Advertisement 1

Jamie Sarkonak: Liberals use 'expert' panel to give moral weight to online censorship

The recommendations foreshadow a much more restricted internet than we have today

Article content

The final recommendations of an advisory panel on the federal government’s proposed online harms legislation didn’t rule out the idea of regulating the truth — which means it’s still very possible that the Liberals will introduce a law that drastically restricts free speech online.

Released on July 8, the final summary of the panel’s recommendations to guide the drafting of a future online harms bill maintains that an expansive regulatory regime is needed to manage citizens’ online conduct. Even though the panellists didn’t all agree on the nuances, and the feds haven’t yet drafted a bill taking the panel’s advice into account, the recommendations foreshadow a much more restricted internet than we have today.

Advertisement 2
Story continues below
Article content
Article content

The summary is the most recent step in the Liberal government’s quest to regulate online conduct. Its previous attempt, Bill C-36, which was tabled in June 2021, would have expanded the definition of “hatred” and given the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal the power to adjudicate online speech. It faced significant opposition due to the implications it had for free expression and ultimately died on the order paper.

But the Liberals were not deterred. Since then, they have been engaging in consultations and drafting reports in an attempt to come up with a new framework. The work of the expert advisory group was but the latest. The broader message from the government and its expert panel, however, is that online speech must be regulated — the only question is how.

To varying degrees, the experts supported regulating private conversations that have the potential to harm children, discussions of conspiracy theories, disinformation and even the types of job advertisements shown to women online.

Other vague recommendations called for laws that protect marginalized groups and prevent systemic discrimination. The experts even said that the regulatory regime should somehow protect the rights of Indigenous people under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, though it’s unclear why that would be needed given that the section enshrines the treaty rights of Aboriginal people and requires for them to be consulted on constitutional amendments.

Article content
Advertisement 3
Story continues below
Article content

Some experts on the panel called for restrained approaches, while others advocated for censoring first and asking questions later. While they lacked unanimity, that doesn’t mean that a broad censorship regime won’t be enshrined into future legislation. The final recommendations of this panel mean that those drafting future censorship laws will be able to say that “some experts agreed” broadly with their approach.

The problem with the government’s continued attempts to regulate online conduct is that the most harmful conduct is already outlawed under the Criminal Code. Hate speech, inciting violence, child abuse and uttering threats are already against the law.

We do have a blind spot when it comes to foreign disinformation campaigns — the Russia-backed Internet Research Agency manipulates online narratives by getting many people to spread propaganda and sew division in online comments sections, which is a complicated problem to solve. But our own citizens shouldn’t be punished because of Russia’s vile tactics.

As for enforcement, the advisory panel was in favour of creating an expansive new bureaucracy to regulate online speech, when really the answer should be to dedicate more funds to law enforcement and the justice system to investigate and prosecute more hate crimes and child-abuse cases.

Advertisement 4
Story continues below
Article content

The panel also wanted to see proactive harm reduction, including internet behaviour training in schools, which was dubbed “e-citizenship” training to give it a more friendly spin. If a recent hate-prevention toolkit funded by a federal grant is any indication, such educational initiatives can have a rather broad scope. It’s best to leave this stuff to parents, and instead teach kids the classic values of equality, personal freedoms and personal responsibility.

The advisors’ recommendations give the Liberals the expert stamp of approval for giving the government the power to regulate a huge swath of online content, which could encompass anything from discussing the motivations of corporations to engaging in narratives about current events that aren’t mainstream. There still isn’t a clear line — and there doesn’t need to be, because Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez can draft whatever he thinks will pass.

Indeed, the government’s controversial Broadcasting Act amendments were rammed through the House of Commons without much time for input, and with little regard for feedback. Despite the CRTC acknowledging that the bill would allow it to regulate user-generated content, Rodriguez accused others who pointed this out of spreading “misinformation.” I wouldn’t be surprised if the myriad of concerns over the government’s online harms framework will be addressed in a similar manner.

Advertisement 5
Story continues below
Article content

There is a bright side to all this: Rodriguez and the Liberals don’t appear confident that their censorship laws will go over well when they’re tabled. If they were, they wouldn’t have handpicked and paid a group of advisors who are fine with the idea — allowing them to normalize radical ideas by floating an arms-length trial balloon and gauging the public’s response.

Canadians, therefore, need to be vocal in their opposition to the Liberals’ push to institute an online censorship regime — because if they don’t, Canadians may one day find that they no longer have the same ability to speak out against their government.

National Post

Recommended from Editorial
  1. Canadian Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez.
    Chris Selley: Liberals offer terrible ideas on free speech on an unaccountable timeline
  2. None
    Jamie Sarkonak: Federal government effectively declares Red Ensign a hate symbol
Article content
Comments
You must be logged in to join the discussion or read more comments.
Join the Conversation

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion. Please keep comments relevant and respectful. Comments may take up to an hour to appear on the site. You will receive an email if there is a reply to your comment, an update to a thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information.

Latest from Shopping Essentials
  1. Advertisement 2
    Story continues below
This Week in Flyers