Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[IronNoggin]

This is some very serious Chit Folks!!

Trudeau minister says internet censorship must follow 'government's vision'

Trudeau Minister Steven Guilbeault has told federal regulators that the enforcement of his internet censorship bill must adhere to "the government’s vision."

"Like many, we were surprised to see the Heritage Committee extend Bill C-10 to include social media and user-upload services and apps. This potentially extends CRTC regulation to all audio and audio-visual content on the internet, which has profound implications for not just social media, but virtually all websites, podcasting, online hosting and much more."

This is just the latest condemnation of the Liberal internet censorship bill.

In a statement provided to the National Post, Peter Menzies, who is the former commissioner of the CRTC, said that this legislation was a "full-blown assault" on free expression and ‘the foundations of democracy.’

https://thepostmillennial.com/trudeau-minister-says-internet-censorship-must-follow-governments-vision

Trudeau's internet censorship bill must be stopped

If the idea of the government controlling what you can read online, what you can post online, and what videos you can view doesn’t strike you as quite right, then you might be a Canadian.

Sadly, it’s the government of Canada that’s now putting forward legislation to give itself the type of powers we normally associate with basic dictatorships, like China.

Bill C-10, currently before the House of Commons, would give the government the power to regulate any content you generate and post online.

Previously, the legislation had an exemption for user-generated content, but that was stripped out at the behest of the Liberals last week.

“This is a remarkable and dangerous step in an already bad piece of legislation,” writes Michael Geist.

Geist is a law professor at the University of Ottawa and the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law. This means he not only knows what he’s talking about on this issue, but the federal government agrees, funding his work and research.

His assessment of the bill is brutal but accurate.

“The government believes that it should regulate all user-generated content, leaving it to the regulator to determine on what terms and conditions will be attached the videos of millions of Canadians on sites like Youtube, Instagram, TikTok, and hundreds of other services,” said Geist.

He called the Trudeau Liberals the most “anti-internet government in Canadian history,” a group hellbent on erecting what he calls the “great Canadian internet firewall.” The government wants to be able to block websites it determines Canadians should not see, remove content posted in Canada without any independent review, and to regulate your video postings using the CRTC.

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-trudeaus-internet-censorship-bill-must-be-stopped

I strongly suggest that each and every one of us write to our MP's and demand this garbage bill be tossed immediately!

Nog

[RalphH]

Bill C-10 isn't about internet censorship. There is no mention of censorship in the Bill what so ever. It's more aimed at leveling the playing field for media formats. Youtube, Facebook etc make advertising revenue from personal videos people post on their platforms. Likewise with media streaming platforms like Spotify which pay next to nothing in Royalties to the artists whose works they broadcast.

Professor Michael Geist has posted a considerable amount of well informed opinion on C-10 and I suggest people get that information from there and not from tiny snippets of careful edited and sifted material from questionable source like The Post Millennial. The original source is always best.

A couple of other articles with a more balanced perspective

https://globalnews.ca/news/7816226/facebook-instagram-youtube-canada-crtc-canadian-content/

https://www.newwestrecord.ca/the-mix/heritage-committee-wont-reverse-change-to-bill-c-10-despite-public-outcry-3682209

[IronNoggin]

In this case, as in many others, you are once again in error Ralph.
That's OK I guess, if you support the kind of censorship this Bill will allow.

Nog

[RalphH]

exactly what censorship will Bill C-10 "allow"? How is the typical cat video published on Youtube any different from typical human interest stories featured on TV news or in the newspapers? How often are such items on traditional media censored? If such features on the internet are not included in C-10 how can personal internet videos and articles that include real harm be controlled?

This appears to be a slippery slope argument with all the usual flaws these have. Slippery slope arguments are generally included among the usual list of logical fallacy arguments.

You are just assuming because the exclusion is removed there will be censorship. Of what and for what reason? Much of the stuff also comes from outside Canada and there is otherwise no recourse to controlling content from other countries.

[IronNoggin]

exactly what censorship will Bill C-10 "allow"?

