecessary.

      We have seen times in history, where the hatred became a larger problem than the lack of free speech.
      Please remain objective and don't think in ideological terms, including name calling from right against left and vice versa.
      That destroys all of us.

      • Homelessness is a problem. Drug addiction is a problem. Government overreach is a problem.

        Mean words on social media can be ignored.

      • Re:" a means to combat online hate..." (Score:5, Insightful)

        by theshowmecanuck ( 703852 ) on Monday May 03, 2021 @09:09AM (#61340976) Journal

        But this type of name calling against those that, at least partially, might be naive but have good intentions, is uncivilized and unnecessary.

        We have seen times in history, where the hatred became a larger problem than the lack of free speech.

        Please cite where hatred was a bigger problem than the lack of free speech. That sounds like a thought-police sound bite.

        Do you not realize that anytime regimes that scapegoat people, they do so by controlling the message. And controlling the message means lack of free speech and censorship. And it isn't just an overt thing, that is the insidious thing about it. This is the government censoring things before they are even published by providing huge penalties for publishing anything the government deems offensive. Companies will naturally be cautious and we won't get the information we need to survive as a free society (except we won't know it because we won't know it). You are very naive.

        And on that, being nice about this issue sure hasn't helped. Especially in Canada where the encroachment on free speech has been slow but steady over the years until we reach this point: a full fledged assault on it. But this encroachment is happening now, everywhere. People with diverging opinions are now run out of speaking engagements by mobs. These 'naive but have good intentions' people are the ones who are the most violent and uncivilized. And it is this kind of thinking by 'woke folks' like the Trudeau government, the NDP, and their supporters, who fuel this.

        To expand on what someone pointed out earlier, the type of mindset that attacks speakers on college campuses because they don't like what they have to say, are the same kind of people who, 100 years ago would attack people for advocating the vote for women, or civil rights changes. In both of those cases it was the right to free speech that got those messages out. If laws existed that could persecute people for speaking out back then, there probably wouldn't have been any change as the advocates would have been silenced.

    • It's not about "hate" it's more about offensiveness.
      Some people just can't handle others saying stuff they don't like, so they seek to ban it.
      Problem is with the fascist mindset that offensive things must be banned, is that literally everything is offensive to somebody somewhere. Censorship and infringement of free speech is extremely offensive to me for instance.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by GeekBoy ( 10877 )

      Exactly why I left Canada when I did (10 years ago.) I saw this coming a mile away, it's not like it happened overnight, but too many people in Canada have their heads in the sand.

      • Please elaborate. Where are you now? I'm thinking of leaving because of the terrible health care.
        It really seems either it barely works, or it completely fails.

    • Re: " a means to combat online hate..." (Score:5, Insightful)

      by e3m4n ( 947977 ) on Monday May 03, 2021 @08:28AM (#61340820)
      I dont think its a left exclusive thing. I think its a power thing. The biggest issue is an uneven application of censorship. When the fans are Being flamed in a way that supports your political agenda, like antifa burning cars, parking lots, and smashing storefront windows in berkely in 2017 its not hate speech. When its burning neighborhoods and looting stores its peaceful protests. When Maxine Waters tells rioters they need to be MORE violent err confrontational its not inciting a riot. When Trump said âoethose people over there, nows your time do to somethingâ that is considered inciting a riot. Both people took the same oath. They both should be held to the same standard. There is no congressional hearing into her behavior, no trial. Its as if the members of congress are above the law. If you make the rules the exact same, i doubt we would even have the levels of escalation we see right now. Both sides feel certain rules are being slanted against them, its just not always the same set of rules. IMO, be that as it may, Im all for banning political parties entirely. Make everyone an independent with no party meetings or affiliates. Sure bids of a feather.. but you will find a lot less lock-step voting in the amounts we see now. Too many people within the parties vote for pieces of provisions they really dont like. Thats why and how unrelated edits sneak into bills. A bill titles covid relief act should only contain edits related to covid relief. These arent essays. They are essentially Diff files. Word changes to thousands of different articles in the USC.

    • Re:" a means to combat online hate..." (Score:5, Insightful)

      by serviscope_minor ( 664417 ) on Monday May 03, 2021 @09:08AM (#61340970) Journal

      lefturds

      You just know someone is has a good point when they reach for such devastating arguments.

    • "freedom of speach..." (Score:4, Interesting)

      by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Monday May 03, 2021 @09:34AM (#61341070)

      That's the standard bullshit excuse that Trumptards make to harass and threaten people who they are told they don't like.

      Freedom of speech has limits, with a long legal president pointing out many of these limits. Limitations such as Libel, Slander, Defamation, Threats, Blackmail... Have been illegal for a long time.

