 |
| "WTF is this sh#T?!" |
FIRST, Bill C-11, now the Online Streaming Act:
Its stated purpose is to promote Canadian Content (Can-con) on the internet and
social media platforms via the regulatory body of the Canadian Radio and
Television commission (CRTC). HOWEVER, the Act
“…politicizes
broadcasting by allowing cabinet to issue directions to the CRTC concerning
almost everything it does…For example, cabinet will be able to tell the CRTC
which online services should register with it, and how they, and broadcasters,
should be regulated—right down to details like how much they must spend on Can-con
(Canadian content), how to make Can-con discoverable, and what commercial and
financial information they have to file. For Canadians, that opens the door to
state-controlled media.” (MLI)
“The real motive of the Online
Streaming Act is simple; streaming platforms and creators on them are bringing
in more and more revenue, and legacy media wants a piece of the pie.” (Open)
The Act has the potential of fostering greater
Canadian content online, but it may just as easily hinder it by favouring
legacy media over newer (and smaller) Canadian internet content providers. The
Act could be misused to allow censorship and protectionism as another
commentator suggests, and the “implications of direct regulation
[Italics mine] of online content are larger than many think…” (iaffairs)
FINALLY, while Heritage
Minister Pablo Rodriguez has
recently assured us that the Online Streaming Act is "only
about the platforms." (i.e., the digital ‘big boys’), nevertheless a
TikTok spokesperson mused: "Without
the legislative clarity they [TikTok] asked for, digital-first creators are now left to
simply hope that the government keeps its promise not to regulate
user-generated content" such as posts, blogs, vlogs, alternative news
outlets, etc. But, if the government can do something, chances are at
some point it will do something.
“It was the worst calculation they could ever have done,” recalls Bruce Ellen, general manager of the weekly Latrobe Valley Express and leader of a regional-newspaper association. “It galvanized not just the media but the general public.”
IN CANADA earlier this month, Facebook
announced that it was not going to pay local news organizations for their
content, stating that "they would be unfairly forced to pay for content that has no economic benefits, and critics said the bill risks making journalism dependent on funding for tech companies." Instead:
“[m]eta is…planning
to prevent Canadian news links from appearing on Facebook and Instagram at the
same time. The company also said in early June it would soon begin
experimenting with blocking Canadian news content for one to five per cent of
the 24 million Facebook users in Canada.”
WHETHER the company will abide by
the Online News Act and pay compensation for local news and content or instead ban Canadian news from their social media platform is up in the air. Whether the Canadian public can be galvanized, like the Australians, is also up in the air. Disturbingly,
this controversy shows how essential tech companies and the services they provide have become in the
transmission of news and information in our societies. For good or ill. It's something that should be of concern to all of us.
A THIRD BILL, the long-anticipated “Online Harms Act”, (probably to be renamed the “Online
Safety Act”), dealing with “hate speech”, is perhaps the most significant piece
of legislation with its potential for censorship. Five types of content expected to be addressed in the new law are: hate speech, child exploitation, the sharing of non-consensual images, incitements to violence, and terrorism. As one commentator put it, referring to the proposed Harms legislation, "I think
it's the main course. The other two [Acts] are the appetizers," the source said.
“Online
platforms are increasingly central to participation in democratic, cultural and
public life. However, such platforms can also be used to threaten and
intimidate Canadians and to promote views that target communities, put people’s
safety at risk, and undermine Canada’s social cohesion or democracy.
The
Government of Canada is committed to putting in place a transparent and
accountable regulatory framework for online safety in Canada. Now, more than
ever, online services must be held responsible for addressing harmful content
on their platforms and creating a safe online space that protects all Canadians.”
OVER the years, there have been several
legal challenges to the “hate speech” laws (sections 318, 319, 320 of the
Criminal Code) including the well-publicized 1990s Supreme Court case R v Keegstra
that “…tested
the extent to which an individual could publicly express an opinion, even if
that opinion promoted hatred of a group of people.” (Encyclopedia). James Keegstra
was charged with promoting hatred against an identifiable group. For a number
of years, he had taught in his Saskatchewan high school history class that the Holocaust was a hoax and used anti-Semitic
language and tropes in his lessons.) And after several years of appeals and
decisions, the Supreme Court ruled that, while Keegstra’s freedom of expression
was indeed infringed upon by the statute, nevertheless the law represented
a “reasonable limit” on his right of public expression. Thus, his anti-Semitic public
speech could be censored.
