The government’s strategy of controlling the internet has been criticized in the case of submission to Canadian Heritage
Proposing a broader federal law to address harmful online content is not only “fundamentally flawed,” but also violates Canadians’ right to freedom of expression and privacy, warns Internet law experts who are urging liberals to rebuild their approach.
The main problem with the so-called “online harm” proposal lies in its ability to filter content and block websites that “threaten the existence of a free and open Internet in Canada and beyond” by Samuelson-Glushco Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPPIC) Faculty of Law.
“In order to combat hate speech and other ailments, the proposed law threatens the right to free expression and privacy of the egalitarian community,” said Yuan Stevens and Vivek Krishnamurthy at the CIPPK’s Sept. 28 meeting.
CIPPPIC urges the government to reconsider its approach to controlling online platforms from “ground up” to address issues caused by malicious online content.
“The online damage proposal combines some of the worst elements of other laws in the world,” the experts said in their submission.
“We are deeply concerned about a number of elements of the proposed legislation – such as the lack of adequate transparency, the need to obtain information about the basic needs of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), the various jurisdictions raised by law and the governing body under the Canadian law. Whether to be able to.
In July, Canadian Heritage launched a public consultation to gather opinions on the proposed legislation, which it said would be part of an overall strategy to combat hate speech and other damages.
“The government’s goal this autumn is to introduce a new legal and regulatory framework, to make social media platforms and other online services more accountable and transparent,” the Canadian Heritage press release said after announcing the public consultation. Shortly after the election, September 25 ended.
Specifically, the new law will target online posts in five categories: terrorist content, content inciting violence, hate speech, dissenting sharing of intimate images, and child sexual abuse content.
This is one of the three parts of the controversial law on Internet control enacted by the Liberals.
The previously introduced Bill C-10 requires social media platforms and Internet streaming companies to contribute financially to support Canadian content, and Bill C-36 allows individuals to file a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission if they feel “hated” online. In addition to these two proposed laws, the purpose of the new proposal is to “fight against hate speech and other harms” and the Liberals will introduce it when Parliament resumes.
CIPIPI said it took advantage of the strategy, especially on the condition that “platforms block illegal content within 24 hours of being flagged, as well as the need to actively monitor and filter the content of online service providers as well as report user concerns.”
The group argues that the need for a 24-hour blockade to avoid the risk of liability under the proposed law would lead social media platforms to an even more anxious attitude to remove large amounts of legitimate content.
‘Huge new bureaucratic super-structure’
Michael Zeist, Canada’s research chair of Internet and e-commerce law at the University of Ottawa, said in his submission that a fundamental problem with the government’s approach is the “equivalent and equal need” legal and regulatory response to five categories of harmful content. ”
“There is no point in considering hate online as the equivalent of child pornography,” he wrote. “By determining the same procedure for all these types of content, the effectiveness of the policy is called into question.”
Zeist said the proposed approach “envisions a huge new bureaucratic super-structure to oversee online damage and Internet-based services” that could jeopardize unreasonable and inappropriate processes.
“For example, judging thousands of potential content cases would require huge resources with the real question of ineffective and proper supervision. Similarly, the powers involved in the investigation are extremely problematic with serious implications for freedom of the press and freedom of expression.
Part of the online damage proposal includes online service providers requiring RCMP and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to report certain types of content. CIPPIC said such reports, when combined with active monitoring, “pose an unacceptable risk to Canadians’ right to privacy.”
“The law of an independent and democratic society should have no place for such a move,” it said.
At the September 25 submission to Canadian Heritage, the Citizen Lab of the University of Toronto’s Monk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy said the scope of the proposal was “overbroad and inconsistent” because they were illegal unless there were very few similarities between the five harmful topics.
Citizen Lab, whose research includes areas of communication technology, human rights, and global security.
“In a real sense, the sections are merged by almost nothing – constitutionally, practically, practically or morally, without the proposed remedy of content removal.”
This News Originally From – The Epoch Times