You are just assuming because the exclusion is removed there will be censorship.

The way the Bill now stands, every and anything is open for censorship. Period.
You actually going to trust this particular government that it won't use that to it's own benefit??

While your at it Ralph, explain why you are comfortable with the intentional removal of the exclusion, leaving every single individual who posts anything anywhere susceptible to government defined censorship. What possible motive resides behind that over-reach?

Nog

[IronNoggin]

What’s wrong with Bill C-10? An FAQ

Anatomy of a legacy media power grab

https://openmedia.org/article/item/whats-wrong-with-bill-c-10-an-faq

[RalphH]

you know of course anything that this or any other future government ( and historically most censorship in North America originated with the political right wing) may do is subject to a Charter challenge such as Section 2b:

freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

so much of this concern about C-10 seems moot. Exactly what has government proposed that contravenes the Charter? The only valid worries voiced has been some platforms may choose to leave Canada to avoid paying taxes on revenues they collect from Canada or copyright infringements they may commit by allowing copyright material from other sources on their platforms. Which others think is unlikely.

BTW one of my points is that the 2 media sources you provided, the Post Millennial and the Toronto Sun are known for issues with the quality of their reporting.

Example your Open Media article does not list "Internet Censorship" as "What's wrong with Bill C-10?" yet that's your subject.

[IronNoggin]

From the already bought & paid for CBC (surprisingly enough!):

Your free speech is at risk with Ottawa's push to regulate online content, experts warn

The federal government is facing an uproar over controversial changes to a bill that would bring videos and other content posted to social media sites like YouTube under the purview of the country's broadcasting regulator.

The changes to Bill C-10 — made at the behest of Liberal MPs on the heritage committee — would allow the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to regulate user-generated content uploaded to social media platforms, much as it regulates radio and TV content now.

In its original form, Bill C-10 exempted user-generated content posted to social media sites from the CRTC's authority.

That meant professionally-produced shows or songs streamed on Crave, Netflix, Amazon Prime or Spotify would be subject to CRTC regulation, while music videos on YouTube, posts made to Facebook or podcasts uploaded to Apple Podcasts would be exempt — because they are uploaded to those platforms by individual users.

Guilbeault himself touted these exclusions when he introduced the bill to the House. "Our approach is balanced and we have made the choice to exclude a number of areas from the new regime," Guilbeault told MPs. "User-generated content will not be regulated."

But the exclusion for user-generated content was removed by members of the heritage committee last Friday. Another amendment approved by the committee on Monday would grant the CRTC the power to regulate smartphone apps as well.

Critics say these amendments could give the CRTC the power to regulate the posts that millions of Canadians upload every day to platforms like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and YouTube.

Michael Geist, a University of Ottawa professor and the Canada Research Chair in internet law, said those posts could be treated as "programs," which would allow the regulator to set terms and conditions associated with that content.

"The kind of speech that many Canadians engage in on these platforms is just basic, fundamental freedom of expression that does not require, and should not be subject to, any sort of regulation or regulatory oversight by a broadcast regulator," said Geist.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bill-c10-user-generated-content-1.6007192

[RalphH]

Freedom of speech and expression is already subject to limitations both in the Charter and by Common Law. The US also follows these basic principles as do most Western Democracies:

https://ccla.org/cclanewsite/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Freedom-of-Expression-101-FINAL.pdf

The following are some general exclusions to protection under s. 2(b) of the Charter:
 •conveying meaning through a violent form of expression is not protected expression under the Charter;
 •threats of violence are not protected;
 •The location from which a message is conveyed might also exclude it from s. 2(b) protection if it would conflict with the values underlying freedom of expression (noted above)
For example, staging a protest inside a Cabinet meeting could interfere with the way our government functions to such a degree that it prevents important political discourse from taking place, even though that same protest would likely be protected outside the Parliament building.

Likewise with Hate Speech. Not specifically covered by the charter but limited by law and support by the SCOC. It's cover in the same link on Pgs 2 & 3.

