Liberals to Create New Regulations for Social Media Platforms

[Michael Hardner]

52 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

1. No. 

2. Are you one of those people that thinks the government should decide which ideas are good or bad instead of public opinion? 

3. Public opinion has been the arbiter since the dawn of free speech rights, things have gone well.  When the government is the arbiter, things don't go well.  See every communist or fascist regime or absolute monarchy ever in history.  See Fahrenheit 451, Animal Farm, and uhhh the Hunger Games.

4. Antisemitic propaganda ads, if allowed on Facebook or Youtube etc, would probably create a massive backlash from users and Facebook would suffer financially and then ban those ads. 

5. Antisemitic propaganda by chanters on the street would illicit boos and then be ignored. 

6. If antisemtic propaganda is physically threatening in any way the creators should be charged for violent threats.  What exactly do you want banned online and on which websites?  What's the specific problem you want addressed?

 

2. Well, government does this anyway.  Lots of examples where government makes decisions despite popular opinion going the toher way.

3. Your binary assessment isn't accurate, nor does it apply to the new media landscape.  And calling back to fascist and totalitarian regimes is simplistic.  

4. Well I see regular circulation of antisimetic and anti-Islamic propaganda every time I sign on.  There's no backlash I can see.  I don't even hear anyone talking about it.

5. Anti-gay speakers in Toronto are being shut down by the police and citizens these days.

6. The mosque shooters, the synagogue shooters were poisoned by legal propaganda.  I don't actually want it to be banned, I would prefer if all the people who squawk about free speech too their responsibility to report and shout down this bad information.  How do you think this stuff goes away ?  Ignoring it won't make it go away this time.  This stuff is actively being created to poison the well of democratic discussion.

 

 

 

[Moonlight Graham]

3 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

The Liberals are not actually bound to be fair, they have the authority of the monarch by Parliamentary Supremacy.

By those means they have a mandate to enforce public order at their discretion by their terms, Canada is not a republic, the Queen's Executive has broad powers to impose upon you.

They also are:

1. In a minority government, so can't pass any laws without other parties.

2. Checked by the SCC.

There's different bars that need to be left over for Parliament or the Courts to limit free speech.  It's not as easy as you make it out to be.  For instance, the bar for what constitutes hate speech is set quite high so that ridiculous precedents aren't set.

The real enemy to free speech are the provincial human rights commissions which decide code breaches using kangaroo courts and "quasi-legal" public servant officers nstead of judges.

Edited December 16, 2019 by Moonlight Graham

[Moonlight Graham]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. Well, government does this anyway.  Lots of examples where government makes decisions despite popular opinion going the toher way.

That's a strawman, we're talking about free speech, not simply any gov decision /law regarding something not protected by Charter rights.  It's not the same as banning cigarettes.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. Your binary assessment isn't accurate, nor does it apply to the new media landscape.  And calling back to fascist and totalitarian regimes is simplistic.

You've not explained why.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

4. Well I see regular circulation of antisimetic and anti-Islamic propaganda every time I sign on.  There's no backlash I can see.  I don't even hear anyone talking about it.

They keep dragging Zuckerberg in front of Congress about things like political ads.  The heat is on to change things.  I think Facebook as a company has an ethical responsibility to choose which ads they show.  Whether Congress should make laws forcing him to change things is another matter.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

5. Anti-gay speakers in Toronto are being shut down by the police and citizens these days.

Depends why.  I don't care if someone wants to express opinions that homosexual acts are immoral.  That's their prerogative, and my prerogative to disagree.  If you threaten gay people, that should be shut down.  Half of twitter hates white people, they're a-holes but i don't want them arrested.  if they threaten white people with violence, then i want them arrested.

How offensive is too offensive, and who decides that?  That's an extremely dangerous responsibility.  I don't even believe in "hate speech" crimes.  IMO hate speech is when you call for ie: violence or genocide against a group, which is already covered by other laws.  If you hate Muslims, like who cares.  It only becomes a problem when discriminatory or violent actions (or threats of actions in some cases) are taken against said groups, which is illegal as it should be.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

6. The mosque shooters, the synagogue shooters were poisoned by legal propaganda.  I don't actually want it to be banned, I would prefer if all the people who squawk about free speech too their responsibility to report and shout down this bad information.  How do you think this stuff goes away ?  Ignoring it won't make it go away this time.  This stuff is actively being created to poison the well of democratic discussion.

