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: "social media ban"
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.
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 Government’s Plan for a Social Media Ban in Bill C-34 Is Unconstitutional
he debate over the government’s proposed social media ban for under 16s has raised several difficult questions, including doubts about whether it will work, which services it will cover, and what risks to privacy mandating age verification could create. But beyond the operational questions is a more fundamental one: is the ban constitutional? Bill C-34 contains some signals that the government knows there are serious constitutional vulnerabilities, given the obvious implications for freedom of expression that come from blocking an entire cohort of Canadians from accessing information and expressing themselves on social media. The bill contains several provisions that are seemingly designed to act as safeguards that could be used to argue that the ban is proportionate. These include guidance on age verification technologies to address privacy concerns, promises that the verification obligation does not require measures that “unreasonably or disproportionately” limit expression, a requirement that the new Digital Safety Commission consider freedom of expression, equality, and privacy when it establishes regulations and guidelines, and the ability for services to seek a ban exemption if they can demonstrate adequate safeguards for children.
Even with these measures, the ban might still be found to be unconstitutional. But if you think they provide a plausible argument that the ban can be justified (as Emily Laidlaw argues here), the problem is that none will be operational when the ban takes effect. In other words, there is a major disconnect between the law the government says it is establishing and the one it plans to implement. If the safeguards are not implemented and millions of Canadians are required to verify their age to express themselves on social media, I believe the ban is likely to face an immediate court challenge and that a court will rule it violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Blocked Twice: How Bill C-34’s Kids’ Social Media Ban Would Compound the Online News Act’s Harm to Young Canadians’ News Access
Bill C-34’s proposed social media ban for kids has rightly attracted considerable criticism since the bill was tabled last month, given that it requires age verification for most Canadians to use social media and the government plans to implement it before privacy safeguards are in place. Moreover, as I wrote last week, mounting data from Australia indicates that bans simply do not work. Thanks to a reader for pointing to a new Australian study that identifies yet another cost: young people’s access to news. The concern has resonance in Canada, where youth access to news on social media has already been undermined by the Online News Act, which prompted Meta to block news links on Facebook and Instagram. Bill C-34 would exacerbate the problem by cutting kids off TikTok and YouTube, which emerged as important news sources after the Meta news link block.
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