      For most internet sections driven by user generated data, being that these companies are using your content and making money off of it (those nice targeted ad's next to your comment). It means that these companies do indeed have a degree of responsibility towards the legality of the content they show, and a responsibility to clean out inappropriate material and make sure they are profiting from the spread of bad information.

      The crap that is being censored isn't about policy or laws, but just blatant lies that are passed around.
      Saying So and so is doing human trafficking without real proof is illegal, as it would be Slander or Libel (depending on how you present it), getting shut down and you comments deleted and getting kicked off the site, isn't violating your free speech, because you had crossed the line. However if you are going on the record stating the laws around human trafficking have issues, it may make you unpopular, with particular groups, but that is a legal use of free speech.

      Say you are pro-life, stating that you are Pro-Life and your reasons why, and encouraging others to be so is fine. Planning bombing of offices that perform abortions is wrong, and illegal. Then if you justify it with say additional slander because it is easier to convenience people with a lie, just makes it worse.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Kisai ( 213879 )

      This is literately something being pushed by "both sides". Liberals want to use it to curb hate, Conservatives want it to curb criticism. Canada's own "ability to suspend the charter of rights, via the not withstanding clause" has been only used by conservative parties to enshrine hateful policy (Primarily in Quebec, but also gestures of using it in Alberta.) The Not-Withstanding clause basically allows a truck to be driven through any piece of legislation that a province or federal government of the day do

  • Bill C-16 (Score:5, Informative)

    by labnet ( 457441 ) on Monday May 03, 2021 @06:48AM (#61340526)

    Remember when Jordan Peterson caused an uproar protesting against bill C-16 on Canada mandating use of made up pronouns. Well Robert Hoogland, a father of a 14 year old girl, has been jailed by a Canadian court for calling his biological female child his “daughter,” and referring to her with the pronouns “she” and “her.”
    Be very afraid of the cultural Marxists who are the new religious puritans. Once these woke folk become the gatekeepers of speech, say goodbye to any free speech you thought you had left.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Woke people are the 2021 version of the 1980s "Moral Majority".

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by sinij ( 911942 )
        No, Woke people are the 2021 version of Committee of Public Safety [wikipedia.org] during French Revolution.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by CrappySnackPlane ( 7852536 )

          Nah, Wokies haven't actually literally murdered anyone. They're just a bunch of incredibly self-centered myopic dipshits who are demanding the media (including social media) cater to them them themmm and their their theirrr religious beliefs (the way they view "diversity" is so fantastically-detached from the actual meaning of "diversity" that it becomes akin to Biblical usage of common terms). The Moral Majority comparison is far more apt, hyperbole doesn't help.

    • Hoogland's case has nothing to do with hate speech. Unless you think he was guilty of hating his own child?
      • Misgendering is hate speech. Yes, the world has gone insane. Parents can go to jail for opposing medical procedures on their young children and for wrongthink. This is why you don't allow SJW to even take hold.

        • Parents can go to jail for opposing medical procedures on their young children and for wrongthink.

          Anti-vaxxers.

          • To some extent. Tho varying subsets. The autism fear would only be valid during a specific developmental point. If you got vaccinated at 16 instead of 2, I seriously doubt someone would suspect vaccines as a cause of autism. That would be pretty obvious dont you think? It takes a special sort of anti-vaxxer to be against vaccinations at say 12yrs old. Those are far fewer than the ones afraid of autism.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by cascadingstylesheet ( 140919 )

        Hoogland's case has nothing to do with hate speech. Unless you think he was guilty of hating his own child?

        He was literally forbidden to speak because calling his daughter his daughter was defined as "family violence".

        • Re:Bill C-16 (Score:4, Informative)

          by Samantha Wright ( 1324923 ) on Monday May 03, 2021 @09:59AM (#61341184) Homepage Journal

          Read this opinion from the US Supreme Court [reuters.com] and apply the same logic to this situation. If the father tried to force his child to transition against the child's will, that would be covered by the same law and ruling. If the father tried to force his child to agree to an arranged marriage, that would also be the same thing. He was harassing his kid because he thought he knew better, and the law dealt with him like a stalker or any other abusive parent. This is the logic of the US Supreme Court as of last year. These are the opinions of John Roberts and Neil Gorsuch, not exactly known for having liberal bias.

          In Canada, and the rest of the world, "hate speech" is when you try to exclude ethnic, social, or political groups from participating in the public sphere by spreading libel and slander about them. It is part of a broader agenda of violence, meant to intimidate. The only similarity between Hoogland's situation and hate speech is that they both involve a vulnerable victim being protected from someone disapproving of them.

          • He was harassing his kid because he thought he knew better, and the law dealt with him like a stalker or any other abusive parent.

            He was saying that his daughter is his daughter, because she is.

            He was arrested for talking to the media, not to her.

