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 196: Vibert Jack on the Supreme Court's Landmark Bykovets Internet Privacy Ruling
byMichael Geist
March 18, 2024
Michael Geist
March 11, 2024
Michael Geist
February 26, 2024
Michael Geist
February 12, 2024
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Recent Posts
- The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 196: Vibert Jack on the Supreme Court’s Landmark Bykovets Internet Privacy Ruling
- Better Laws, Not Bans: Why a TikTok Ban is a Bad Idea
- Government Gaslighting Again?: Unpacking the Uncomfortable Reality of the Online Harms Act
- The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 195: Vivek Krishnamurthy on What You Need to Know About the Online Harms Act
- Taking Action Against Antisemitic Hate: When Content Moderation, Self-Regulation, and Legislation Fail