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).
With user content clearly in the bill, supporters also point to constraints on the CRTC to safeguard freedom of expression. Canadian Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez told the Heritage committee “the CRTC, whatever it does in regulations, has to respect freedom of expression.” Liberal MPs regularly echoed that position: Tim Louis stated “freedom of expression is protected under the charter and would be protected in the online streaming act” or Francis Scarpaleggia noted on Charter protections “it is here in black and white. It is in the law. We can tell the opposition not to worry about it, that it is in the law and that all these guarantees are laid down in the law, but they will not believe it.”
Witnesses such as University of Montreal professor Pierre Trudel said much the same:
In my opinion, we can’t really take these fears of alleged censorship seriously. The Broadcasting Act prohibits the CRTC from infringing on freedom of expression. Therefore, the CRTC could not take measures that would censor what users can put online. That seems to me to be completely out of the question. To argue that this could happen, one would have to assume that the CRTC would be violating the act. That is why, in my opinion, this hypothesis has no basis in fact. It seems to me to be totally unfounded. It is not even a question of intent, but rather of fabrication, since the act expressly states that it must be applied with respect for freedom of expression. So I don’t understand how anyone can continue to claim that there’s a risk that the CRTC will start censoring content, whether it’s user-generated content or any other kind of content.
Those assurances have been eviscerated given last week’s CRTC ruling on the use of the N-word on a Radio-Canada broadcast. The decision requires Radio-Canada to apologize, take steps to address the issue in the future, and potentially remove the segment from its website. As the two dissenting opinions in the ruling note, the CRTC does not even consider the Charter or freedom of expression in its decision. Rather, it concludes that the use violates the objectives of the Broadcasting Act and issues the order.
As I argue in this post, if the CRTC can ignore freedom of expression in this case, why not in cases involving Internet content? In an obvious parallel, Bill C-11 would give the CRTC the power to set conditions demoting or applying warning labels to content it considers contrary to Broadcasting Act objectives, which are so broad as to cover a wide range of lawful content.
Supporters of Bill C-11 who dismissed the freedom of expression concerns are suddenly now concerned the CRTC could become “the censorship police.” Trudel signed onto a public letter warning that the decision sets a dangerous precedent that could be applied to other media. Bloc MP Martin Champoux has called on Minister Rodriguez to order the CRTC to revoke the decision which he said sabotages freedom of expression, while Quebec’s culture minister Nathalie Roy called the ruling “a serious attack on freedom of expression.” For his part, Rodriguez tried to both-sides the issue and said it would not comment further until the deadline for an appeal has concluded.
The case – which the CRTC sat on for months and only released days after Bill C-11 passed in the House – is a wake up call that simply trusting the CRTC to safeguard freedom of expression is not good enough, particularly given government plans to hand it power over the content found on Internet platforms. The best way to ensure user Internet expression is properly protected is to recognize that it does not belong in the Broadcasting Act and for the Senate to remove any regulatory powers over it from Bill C-11.
Michael Geist never misses a chance to attack Bill C-11 even though the CRTC’s current actions are governed by the Broadcasting Act as it now stands, not the bill before Parliament. In fact, the Commission’s decision on the use of the N-word in a Radio-Canada radio program has nothing to do with Bill C-11 and does not tell us anything about the Commission’s future orientation (perhaps led by Caroline Simard once Ian Scott finishes his term in September).
As law professor Pierre Trudel said in the quote above, where freedom of expression is concerned, the CRTC cannot take measures that would censor what users can put online. In fact, the Commission does not preview program material prior to broadcast and acts solely on an ex post complaints basis. This is what happened with the recent Radio-Canada program when a listener complained after its airing. Administrative tribunals can make mistakes and when the Commission does so in regard to broadcasting, it is subject to both Cabinet and judicial review.
Sure, Bill C-11 would potentially permit the regulation of user-generated content in extraordinary cases where “users” are behaving like multi-million dollar broadcasting programming undertakings. But in such situations, the CRTC would use its discretion on very rare occasions, if at all – and only on an ex post basis. As Pierre Trudel said, . we can’t really take these fears of alleged censorship seriously”. In any case, the CRTC’s Radio-Canada ruling has nothing to do with Bill C-11.
I don’t trust this government at all. Women who speak out against the harms of gender ideology causes to women and children & speak up for our sex-based rights will be targeted as happened in other countries, most recently Norway, where a woman is facing a 3 year sentence for tweeting that men are not women. This is one of a series of disturbing, authoritarian legislative initiatives by our “feminist” prime minister. And read everything carefully, cause they’re sneaky. Your rights are extinguished before you know it.
Pingback: Links 10/07/2022: QCoro 0.6.0 and Voice 0.0.6 for GNOME 43 | Techrights
Pingback: The CRTC, Pierre Vallières, the N-word and broader principles – Vaste programme
Pingback: Opinion: How Ottawa’s Internet Censorship Law Will Affect You – Ultimate App Maker
Pingback: Opinion: How Ottawa’s internet censorship law will affect you - Financial Post - VirtualBits.com
Pingback: The Niagara Independent
Pingback: The Hamilton Independent