Is it the fault of the online hate sites that someone shoots a mosque, or is it the fault of the shooter themselves?  You can hate someone without committing violence against them.  Should twitter be shut down by government because a lot of users on there spread anti-white propaganda?  A lot of people hate Trump too.  If there's threats of violence on these anti-Muslim/anti-semite sites then those responsible should be charged with a crime as per the law.  Dougie hates Canadians, should he be charged.  Arabs can hate on Canada/Canadians all they want, they'll only be arrested when they start planning or threaten terror crimes.  These fringe groups IMO simply need to be monitored for violent threats.

Mein Kampf isn't banned in Canada.  Chapters doesn't carry it, because Heather the CEO is Jewish and has chosen to not sell it as is her legal right.  But the government doesn't ban it.  Do you want to burn books Michael?  Fahrenheit 451.

[Dougie93]

11 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

They also are:

1. In a minority government, so can't pass any laws without other parties.

2. Checked by the SCC.

 

lol   Yeah okay sure. 

The opposition is fake, the judges themselves are the Woke.

Nothing stands in the way of the lunatic left in Canader.

[Argus]

14 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

They also are:

1. In a minority government, so can't pass any laws without other parties.

This parliament has a majority of left wing parties. Left wing parties have no respect for freedom of speech or freedom of expression where it involves blaspheming against their sacred values (which change monthly). The entire NDP caucus, including the women, would get erections at the thought of laws to ban offensive speech.

14 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

2. Checked by the SCC.

I don't think the SCC cares much for freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion, or freedom of expression where it involves anything offensive to progressive social values. I would not rely on the SCC to protect any of these things. Lawyers in Canada are indoctrinated with progressive social views in law school, which is why Harper wasn't able to find any conservatives to appoint.

 

[jacee]

14 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

They also are:

1. In a minority government, so can't pass any laws without other parties.

2. Checked by the SCC.

There's different bars that need to be left over for Parliament or the Courts to limit free speech.  It's not as easy as you make it out to be.  For instance, the bar for what constitutes hate speech is set quite high so that ridiculous precedents aren't set.

I see you're taking a reasonable approach to this, Moonlight, unlike some who (read 'Postmillennial' and) exaggerate the 'threat' to our  Freedom of Expression. 

I'm referring back to scribblet's OP now, looking at the real parameters of this initiative by quoting the actual relevant content of Trudeau's letter to the Minister:

I will expect you to work with your colleagues and through established legislative, regulatory and Cabinet processes to deliver on your top priorities. In particular, you will:

Create new regulations for social media platforms, starting with a requirement that all platforms remove illegal content, including hate speech, within 24 hours or face significant penalties. This should include other online harms such as radicalization, incitement to violence, exploitation of children, or creation or distribution of terrorist propaganda.

Really, people, there is no new law here, and not even any new enforcement of the existing Canadian law, which is and will remain Section 319 of the Criminal Code: "Wilful promotion of hatred". 

It's even questionable that such new regulations will have any teeth: How does Canada tell Mark Zuckerberg to remove content that is illegal in Canada but not in the US? Will the regulations apply only to content generated in Canada? That's a loophole that you could drive a truck through! 

I see this as a purely political move in response to legitimate concerns of Canadians, that 'wilful promotion of hatred' against groups of people (notably Indigenous, Muslim, Black and LGBTQ2), radicalization, terrorism, exploitation of children, etc. is rampant online and needs to be curbed. The Liberals want to be seen to be trying to do 'something' about it. So there will be 'regulations' on the books ... but who's actually tasked with enforcing the regulation? The owners of the platform. And who's monitoring the owners to identify illegal content and make sure that they "remove illegal content ... within 24 hours"?

<crickets>

It's just politics, playing to the crowd, and possibly somewhat educational for owners of platforms, the public and the police. I'm pleased to see it mentioned, just for the educational value and perhaps to encourage the public to report "illegal" content to platform owners, applying social pressure rather than legal ... but I don't see any real teeth in such regulations: Trudeau is not going to fund and staff a whole new unit of RCMP to crawl around the internet to identify and enforce the "24 hour" regulations on "illegal" content on platforms that don't originate in Canada.  

While "hate speech" is perhaps popular terminology among the public, we do not have a federal law against "hate speech" per se. We have laws against 'inciting or promoting hatred'. So the use of the term "hate speech" is a clue that this is just political window dressing, without any real legal enforcement.

Edited December 16, 2019 by jacee

[scribblet]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

This parliament has a majority of left wing parties. Left wing parties have no respect for freedom of speech or freedom of expression where it involves blaspheming against their sacred values (which change monthly). The entire NDP caucus, including the women, would get erections at the thought of laws to ban offensive speech.