            You may not agree with his thoughts, but he is literally being forbidden to speak them.

        • No. That's bullshit.

          He was jailed for repeatedly violating court orders, publicly sharing information about the kid's medical and psychological treatment, sharing information that could identify publicly the minor, a subject of a court proceedings.

          The court DID refer to family law regarding deadnaming in private and in public as a facet of family violence, but after violating multiple court orders, that was the cherry on top, not a "Just for saying..." ruling.

          Regardless of how you feel about transgender iss

    • Re:Bill C-16 (Score:5, Informative)

      by DavenH ( 1065780 ) on Monday May 03, 2021 @07:22AM (#61340610)

      has been jailed by a Canadian court for calling his biological female child his “daughter,”

      To be clear, he arrested for contempt of court, not calling his female child his "daughter". He broke a restraining order in speaking to the media about the case.

      • has been jailed by a Canadian court for calling his biological female child his “daughter,”

        To be clear, he arrested for contempt of court, not calling his female child his "daughter". He broke a restraining order in speaking to the media about the case.

        He shouldn't be in court to begin with, and the gag order is just another abuse being heaped on him

      • Ah the truth finally comes out.

      • has been jailed by a Canadian court for calling his biological female child his “daughter,”

        To be clear, he arrested for contempt of court, not calling his female child his "daughter". He broke a restraining order in speaking to the media about the case.

        Which amounts to the same thing. A court ordered him not to speak [nypost.com], basically.

        He was also told to stop speaking to the media about the case and warned that his public attempts to undermine his child’s wishes was a form of family violence, according to the article.

      • has been jailed by a Canadian court for calling his biological female child his “daughter,”

        To be clear, he arrested for contempt of court, not calling his female child his "daughter". He broke a restraining order in speaking to the media about the case.

        By defining his speech as "violence", the court justified their use of real violence - sending armed agents of the state to deprive him of his liberty.

    • Re:Bill C-16 (Score:4, Informative)

      by GameboyRMH ( 1153867 ) <gameboyrmh.gmail@com> on Monday May 03, 2021 @07:25AM (#61340616) Journal

      He was actually jailed for violating a court order by discussing the case with the media, not for anything related to the use of pronouns, but don't let that get in the way of your raging persecution complex.

      cultural Marxists

      Do you know the origin or meaning of this term?

      • He was actually jailed for violating a court order by discussing the case with the media, not for anything related to the use of pronouns, but don't let that get in the way of your raging persecution complex.

        And that in itself is not censorship? Give me a fucking break. Sounds like you are the only one raging here.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dskoll ( 99328 )

      That is not exactly correct. Hoogland was jailed for disobeying a court order not to give interviews or identify his child. If someone fragrantly disobeys a court order, there will be consequences.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dskoll ( 99328 )

        * flagrantly, obviously.

      • It's the same thing since the reason for the case was that. Jordan made the point that the government would throw people in jail not for violating c-16 but for not paying the fine for violating c-16. It's still the same thing.

        No child should be allowed to make such a drastic change to their bodies and no consoler should still have a license after encouraging it.

        If we are going to allow a child to do this at 14, then we should remove all restrictions for what can be done by and to a 14 year old because we

      • Well, that just *stinks*.

  • could conceivably allow the federal government to order the deletion of any Facebook, YouTube, Instagram or Twitter upload made by a Canadian.

    Canada does still in fact have a constitution. They cannot delete any tweet, it has to be within the "reasonable limits" of hate speech, obscenity or defamation. So if you're not in fact violating the provisions of the constitution yourself, and the government takes down your tweet anyway, you will have grounds to litigate just like in any other (functioning) democracy.

    it's not unreasonable to assume they may just follow Facebook's example [in Australia] and take the nuclear option.

    A shot across the bow is not the nuclear option. FB restored services to Australia Feb 23rd.

    • As long as the 2021 version of the Moral Majority (a.k.a SJW Neo-Marxists) approve the material then it can't be taken down.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by sinij ( 911942 )
      Canadian Charter of Rights does not have First Amendment. There are recent examples both in UK and Canada where people are jailed for hate speech.

      • Re:Charter of Rights (Score:5, Informative)

        by dskoll ( 99328 ) on Monday May 03, 2021 @08:13AM (#61340770) Homepage

        The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms says:

        Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

        • freedom of conscience and religion;
        • freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
        • freedom of peaceful assembly; and
        • freedom of association.

    • So if you're not in fact violating the provisions of the constitution yourself, and the government takes down your tweet anyway, you will have grounds to litigate just like in any other (functioning) democracy.

      This assumes you have the resources (both financial and practical) to spend the next few years of your life in court.

      Functionally, I'd argue that it's indistinguishable from them just deleting it, because who the fuck's gonna care about a tweet you posted five years ago once it's restored.