IN ADDITION, the
1970 legislation provided several “defenses” whereby the statute might be challenged. For
example, if the speech2 in question, “might be true”, or if the
speech was in the “public benefit”, or that the individual acted “in good
faith” (and not with the intention of propagating hatred) etc. And there have
been court challenges over the years using these various defenses to test and
refine the limits of hate speech laws. INTERESTINGLY, the United States does
not have any laws curbing or banning “hate speech” per se, having
instead, until recently at least, what were robust protections of their right to free speech in the First
Amendment. But this key component to the American Constitution has been
whittled down recently, as we’ll see below. [Drawing by Mr. Fish of American investigative reporter Matt Taibbi who was threatened during a congressional hearing with fines and jail time for revealing government and Big Tech collusion in censoring protected speech on a social media platform. His exposé
is called "The Twitter Files." Ed.]
 |
| Matt Taibbi |
ACCORDING to the “Twitter Files”, the exposé series by Matt Taibbi:
“It wasn’t hard
to understand why the FBI was organizing a censorship scheme, or why companies
like Twitter and Facebook that lived off lucrative regulatory subsidies were
going along with one. The motives of the powerful actors in all this were never
mysterious. The part that didn’t compute was why so many in the general public
were accepting of the situation.”
HE GOES on to say that
complacency and a need to conform—two byproducts of the ubiquitous information
technology and machine learning we have today—are the main reasons why more and more
people favour internet and social media censorship.
“This is how it
is for Americans trying to be themselves now. First they became addicted to the
Internet as a tool of convenience. Then it became a cheap substitute for
real-life interaction. Finally they learned
to submit to the wisdom of crowds, [i.e., group-think] which on the Internet,
as we also found out, is really an artificial representation of a crowd,
generated by political and social engineers from the FBI, DHS, the Pentagon,
Meta, Google, and other bureaucracies.” (Matt Taibbi, “Are Authorities Using
the Internet to Sap Our Instinct for Freedom?” Transcript of speech given at
“Freedom Fest”, held in Memphis, Tenn. July 14. Substack post.)
IN AMERICA, First Amendment
rights are slowly being eroded by the collusion between Big Tech and
government. In Canada, we do not have a First Amendment statute protecting our
“freedom of expression”. Here, laws designed to limit speech and the
free sharing of information can more readily be enacted through government
legislation. THAT’S WHY Canadians should have a look under the hood at the two laws (above) that have recently been enacted
(and the third "Harms" bill coming down the pipe): The first two may fundamentally affect the availability
of content offered by internet providers and social media platforms. The third may radically censor their content, done in the guise of “protecting” Canadians.5
Censorship and increasing limits to public speech6 will be a growing threat, going forward, that all of us would be well advised to pay attention
to.“I mean, there’s enormous
pressures to harmonize freedom of speech legislation and transparency
legislation around the world—within the E.U., between China and the United
States. Which way is it going to go? It’s hard to see.” Julian Assange. July, 2010.
Cheers, Jake.
______________________________________________
*
IN THE ORIGINAL legislation, an identifiable group was "any
section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin.”
By 2017, that definition had expanded to include: “sexual orientation, gender
identity or expression, or mental or physical disability."
1. Provincial
human rights laws: “The federal government regulates some employers and service providers, such
as banks and airlines. Provinces and territories
regulate other businesses and service providers and have their own human rights
laws.”
2. In Canadian law it might be
better to use the term “expression” which is any “activity
(including speech) that is performed to convey meaning.”
3. OF COURSE, some “speech” is
beyond the pale and violates other statutes and criminal codes in both the US and
Canada. Famously, you can’t yell “Fire!” in a movie theatre. (Unless there’s a
fire, of course.) As well, censorship of certain types of pornography are similarly
banned, as are Criminal Code violations like slander, threatening violence,
fraud, etc.
4. OR ANOTHER WAY of putting it:
we learn to use the internet and information technology, then the internet and
IT learn to use us. [Creepy. I know. Ed.]
5. Information and commentary on
controversial topics may be labelled “harmful” or “divisive” and subject to
censorship by the CRTC and cabinet fiat. The cabinet can direct the CRTC to censor sites or speakers or content it doesn't like, or deems harmful to the public without debate or oversight. Such a system is ripe for abuse. But, you can sweep only so much under the rug before people begin to notice all the lumps.
6. AND I CONSIDER protesting, marching,
boycotts, etc., as a form of “speech” whose expression is also threatened by these
new laws.
Caditz, Robert M. “Freedom of Speech: Contrasting Canadian and American Views.”
Vancouver Island University. Vancouver Island, British Columbia. 2016.
Boyko, John. "Keegstra Case". The Canadian Encyclopedia, 25 August
2021, Historica Canada.
www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/keegstra-case.
Accessed 11 July 2023.
No comments:
Post a Comment