I don't think the SCC cares much for freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion, or freedom of expression where it involves anything offensive to progressive social values. I would not rely on the SCC to protect any of these things. Lawyers in Canada are indoctrinated with progressive social views in law school, which is why Harper wasn't able to find any conservatives to appoint.

Exactly. 

What  is very disturbing is  there is no definition of what constitutes hate speech in this endeavour,  which will leave the door open for all kinds of gov’t abuses.  

Most of us see this for what it really is, Liberal attempt to stifle free speech especially if it's doesn’t fit liberal ideology.     What’s next – education camps

ETA:  as an example of overreach and what can happen if you espouse anti liberal views articulately without attacks or 'hate' etc.   Manny Ottawa who  anti Liberal as had his Twitter account suspended.   I never saw Manny attack anyone or espouse 'hate', only anti Trudeau and anti Liberal commentary.

 

Edited December 16, 2019 by scribblet

[BubberMiley]

People shouldn't be allowed to spread misinformation designed to provoke hate against their neighbours. Naturally, the worst offenders among us in this regard would immediately try to play the victim card and blame the big bad minority Liberals.

[jacee]

On 12/15/2019 at 10:14 AM, Michael Hardner said:

No - but can it be that hard to imagine the courts saying a false newspaper story saying that refugees are sacrificing animals in hotel rooms was published to foment hatred towards that group ?  (This story happened btw, it's not a "suppose if")

Michael, even though I may believe that that false story of refugees slaughtering goats in a hotel bathroom was intended to "promote hatred" ... NO, I can't imagine the courts concluding that "beyond a reasonable doubt". 

First, because the original publication of that claim online was by a possibly anonymous or fake 'customer' posting a fake review of the hotel on Trip Advisor. So that's the real perpetrator, but the hotel can't remove reviews. Did Trip Advisor remove that review? I don't know ... perhaps. Did police search out that poster to charge them with 'promoting hatred'? Very unlikely ... because repeating a rumour that you "believe" to be true absolves you under the law anyway.

It became a much more public issue when Sue-Ann Levy opined about it in her usual nauseating manner, including repeating that fake 'review' ... in her column. She cited her source without verifying it's veracity, a journalistic fault but likely not a legal one: The courts could never prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Levy was intending to promote hatred against refugees. In fact, in responding to complaints, Levy determinedly maintained that her purpose was to bring attention to the plight of these refugees, brought to Canada, and then "abandoned" by the Liberal government. 

It is, as Moonlight Graham said, a very high bar to even lay charges under Section 319, and even moreso for obtaining a conviction in court that will stick through appeal and Supreme Court challenge.

[jacee]

45 minutes ago, scribblet said:

What  is very disturbing is  there is no definition of what constitutes hate speech in this endeavour,  which will leave the door open for all kinds of gov’t abuses.  

'Hate speech' does not have to be further defined, because what is illegal is already defined by law in the Criminal Code of Canada, and the instruction is to "remove illegal content". 

- public incitement of hatred

- wilful promotion of hatred

(And also enforce any laws relating to 'radicalization, terrorism, exploitation of children, etc.) 

[Argus]

1 hour ago, BubberMiley said:

People shouldn't be allowed to spread misinformation designed to provoke hate against their neighbours.

Why not? The Liberals sure did it during the last election. So did the Tories, for that matter.

[BubberMiley]

43 minutes ago, Argus said:

Why not? The Liberals sure did it during the last election. So did the Tories, for that matter.

Because it's dishonest and hurtful.

[Argus]

33 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

Because it's dishonest and hurtful.

Then maybe the politicians should set the tone and stop doing it.

[BubberMiley]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Then maybe the politicians should set the tone and stop doing it.

I agree.

Edited December 16, 2019 by BubberMiley

[Michael Hardner]

18 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

1. That's a strawman, we're talking about free speech, not simply any gov decision /law regarding something not protected by Charter rights.  It's not the same as banning cigarettes.

2. You've not explained why.

3. They keep dragging Zuckerberg in front of Congress about things like political ads.  The heat is on to change things.  I think Facebook as a company has an ethical responsibility to choose which ads they show.  Whether Congress should make laws forcing him to change things is another matter.

4. Depends why.  I don't care if someone wants to express opinions that homosexual acts are immoral.  That's their prerogative, and my prerogative to disagree.  

