The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage has for the past month been conducting a study on protecting freedom of expression. The counters of the study aren’t entirely clear. In fact, after I was invited to appear, I asked for some sense of what the committee was looking to address. There […]
Search Results for "c-11" : 409
Protecting Freedom of Expression: My Heritage Committee Appearance on the Chilling Effect of Antisemitism
The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is in the midst of conducting a study on protecting freedom of expression that has opened the door to discussing a wide range of issues. I appeared as a witness before the committee yesterday and divided my opening remarks into two issues. First, I discussed the way digital policies (notably including Bills C-11, C-18, C-63, and S-210) all intersect with expression in either directly or indirectly, arguing that we haven’t always taken the protection of expression sufficiently seriously in the digital policy debate. Second, I focused on the challenge of when expression chills others expression, using antisemitism as a deeply troubling example.
I will likely devote a future podcast to the full appearance and my exchanges with MPs, who wanted to learn more about both the speech implications of digital policy and some of the suggestions for addressing antisemitism. In the meantime, my opening comments are posted below in text with a video on the chilling effect of antisemitism. I discuss the myriad of concerns and identify steps that could be taken to mitigate against the harms, including clearly defined policies, such as the IHRA definition of antisemitism, active enforcement of campus policies and codes, principled implementation of institutional neutrality, leadership in speaking out against conduct that creates fear and chills speech, as well as time and place restrictions and bubble zone legislation to strike a much needed balance.
How the Online Streaming Act Misdiagnosed Canada’s Broadcasting Woes
Nearly one year ago, I made my way from my home in Ottawa across the river to the Gatineau hearing room used by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to participate in its inaugural proceeding on implementing the Online Streaming Act, better known as Bill C-11. I had regularly appeared as a witness at House of Commons and Senate committees, but this was my first time participating in a hearing before Canada’s broadcasting regulator. I came with a simple message: while the roster of witnesses was filled with cultural lobby groups and broadcasters asking for their share of the bill’s anticipated pot of gold, the perspective of consumers and the public interest needed to be heard.
My opening statement emphasized prioritizing public over private interests, which, I argued, meant putting Canadians at the centre of their communications system, as one CRTC chair once characterized it. I did not anticipate receiving a warm reception, but I was still taken aback by the frostiness toward the notion that consumers and the public interest were important considerations. Instead, commissioners pointed to the need to step in where broadcasters or content creators were struggling to succeed in the market.
Canadian Government to Ban TikTok (the Company not the App)
The Canadian government has just announced the conclusion of its national security review of TikTok and arrived at a curious conclusion: it plans to ban the company from operating in Canada but the app will remain available here. I wrote earlier this year about the need for better laws to counter the risks associated with TikTok, rather than banning the app altogether. That post came in response to U.S. legislation that proposed to ban the app, but which is now in doubt given the results of yesterday’s U.S. Presidential election. There may well be good reasons to ban the app if it poses security and privacy risks that differ from those of other platforms, but banning the company rather than the app may actually make matters worse since the risks associated with the app will remain but the ability to hold the company accountable will be weakened.
The Bill on Canada’s Digital Policy Comes Due: Blocked News Links, Cancelled Sponsorship, Legal Challenges, and Digital Ad Surcharges
Canada’s digital policy has seemingly long proceeded on the assumption that tech companies would draw from an unlimited budget to write bigger cheques to meet government regulation establishing new mandated payments. Despite repeated warnings on Bills C-11 (Internet streaming), C-18 (online news), and a new digital services tax that tech companies – like anyone else – were more likely to respond by adjusting their Canadian budgets or simply passing along new costs to consumers, the government and the bill’s supporters repeatedly dismissed the risks that the plans could backfire. Yet today the bill from those digital policy choices is coming due: legal and trade challenges, blocked news links amid decreasing trust in the media, cancellation of sponsorship deals worth millions of dollars that will be devastating to creators, and a new Google digital advertising surcharge that kicks in next week to offset the costs of the digital services tax.
Recent Posts
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 246: Mohamed Zohiri on the Rise and Emerging Regulation of Stablecoins 
Senate Bill Would Grant Government Regulatory Power to Mandate Age Verification For Search, Social Media and AI Services Accompanied By Threat of Court Ordered Blocking of Lawful Content 
Government Reverses on Bill C-2: Removes Lawful Access Warrantless Demand Powers in New Border Bill 
Why The Recent TikTok Privacy Ruling Swaps Privacy for Increased Surveillance 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 245: Kate Robertson on Bill C-2’s Cross-Border Data Sharing Privacy Risks