      It's easily exploitable for SLAPP-style abuse, and the fact that its proponents either can't or won't recognize this speaks towards a hilarious hubris on their part. Remember, as recently as twenty years ago the same loose

    • Re: Charter of Rights (Score:4, Interesting)

      by e3m4n ( 947977 ) on Monday May 03, 2021 @08:51AM (#61340878)
      What happens when your courts refuse to hear the case? Im starting to see a trend in that direction here. Flagrant constitutional violations, or at least plausible objections based on constitutionality are not heard. IMO thats what leads to the legislative branch thinking they can do whatever they want at thier level, when its clearly something that needs constitutional ratification. Based on the way things are going here, we would have never had a 18th amendment. They would have just violated the 10th amendment and flat out banned alcohol. I dont consider that a functioning democracy. I consider it a Banana Republic.
    • So only rich people can have anything even approaching free speech.
  • put in place to bring back GeoCities. I, for one, welcome our GeoCities overlords!

  • In Soviet Canada (Score:3)

    by Canberra1 ( 3475749 ) on Monday May 03, 2021 @07:29AM (#61340628)
    We will force the take-down of the Lumberjack Song and impose fish slapping penalties to the likes of Google and Facebook. Basically politicians are white-anting free speech, and making it loosey goosey to begin with. One needs to name all committee members, and target them as free speech haters, possibly associated with Russia and the Chinese CCP. Targeting voting trends too remove these groupthink pinkos is the only thing that will reverse the thought police going over the top. Next stop: The great firewall of Canada.

  • And hyperbole is not a good way to curate news.

  • Great. (Score:4, Funny)

    by CrappySnackPlane ( 7852536 ) on Monday May 03, 2021 @07:38AM (#61340646)

    Now my Youtube playlists can get deleted for not having 60% Canadian content. [wikipedia.org]

  • ...seeing the bill as a means to combat online hate

    The government will decide what is hate and what is goodness, and you will comply or else.

  • The users themselves may not necessarily be subject to direct CRTC regulation, but social media providers would have to answer to every post on their platforms

    They know damn well that if they wrote an honest version of this bill, it would target the users every bit as much as the platform itself because it's a user-generated content system. Then the public would see their own government come gunning for dissidents, trolls, etc. People would start asking why are police resources being wasted investigating su

  • Guess they should have been clever like us and just outsourced the censorship.

    Or another way of looking at it, I suppose, is that at least Canada is being more honest about doing censorship.

  • Sensationalism and deception. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Monday May 03, 2021 @09:01AM (#61340932)

    Take a look at the actual text [parl.ca] and you will see this isn't internet censorship. Nothing in it says they can just order companies to take stuff off the internet. Furthermore, the article tip-toes around the actual accusation, making sure to avoid any possible legal liability. Basically, in theory it's possible but the reality it would be exceptionally rare and it would be exceptionally hate-filled content.

    Consider the source [mediabiasfactcheck.com]

    These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation

  • In the recent Atlanta mass killing, many on the left screamed racism, and that was not considered hate speech, even though not a shred of evidence was seen to indicate racism. At the same time, lots of evidence, even at that moment, that mental issues was the entire issue. Did any government official do anything about it? Nope. The let the screaming if racism continue.

    Shortly after, we had Phillip Adams, a black man, commit mass murder of whites, and everybody screamed mental health, even though no prior

  • if this passes then say goodbye to VPNs as well (Score:5, Insightful)

    by irlanthos ( 1040152 ) on Monday May 03, 2021 @09:28AM (#61341054)
    VPNs have been used by the citizens of totalitarian governments to get around the limits and strictures placed on them by their governments until some of those governments made them illegal. We can see the same thing in Canada. BTW, the same thing, internet regulation and governmental control, was attempted around 2009 by a conservative government under the title the Child Protection Act to combat child exploitation and pornography on the internet. I think it died in committee when the government had to call an election. Anyway, the point to the last statement was don't depend on the other party saving you. They'll try it themselves once they are in power.

  • They are unfortunately also necessary. But they need to be kept closely under scrutiny and from time to time their representatives need to be kicked hard to remind them who they actually serve.

  • Sun ? LOL (Score:4, Interesting)

    by hebertrich ( 472331 ) on Monday May 03, 2021 @10:08AM (#61341218)

    Your sources of information are as accurate as FOX in the USA .. the Sun and the National Post have NEVER been regarded as serious and reliable sources of information. I read C-10 that's nothing as you describe and i truly believe you're as honest as a Trump and QAnon supporter. This being said you spread FUD and vomit insanities.. This is unworthy of Slashdot.

Slashdot Top Deals

Truly simple systems... require infinite testing. -- Norman Augustine

Close