There are many reasons to be concerned about Bill S-210, the mandated age verification bill that raises significant privacy and freedom of expression risks and which is being improbably backed by Conservative MPs. The bill would mandate age verification technologies that the Privacy Commissioner of Canada says creates concern given missing safeguards, it establishes website blocking that government officials warn could undermine net neutrality and an open Internet, and its broad scope goes beyond pornography websites to include search and social media. But beyond those concerns, government officials have now zeroed in another problem: the definition of “sexually explicit material” used in the bill effectively captures streaming services such as Netflix, Crave, Prime, and CBC Gem. As a result, watching a show such as Game of Thrones or some episodes of Curb Your Enthusiasm on a cable or satellite package comes only with a rating and warning, whereas streaming it via Crave would involve a mandated age verification process.
Post Tagged with: "criminal code"
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 199: Boris Bytensky on the Criminal Code Reforms in the Online Harms Act
The Online Harms Act – otherwise known as Bill C-63 – is really at least three bills in one. The Law Bytes podcast tackled the Internet platform portion of the bill last month in an episode with Vivek Krishnamurthy and then last week Professor Richard Moon joined to talk about the return of Section 13 of the Canada Human Rights Act. Part three may the most controversial: the inclusion of Criminal Code changes that have left even supporters of the bill uncomfortable.
Boris Bytensky of the firm Bytensky Shikhman has been a leading Canadian criminal law lawyer for decades and currently serves as President of the Criminal Lawyers’ Association. He joins the podcast to discuss the bill’s Criminal Code reforms as he identifies some of the practical implications that have thus far been largely overlooked in the public debate.
Why the Criminal Code and Human Rights Act Provisions Should Be Removed from the Online Harms Act
Having a spent virtually the entire day yesterday talking with media and colleagues about Bill C-63, one thing has become increasingly clear: the Criminal Code and Human Rights Act provisions found in the Online Harms Act should be removed. In my initial post on the bill, I identified the provisions as one of three red flags, warning that they “feature penalties that go as high as life in prison and open the door to a tidal wave of hate speech related complaints.” There is no obvious need or rationale for penalties of life in prison for offences motivated by hatred, nor the need to weaponize human rights complaints by reviving Human Rights Act provisions on communication of hate speech. As more Canadians review the bill, there is a real risk that these provisions will overwhelm the Online Harms Act and become a primary area of focus despite not being central to the law’s core objective of mitigating harms on Internet platforms.
RCMP Arrests Man For Modifying Game Console
The RCMP has arrested a Quebec man after a seizure uncovered hundreds of counterfeit video games. The RCMP release states that "modifying a console and computer is considered an illegal act under Section 342.1 of the Criminal Code and is punishable by imprisonment for up to ten years."
Government Reintroduces Identity Theft Bill
The Government has reintroduced legislation designed to address identity theft. The bill appeared in the last Parliament but died on the order paper. My original post on the last bill is here. I was scheduled to appear before the Justice Committee to discuss the bill, but the the committee was […]
Recent Posts
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 210: Meredith Lilly on the Trade Risks Behind Canada’s Digital Services Tax and Mandated Streaming Payments 
Abandoning Institutional Neutrality: Why the University of Windsor Encampment Agreements Constrain Academic Freedom and Freedom of Expression 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 209: Peter Menzies on Why the Canadian News Sector is Broken and How to Fix It 
Why the University of Windsor Encampment Agreement Violates Antisemitism and Academic Freedom Standards 
Know When to Fold Em: The Big Risk Behind Canada’s Digital Services Tax Bet
