The Government has reintroduced a bill designed to require providers of Internet services to report incidents of child pornography. The bill was introduced as Bill C-58 last year. I discussed the bill here. The new bill is Bill C-22.
Government Reintroduces ISP Child Pornography Reporting Bill
May 7, 2010
Share this post
One Comment

Law Bytes
Episode 273: Rebroadcast of the Globe and Mail’s The Decibel on Canada’s First Steps Towards a Social Media Ban
byMichael Geist

June 22, 2026
Michael Geist
May 25, 2026
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Michael Geist on Substack
Recent Posts
New Rights, New Powers, Long Delays: Bill C-36’s Seven-Step Process for Privacy Reform to Take Effect
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 273: Rebroadcast of the Globe and Mail’s The Decibel on Canada’s First Steps Towards a Social Media Ban
Midnight Madness: The Government Rushes Lawful Access Bill Through the House Without Debate or a Recorded Vote
One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: Bill C-36 Modernizes Canada’s Privacy Law, Then Delays It to 2030
Gary Anandasangaree’s Vic Toews Moment Shows the Government Has Lost Its Way on Lawful Access

INTERPRETATION
I’m a little curious about this.
It says a hosting service is liable. Would a blog owner be liable as well?
I know of one blog owner who was under constant spam attacked by various IP’s. The spammer(s) would fill his blog with links to child porn and other to try and discredit him.
What happens in this scenario?
What happens if he misses some of the spam and the link is visible?
What if he just deletes it? Is he guilty for not reporting it and will face fines?
If he is to report it, what do we do when the spam is in the hundreds? Spend 8 hrs a day to collect it all and report it? Have to have the evidence for 21 days on top of that or face fines?
Also, if a blog owner checks a link out to make sure it isn’t child porn then per that ACT it appears he is guilty of accessing child porn!
Also, what constitutes an investigation? Lets say the spammer hits a site, and one or two out of a hundred spams gets missed. Then the spammer who used a botnet (or whatever) makes a complaint under this bill. Now what? That blog owner is under secret investigation with all packets snooped to see what he does and says and to whom automatically without notice or oversight? Seems like a set-up to me.
That bill is very badly worded. It is also very scary the way it is worded.