Post Tagged with: "freedom of speech"

Show me Common Sense by Adam Fagen https://flic.kr/p/24pgGRY CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

Conservatives Double Down on Support for Mandated Internet Age Verification and Website Blocking: Why Can’t Canada Get Common Sense Digital Policy?

Digital policy has been the source of seemingly never-ending frustration for years in Canada. The government chose to prioritize two flawed bills on online streaming and online news, both of which sparked considerable opposition, lengthy delays, and ultimately delivered few actual benefits (Bill C-11 faces at least another year of hearings at the CRTC, Bill C-18 is a disaster that has left many media companies worse off). Its 2021 consultation on online harms was so badly received that it was quickly shelved and has required nearly three years to recover. The policies it should have prioritized such as stronger privacy and competition rules were largely left to languish with Bill C-27 still in committee and now subject to mounting opposition over the decision fold AI regulation with minimal consultation into the bill.

Given that track record, it is hard to be optimistic as the online harms rules get set to take centre stage.

Supreme Court Upholds Election Publication Ban

A sharply divided Supreme Court of Canada this morning upheld an Elections Act provision that bans publication of election results before the close of all polling stations in that district. The case stems from the posting of election results on a website during the 2000 election. The majority of the court (written by Bastarache with concurring reasons from Fish) ruled that the infringement of freedom of expression is justified given the desire for informational equality among all voters. The majority was unpersuaded by the ineffectiveness and inconvenience (to broadcasters) of the law, noting that "it cannot be allowed to override as important a goal as the protection of Canada’s electoral democracy."

As was the case in the Robertson v. Thomson copyright case, the dissent was written by Abella (there is nearly the same split in the court). Justice Abella was entirely unpersuaded by the evidence marshalled to justify the limit on freedom of expression. She states that

"Any evidence of harm to the public’s perception or conduct in knowing the election results from Atlantic Canada before they vote is speculative, inconclusive and largely unsubstantiated. The harm of suppressing core political speech, on the other hand, is profound. The benefits of the ban are, accordingly, far outweighed by its deleterious effects."

The dissent is also far more concerned with the interplay between the ban and new technologies.