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
Episode 138: John Lawford on the Legal, Regulatory and Policy Responses to the Rogers Outage
August 8, 2022
Episode 135: Co-Chair Emily Laidlaw on the Work of the Government's Expert Advisory Group on Online Safety
July 18, 2022
July 11, 2022
Search Results placeholder
- The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 138: John Lawford on the Legal, Regulatory and Policy Responses to the Rogers Outage
- The Staffieri or Scott Quiz: Can You Tell the Difference Between the Rogers CEO and the CRTC Chair?
- The CRTC Shrugged: A Special Law Bytes Podcast on the Industry Committee Hearing Into the Rogers Outage
- The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 136: Jeremy de Beer on SOCAN v. ESA, the Supreme Court’s Latest Endorsement of Copyright Balance and Technological Neutrality
- Supreme Court of Canada on Copyright: “Copyright Law Does Not Exist Solely for the Benefit of Authors”