Four months ago this weekend, the government introduced Bill C-34, the Safe Social Media Act, with the headline promise to establish a social media ban for those under 16. The bill has attracted enormous attention from supporters and critics alike, yet the government still has not released the Charter statement that is supposed to accompany it. The Department of Justice Act requires the Minister of Justice to issue a Charter statement for every government bill that sets out its potential effects on Charter rights, with the express purpose of informing both Parliament and the public. Charter statements have been released for bills tabled after Bill C-34, including Bill C-36, the privacy reform bill that works in partnership with Bill C-34. Yet nothing has happened in four months on Bill C-34 and the social media ban.
Post Tagged with: "c-34"
Big Money, Bigger Design Changes: What the Meta Settlement Means for Canada, Bill C-34, and the Age Verification and Privacy Risks That Remain
The proposed settlement between Meta and 51 U.S. state attorneys general, filed last week and still subject to court approval, ranks among the biggest developments in technology litigation in years, featuring both big money and big design changes. The settlement is limited to the participating states, but it is likely to have significant implications for Canadian users and for legislative initiatives such as Bill C-34. Whether Meta extends the measures voluntarily, in response to similar Canadian lawsuits, or as part of a legislated duty to act responsibly in Bill C-34, changes are likely to make their way into Canada. This post highlights key provisions of the settlement and reviews the implications for three Canadian policy concerns: legislation vs. litigation, age verification or age assurance, and privacy.
Online Harms’ Forgotten Generation: Why the Government Needs to Pay Attention to Protecting Seniors
For much of the past month, someone has been trying to break into my Apple account. I receive regular e-mail and text notifications confirming a password change, which are soon followed by spoofed phone calls with caller ID that purports to be from the company but likely originates from Russia. As my Globe and Mail op-ed notes, I know enough to ignore the calls, delete the messages, and ensure I have two-factor authentication enabled to help keep hackers out.
Thanks For Joining the Movement: French Constitutional Council Strikes Down Kids’ Social Media Ban
French President Emmanuel Macron has been the global leader in promoting a ban on social media for kids, consistently welcoming countries that propose such measures with a “thanks for joining the movement” tweet. That includes Canada, which received its congratulatory tweet after a ban was included in Bill C-34. As I argued last month, however, I believe the Canadian ban is vulnerable to constitutional challenge on at least two fronts: freedom of expression, since blocking an entire cohort of Canadians from accessing information and expressing themselves on social media infringes Section 2(b) of the Charter, and privacy, since enforcing the ban will require millions of Canadians to verify their age to use social media services with the promised safeguards nowhere in place when the ban takes effect. Last week, France became the first major jurisdiction to have such a ban reviewed by its highest constitutional court, and it proceeded to strike down the law on substantially the same two constitutional concerns.
Why the Answers to Hateful Content Online are Hiding in the Platforms’ Own Rules
The Canadian government has a two-pronged legal strategy to counter rising hate: New Criminal Code provisions to address offline harms, such as intimidation or protests outside schools and places of worship, and the digital safety bill introduced in June, which targets online harms. A new legal duty to act responsibly, which would require internet platforms to publish digital safety plans, provide greater transparency on their efforts to counter harms, and occasionally remove content, serves as the foundation for fighting back against the spread online of illegal content such as non-consensual distribution of intimate images, cyberbullying, terrorist content, and content that incites violence or hatred.
These are worthwhile measures. But for those concerned with antisemitism, Islamophobia, or other forms of hate, my Globe and Mail op-ed notes that stricter rules against illegal content are basic table stakes. The bigger challenge is the far larger category of content best described as “awful but lawful”: the tropes, conspiracy theories, and coded dehumanization that cause serious harm but remain constitutionally protected expression. A law mandating this material’s removal would invite an immediate Charter challenge. Instead, we need to figure out how to address harms without overstepping constitutional safeguards for freedom of expression.
Recent Posts
The Missing Charter Statement: Why Hasn’t the Government Explained How Bill C-34’s Social Media Ban Complies with the Charter? 
Three Years After October 7th: Living With the Shockwaves 
What If the U.S. Demanded This? The Cloud Provider Conditions Behind Canada’s EU Digital Pivot 
Ontario is Done Waiting for Universities to Act on Campus Antisemitism 
Is Compromise on Encryption Possible? Why Bill C-22’s “Minor Opening” Leaves the Central Question Unanswered
