'Internet A Refuge For Free Expression', But Trudeau Regime Wants To Regulate

[G.L.R.]

What a tangled Web the Trudeau government is weaving

16 April 2022



It was such a lovely  idea, the internet. A borderless, refuge for free expression,  beyond the censor's reach; a place of infinite capacity and zero cost,  where anyone who wanted to express themselves could...

Who wouldn't want such a thing? Governments,  that's who. The Trudeau government, in particular, seems to see the  internet not as an opportunity, a chance to stand down the immense  regulatory army that has hitherto stood watch over the Canadian media,  but as a challenge. Three bills were introduced, announced or promised during the last Parliament, all with the aim of regulating the internet... while  the government claims to have made modifications here and there, they  are in every essential respect unchanged. Each on its own would represent a breathtaking regulatory grab, an unprecedented expansion of the state's role as arbiter of what Canadians might see or say online. Taken together, they amount to a vast overreach, at great potential harm  to free expression and a healthy media environment.

Not experts on anything

The  attempt to apply Cancon rules to audio and visual content on the  internet is contained in Bill C-11, the successor to the last  Parliament's Bill C-10. Much of the controversy surrounding that bill  focused on the relatively narrow question of whether it would apply to  user-generated content – that is, to the audio and video clips that  users share on social-media sites. Critics had ample reason to fear  this, after a clause exempting such content was removed in committee. That's the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, now in its 54th year of regulating everything that moves on Canadian "radio-television," which the bill would assign wide latitude to regulate, well, the internet... but any number of other services, from podcasts to audiobooks to news channels, and not only those based in Canada but anywhere in the world.

Advertisers wanted the  largest possible audience, and the largest audience might not be  interested in certain types of content, including Canadian content. ... The notion, in particular, that Canadians need government  assistance to "discover" Canadian content online is frankly bizarre.  How hard is it to type "Canada" in the search bar? If C-11 is superfluous, unworkable and probably illegal under international trade law, Bill C-18, the Online News Act, is simply bananas.  The platforms don't take our  content. They link to it: a headline, sometimes a short snippet of  text, nothing more. When users click on the links, they are taken to our  sites, where they read our content. Much of the traffic on our sites,  in fact, comes from social-media links...

They don't even pay for their own offenses

So the notion that FaceGoogle should be made to pay us for the valuable service they provide us for free has things exactly backward:  If anything, we should be paying them.... Not only  does it allow the entire industry to bargain collectively, as if it were  a union, but, in the event the two sides cannot come to an agreement,  provides for a settlement to be imposed.  By the CRTC! As if it  were not busy enough regulating the global internet, the CRTC would also  be responsible for nursing the news business back to health. Are we to imagine it would be an impartial arbiter? The  online harms bill, still in development, at least stems from a valid  underlying concern. The harms social media have enabled or made worse,  from disinformation, to invasion of privacy, to child pornography and  beyond, are real and well documented. The legitimate exceptions to  freedom of speech – fraud, libel, incitement to violence etc. – are  already covered under existing law.

Will Trudeau regulate internet child porn? Not likely.

Indeed,  as first drafted, the bill would have gone even further. Not only would  it have made online speech once again subject to complaints to the  Canadian Human Rights Commission – a provision rightly abolished a  decade ago – and not only would it have provided for the deletion of the  offending material from the internet, but it would have allowed  material to be suppressed even before it appeared. As  an accompanying briefing paper explained, anyone who "reasonably fears  they could be a target" of "hate propaganda" could apply to a judge for a  "peace bond" to prevent its publication. Yes, the Attorney-General of  the province in question would have to endorse the request, and yes, the  judge would have to agree, but still: gag orders? For material that has  not been shown to be hateful, indeed may not even exist?...  Add them all  together, and the picture that emerges is a bleak one, for free  expression and the independence of the media. Far from the free and open  internet we were promised, the government would be everywhere online,  involved in everything, directing everyone... Read more ...

Opinion: What a tangled Web the Trudeau government is weaving  - The lobe and Mail
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-what-a-tangled-web-the-trudeau-government-is-weaving