Bill C-11’s defenders have typically dismissed concerns about the bill and its implications for freedom of expression as misinformation. When pressed to address the actual substance in the bill, they either insist (wrongly) that the bill excludes user content or, alternatively, that even if it is in, the CRTC is bound by the Charter and requirements to safeguard freedom of expression. The claims about the exclusion of user content from the bill have been exceptionally weak as any reasonable reading of Section 4.2 leads to the conclusion that content is subject to potential CRTC regulation (for example, TikTok has concluded that all videos with music are caught). That regulation can include conditions on “the presentation of programs and programming services for selection by the public”, which means the CRTC can establish regulations on the presentation of content found on Internet platforms (the suggestion that it can’t or won’t watch millions of videos has always been a red herring since it doesn’t need to with a broadly-applicable regulation in place).
Archive for July 5th, 2022

Law Bytes
Episode 261: Ian Goldberg on the Privacy Risks of Age Assurance Technologies
byMichael Geist

March 16, 2026
Michael Geist
March 2, 2026
Michael Geist
February 23, 2026
Michael Geist
February 9, 2026
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Recent Posts
The Online Streaming Act in Jeopardy: U.S. Takes Aim at the CUSMA Cultural Exemption With Threats of Bill C-11 Retaliation
The Hidden Lawful Access Tradeoff: How Bill C-22 Lowers the Evidentiary Standards for Police Access to Subscriber Information
The Lawful Access Privacy Risks: Unpacking Bill C-22’s Expansive Metadata Retention Requirements
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 261: Ian Goldberg on the Privacy Risks of Age Assurance Technologies
Government Enacts Political Party Anti-Privacy Rules With Bill C-4 Royal Assent Sprint