5. How offensive is too offensive, and who decides that?  That's an extremely dangerous responsibility.  I don't even believe in "hate speech" crimes.  IMO hate speech is when you call for ie: violence or genocide against a group, which is already covered by other laws. 

6. If you hate Muslims, like who cares.  It only becomes a problem when discriminatory or violent actions (or threats of actions in some cases) are taken against said groups, which is illegal as it should be.

7. Is it the fault of the online hate sites that someone shoots a mosque, or is it the fault of the shooter themselves? 

8. You can hate someone without committing violence against them.  Should twitter be shut down by government because a lot of users on there spread anti-white propaganda? 

9. A lot of people hate Trump too.  If there's threats of violence on these anti-Muslim/anti-semite sites then those responsible should be charged with a crime as per the law.  Dougie hates Canadians, should he be charged.  Arabs can hate on Canada/Canadians all they want, they'll only be arrested when they start planning or threaten terror crimes.  These fringe groups IMO simply need to be monitored for violent threats.

10. Mein Kampf isn't banned in Canada.  Chapters doesn't carry it, because Heather the CEO is Jewish and has chosen to not sell it as is her legal right.  But the government doesn't ban it.  Do you want to burn books Michael?  Fahrenheit 451.

1. Ok - let's go back to your main question: "Are you one of those people that thinks the government should decide which ideas are good or bad instead of public opinion? "
    Why is not the same as banning cigarettes ?  If we tried something and decided that there's no good in it... why not ban it ?  Let's p;lay devil's advocate here.  I'm not talking about person freedom of speech I'm talking about speech through "media" which is already heavily regulated in what you can/can't say and always has been.  Is there some benefit to someone starting a TV station that broadcasts Holocaust Denial ?  I am not a fan of government getting involved in this, but as a last resort at least it seems like an option.

 

2. " Public opinion has been the arbiter since the dawn of free speech rights, things have gone well.  When the government is the arbiter, things don't go well.  See every communist or fascist regime or absolute monarchy ever in history."
   We already restrict hate speech more than other countries and it seems to work arguably well.  We certainly don't live in a fascist regime.  And if we stopped people from broadcasting hate messages, but allowed them to free speak them in public, and allowed people to criticize government policy, immigration etc. then I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be fascist.   So stop the hyperbole.

 

3. You keep saying 'ads'.  It's not just ads.  And your counter-example to me saying "I don't hear anyone talking about it" is government pressure to effectively censor so I don't understandi if you're disagreeing with me here or not.

 

4.  That is what they're doing, and they are being shut down.

5. Well the courts have to interpret laws today - why would that be different ?  

6. So someone paints Muslims, Jews or what have you as a world wide conspiracy to replace and enslave the white race.  Foreign countries set up chat groups to forment and churn up hatred.  Marginal types read these groups, become infuriated and commit mass murder.  " If you hate Muslims, like who cares." - is that all you have got ?

7. It doesn't have to be either or.  And the site is set up specifically to foment hate and disunity as a goal.    There's a famous legal case where someone disposed of gasoline into a garbage can, and somebody else later threw a lit match - causing damage.  The court established partial blame.

8. Let's not pretend there's no such thing as context or that it's impossible to tell the different between Jeff Foxworthy and Adolf Hitler.

9. The RCMP checks on what Immams say in sermons...   And that's in-person real free speech, not even online.

10. You are missing the point of my previous post.  Maybe this post will make you understand my point that social media messages require a special consideration, just as all media before it has had special consideration.  

 

[Michael Hardner]

5 hours ago, jacee said:

 1. It became a much more public issue when Sue-Ann Levy opined about it in her usual nauseating manner, including repeating that fake 'review' ... in her column.

2. She cited her source without verifying it's veracity, a journalistic fault but likely not a legal one:

3. The courts could never prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Levy was intending to promote hatred against refugees.

4. In fact, in responding to complaints, Levy determinedly maintained that her purpose was to bring attention to the plight of these refugees, brought to Canada, and then "abandoned" by the Liberal government. 

5. It is, as Moonlight Graham said, a very high bar to even lay charges under Section 319, and even moreso for obtaining a conviction in court that will stick through appeal and Supreme Court challenge.

1. You're wrong.  It didn't become "more public" it became "public" because a public figure was giving credence to what was hitherto a baseless rumour.

2. I'm asking if it should be a legal one.  

3. Under existing laws, sure.

4. She's a bullshitting liar, though.  She forgot to mention that.

5. Whatever is being described in the OP - this seems to be different.

[Dougie93]

What the Criminal Code actually says is that hate speech is only an offence where "it is likely to breach the peace"

The Crown has to prove that the peace was imminently breached by said speech.