The real question the article, Professor Geist and you never ask is why shouldn't "The kind of speech that many Canadians engage in on these platforms is just basic, fundamental freedom of expression" be subject to regulatory oversight when necessary?

Unless it breeches the few limited exceptions in the Charter or laws such as those against Hate Speech it would not be subject to any specific or censorship. That's how the law generally works, unless there is a breech there is no need for it to be regulated or reviewed.

[IronNoggin]

Explain it to the liberals Ralph. Maybe they'll take the point from you... 

Nog

[RalphH]

Explain it to the liberals Ralph. Maybe they'll take the point from you... 

Nog

Miss it don't you? It won't be subject to censorship.

Section 2b, protects us from government censorship ... it doesn't allow it.

Subjecting personal content posted on website owned & operated by huge corporations, almost invariably foreign corporations that profit from that content does not constitute censorship. No one with any credibility has said it does or will.

[IronNoggin]

Quite the surprise in this move by the fawning NDP:

NDP will vote with Conservatives on motion to ensure censorship bill does not violate charter rights

NDP Critic and Deputy Critic for Canadian Heritage Alexandre Boulerice and Heather McPherson will now be voting in favour of the Conservative-led motion that would suspend Bill C-10 until it is confirmed to not violate any Charter rights.

The statement, released on Monday, calls out Heritage Minister Guilbeault for "not do[ing] the necessary review before moving forward."

https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-ndp-will-vote-with-conservatives-on-motion-to-ensure-censorship-bill-does-not-violate-charter-rights

[IronNoggin]

Looks like the pressure on this one is getting to them...

Feds plan change to Bill C-10 to make it ‘crystal clear’ social media uploads won’t be regulated

The government is bringing forward an amendment to make it “crystal clear” that content individual users upload to social media sites like YouTube and Instagram won’t be regulated by Bill C-10, according to Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault.

He confirmed the news in a statement sent to Global News on Monday, following pushback from politicians and experts alike who warned that proposed changes to the Broadcasting Act could infringe on freedom of speech.

“We also want to make sure that the content that people upload on social media won’t be considered as programming under the Act and that it won’t be regulated by the CRTC,” Guilbeault said in the statement.

“And that’s why we will be bringing forward another amendment that will make this crystal clear.”

https://globalnews.ca/news/7829583/social-media-free-speech-regulation-bill-c-10-broadcasting/

It seems to be an all-too-frequent occurrence that many of the Bills designed by the liberals require amendments to ensure they are not over-stepping their bounds. Guess its difficult for some to get it right the first time around.

Nog

[RalphH]

It seems to be an all-too-frequent occurrence that many of the Bills designed by the liberals require amendments to ensure they are not over-stepping their bounds. Guess its difficult for some to get it right the first time around.

that's why they have committee reviews and multiple readings of a Bill, superman. 

The system is designed to get feedback and public input. Sometimes it even works!

[RalphH]

The debate continues:

In an opinion piece in the Globe and Mail, Sue Gardner, former head of Wikimedia called the controversy over Federal Bill C-10 "a sideshow...[Minister]  Guilbeault and his team are on a mission to regulate Big Tech. It’s important work, it’s overdue and it needs to move forward."

Among other things she documents the many scandals and controversies that have arise from the Big Tech Corporations inability to regulate their  content and the world wide push by Western Democracies to put some controls that will help prevent future catastrophes such as Cambridge Analytica  harvesting of the personal account activity of over 50 million Facebook users that lead to targeted political ads aimed at individual American.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-the-crackdown-on-big-tech-targets-symptoms-rather-than-the-disease/

It's not the 1990s anymore. The internet and web stopped being a playground for quirky and individual expression long ago. It has since been taken over by big corporate interests that ensure users see what these corporations want them to see. Google search results and prioritized by revenue such companies pay to Google. Free speech was long ago eroded and what's still available has become caustic. Both Public and Private sectors needs to act. Most Western Countries have are proposing similar legislation to C-10. The US is the exception of course where free speech and freedom of expression increasing means the freedom to lie.