2017 Freedom of Expression Awards by Elina Kansikas for Index on Censorship https://flic.kr/p/Uvmaie (CC BY-SA 2.0)

2017 Freedom of Expression Awards by Elina Kansikas for Index on Censorship https://flic.kr/p/Uvmaie (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Committees / News

Failure to Balance Freedom of Expression and Protection from Online Harms: My Submission to the Government’s Consultation on Addressing Harmful Content Online

The government’s consultation on its proposed approach to address harmful content online concluded over the weekend. The consultation was one of several consults that ran during the election period and which raise questions about whether policy makers are genuinely interested in incorporating feedback from Canadians. I submitted to all the various consultations and will be posting those submissions this week.

I start with my online harms submission. The full submission, which touches on issues such as 24 hour takedowns, website blocking, proactive monitoring, and enforcement, can be found here. To learn more about the issues, catch my Law Bytes podcast episode with Cynthia Khoo or listen to a terrific discussion that I had together with Daphne Keller on the Tech Policy Press Podcast. The submission opens with eight general comments that I’ve posted below:

1.    The proposed approach does not strike an appropriate balance between addressing online harms and safeguarding freedom of expression. Indeed, after a single perfunctory statement on the benefits of Online Communications Services (OCSs) which says little about the benefits of freedom of expression, the document does not include a single mention of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or net neutrality. There is surely a need to address online harms, but doing so must be Charter compliant and consistent with Canadian values of freedom of expression. I believe the proposed approach fails to adequately account for the freedom of expression side of the ledger.

2.    Rather than adopting a “made in Canada” approach consistent with Canadian values, the plan relies heavily on policy developments elsewhere. Yet the reality is that those models from countries such as France, Germany, and Australia have met with strong opposition and raised serious concerns of unintended consequences. Indeed, France’s approach has been ruled unconstitutional, Germany’s model has resulted in over-broad removal of lawful content and a lack of due process, and Australia’s framework is entirely unproven. An evidence-based approach would better account for these experiences rather than seek to mirror them.

3.    The proposed approach mistakenly treats a series of harms – spreading hateful content, propaganda, violence, sexual exploitation of children, and non-consensual distribution of intimate images – as equivalent and requiring the same legislative and regulatory response. While there is a commonality between these harms as so-called “illegal speech”, there are also significant differences. For example, it makes no sense to treat online hate as the equivalent of child pornography. By prescribing the same approach for all these forms of content, the efficacy of the policy is called into question.

4.    There are lingering concerns about scope-creep with this proposal. Government officials have previously referenced the need to address “harmful” or “hurtful” comments, raising the prospect of expanding the model far beyond the current five forms of illegal speech cited in the proposal. Moreover, the government has indicated that these rules apply only to OCSs, identifying Facebook, Youtube, TikTok, Instagram, and Twitter as examples. It notes that there will be an exception for private communications and telecommunications such as wireless companies, Skype and WhatsApp (along with products and services such as TripAdvisor that are not OCSs). Yet during a briefing with stakeholders, officials were asked why the law shouldn’t be extended to private communications on platforms as well, noting that these harms may occur on private messaging. Given that the government previously provided assurances of the exclusion of user generated content in Bill C-10 only to backtrack and make it subject to CRTC regulation, there is a need for renewed assurances about the scope of the rules.

5.    The proposed approach envisions a massive new bureaucratic super-structure to oversee online harms and Internet based services. Due process concerns dictate that there be a suitable administrative structure to address these issues. However, some of the proposed models are ill-conceived that will not scale well nor afford the much-needed due process. For example, adjudicating over potentially tens of thousands of content cases is unworkable and would require massive resources with real questions about the appropriate oversight. Similarly, the powers associated with investigations are enormously problematic with serious implications for freedom of the press and freedom of expression.

6.    The proposed approach threatens Canada’s important role as a model for the rest of the world. Some of the proposals risk being deployed by autocratic countries to suppress freedom of expression with Canada cited as an example for why such measures are reasonable. The government should be asking a simple question with respect to many of its proposals: would Canadians be comfortable with the same measures being implemented countries such as China, Saudi Arabia, or Iran. If the answer is no (as I argue it should be), the government should think twice before risking its reputation as a leader in freedom of expression.

7.    The proposed approach also threatens to harm the very groups it purports to protect. Without full due process and with clear incentives to remove content, there are real fears that the rules will be used to target BIPOC communities and vulnerable groups. Those groups could be silenced by a process that is weaponized by purveyors of hate with their voices removed due to poorly conceived rules that do not feature adequate due process.