That's where it becomes difficult to prove,  a bunch of people simply being offended is not likely to lead to a conviction.

[Dougie93]

 

Quote

 

Social media giants ignore law, don’t take Canada seriously: MPs

Politicians are increasingly concerned that social media giants have become so big, powerful and rich that they are effectively above the law – at least in a small country like Canada.

Their concern was on display last week at a meeting of the House of Commons access to information, privacy and ethics committee, where Liberal MPs raked Google over the coals for its decision not to run any political ads during this fall’s federal election campaign, rather than comply with a new law that requires them keep an online ad registry.

“Here’s my frustration,” Toronto Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith told Google Canada representatives Jason Kee and Colin McKay.

“You have a company that makes billions of dollars and looks at … a small jurisdiction in Canada and says, ‘Your democracy doesn’t matter enough to us, we’re not going to participate.’ But if a big player decided to change the rules, I guarantee that you would follow those rules.

“But we are too small for you. You are too big, you are too important and we are just not important enough for Google for you to take us seriously.”

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-social-media-giants-ignore-law-dont-take-canada-seriously-mps-2/

 

 

[jacee]

5 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

What the Criminal Code actually says is that hate speech is only an offence where "it is likely to breach the peace"

The Crown has to prove that the peace was imminently breached by said speech.

That's where it becomes difficult to prove,  a bunch of people simply being offended is not likely to lead to a conviction.

Breach of the peace applies only  to "Public incitement of hatred". 

But not to "Wilful promotion of hatred" which covers online, print, flyers, posters and other communications. 

Edited December 17, 2019 by jacee

[jacee]

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. You're wrong.  It didn't become "more public" it became "public" because a public figure was giving credence to what was hitherto a baseless rumour.

2. I'm asking if it should be a legal one.  

3. Under existing laws, sure.

4. She's a bullshitting liar, though.  She forgot to mention that.

5. Whatever is being described in the OP - this seems to be different.

The TripAdvisor 'review' that Levy cited was already public, but ya, it didn't become broadly known until the Levy/Toronto Sun trash rag peice. 

"Should" ... well ... it's a tough call with little likelihood of conviction. Might have been different if the fire injured people, the arsonist was caught and babbled about Levy's column ...Ya, bs liar Levy should be mincemeat but ... it's a high bar.

"Different" ... in that 'somebody' will monitor sites for "hate speech" ... but the definition of hate content will remain as per Section 319 - a very high bar. 

[Michael Hardner]

8 minutes ago, jacee said:

1. The TripAdvisor 'review' that Levy cited was already public, but ya, it didn't become broadly known until the Levy/Toronto Sun trash rag peice. 

2. "Should" ... well ... it's a tough call with little likelihood of conviction.  

3. "Different" ... in that 'somebody' will monitor sites for "hate speech" ... but the definition of hate content will remain as per Section 319 - a very high bar. 

1. 'Public' is a term I use deliberately in the context of a nonymous invested and engaged group.  Unnamed online comments are not part of a 'public'.  The word public has come to mean 'openly known' which is how you appear to be reading it.

2. 3. I don't care about current legal readings.  I am talking about making the law stricter.

[jacee]

34 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. 'Public' is a term I use deliberately in the context of a nonymous invested and engaged group.  Unnamed online comments are not part of a 'public'.  The word public has come to mean 'openly known' which is how you appear to be reading it.

2. 3. I don't care about current legal readings.  I am talking about making the law stricter.

Ya I get that, but I don't think that's the intention with this policy. Other than getting rid of 'Your Ward News',  police barely seem to use the ones we have, but maybe this will give them more practice. 

I just don't see the current legal definition being applied by police within the 24 hr period specified ... so who's making those judgements? 

All very unclear. 

Edited December 17, 2019 by jacee

[Argus]

16 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

We already restrict hate speech more than other countries and it seems to work arguably well. 

European countries restrict speech much more than us. They arrest people for saying the kinds of things you want banned and have for years, even decades.

How's that working out over there?

[scribblet]

IMO that's what this new policy is intended to do; that is restrict speech much more than it is now, and quickly. 

[Dougie93]

I find it to be consistent with the rule of the British Crown under royal prerogative to maintain order by enforcing the Queen's Peace.

The remedy for those who declaim it is the Declaration of Independence and associated Republic of the United States of America, same as it ever was.