8.    During the last election campaign, the government promised to move forward within 100 days of its mandate. Given that commitment – as well as the structure of the consultation that reads more like a legislative outline rather than a genuine attempt to solicit feedback – there are considerable doubts about this consultative process. Consultations should not be a box-ticking exercise in which the actual responses are not fully factored into policy decisions. The challenge of reading, processing, analyzing and ultimately incorporating consultation responses within a three month period appears entirely unrealistic. The government should provide assurances that there will be no legislation without taking the consultation responses fully into account.


  1. While I commend your submission to this (and any/every) Liberal government consultation Michael, I fear it’s a waste of time that will fall on deaf ears.

    Despite this government being elected it’s first term on campaign lies (er, I mean promises) of transparency and open consultation, it’s all theatre. They hold consultations and then just go do whatever they want anyway, regardless of what the results of the consultations tells them the stakeholders want.

    I suppose, to be fair to them, they didn’t lie in their commitment to open and transparent consultations. They are doing that. We were just suckers for assuming that they would actually govern as a result of the response to the consultations. I don’t think they ever promised to do that. Stupid of us to assume that.

    Clever of them to guess that we would make that assumption.

  2. I didn’t respond to it. I should have. I wanted to. I couldn’t bring myself to. I sent enough submissions they ignored. I’m sorry.

    “Consulting” isn’t their intent. It’s a checkbox they’re ticking. This isn’t a conspiracy theory; we all know what they’re trying to do, because they tell us.

    I appreciate Mr. Geist’s submission, and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association submission, and the Independent Press Gallery Of Canada submission…I really do. When they’re ignored and the new laws are enacted anyway, this comment area becomes a danger to Mr. Geist’s freedom. Who knows what we’ll post here that could get him fined or imprisoned. While feedback is important, and while constitutional challenges in test cases happen, I feel the energy should be focused on distributed/decentralized anonymous private safe protocols and networks that resist tyranny. The Liberal Party can have their way with Facebook, arrest everyone on Twitter, but nobody will use those, then the control we’re relinquishing which the new laws rely on evaporates.

    • Every site will feel the heat from this push by the government. Of all the idea’s the Liberals are pushing (i.e. link taxes, speech regulation, copyright term extensions, etc.) this one concerns me the most. I’ve been trying to build up my own site for a number of years now and I’m getting closer to reaching levels which I consider “successful”, but I worry I’ll get shut down by the Canadian government more for political reasons because I dared to question the policy choices.

      The link taxes will definitely hurt my ability to continue referencing other works in my journalistic endeavours and the speech regulation will hamstring my ability to reach audiences on other platforms, but the online harms will represent a direct threat to my own website. Without my own site, I’ll have to, at best, rely on foreign web administrators to allow me to continue my work. At worst, I will probably have been completely barred from participating in Canadian democracy online.

      I suspect my anxiety levels over this one will only increase from here.

  3. What provisions of which treaties are compelling the current government to ignore the submissions dissenting against these proposals?

  4. Pingback: ● NEWS ● #MichaelGeist #canada ☞ Failure to Balance Freedom of Expr… | Dr. Roy Schestowitz (罗伊)

  5. Pingback: Links 29/9/2021: Oryx Pro GNU/Linux Laptop and Lots of Politics | Techrights

  6. Joan Kathleen Ruttan says:

    I have only one question: Who will be judging what is hate speech? Listening to Mr Trudeau makes me think that any and all comments related to the Liberal party will be censored.

  7. Pingback: Michael Geist Publishes His Response to Online Harms Proposal

  8. Pingback: Around the IP Blogs OPUS IP Patent Agents/Attorneys Manchester Stockport North-west UK

  9. Pingback: To protect our privacy and free speech, Canada needs to overhaul its approach to regulating online harms | The-14

  10. Pingback: To protect our privacy and free speech, Canada needs to overhaul its approach to regulating online harms – Philippine Canadian Inquirer

  11. Pingback: To protect our privacy and free speech, Canada needs to overhaul its approach to regulating online harms

  12. Pingback: To protect our privacy and free speech, Canada needs to overhaul its approach to regulating online harms - JSource

  13. Pingback: The U.S. May Stand Alone as a Haven for Free Speech – iftttwall

  14. Pingback: The U.S. May Stand Alone as a Haven for Free Speech – Adfero News

  15. Pingback: The U.S. May Stand Alone as a Haven for Free Speech - Insight Online New

  16. Pingback: The U.S. May Stand Alone as a Haven for Free Speech - Reason.com

  17. Pingback: The U.S. May Stand Alone as a Haven for Free Speech – The Knights Chronicle

  18. Pingback: To protect our privacy and free speech, Canada needs to overhaul its approach to regulating online harms - Canada's Top News