New Canadian 'online harms' bill to make online hate punishable up to life in prison

[Kittens Are Jerks]

New Liberal 'online harms' bill to make online hate punishable up to life in prison

 

The federal government tabled its long-awaited online harms bill on Monday which is already shaping up to become a delicate political battle over freedom of expression on the internet, while also aiming to provide more protections for children.

Bill C-63 aims to force social-media, user-uploaded adult content and live-streaming services to reduce exposure to online content deemed harmful, to strengthen the reporting of *** Blocked ***ography and to better address hate propaganda and provide recourse to victims of hate online.

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/liberals-harmful-online-content

Additional news source with more information:

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/new-online-harms-bill-would-force-major-online-services-to-quickly-take-down-harmful-sexual-content-1.6783426

Government of Canada press release:

https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/news/2024/02/government-of-canada-introduces-legislation-to-combat-harmful-content-online-including-the-sexual-exploitation-of-children.html

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

And they’ll apply it to only people they don’t like. 
Expect anyone posting pro-Israel content to get an allegation. 
Expect anyone posting “only two genders” to get an allegation. 
And once the other party is in power, expect the reverse, jt’ll be applied to anyone posting pro-Palestine content etc etc. 

they’ve given a new cudgel to Big Brother. 

[Oniomancer]

So this stupid **** lets his spawn run around online unsupervised and expects the govt. to police it for him

[Kittens Are Jerks]

2 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

And they’ll apply it to only people they don’t like. 
Expect anyone posting pro-Israel content to get an allegation. 
Expect anyone posting “only two genders” to get an allegation. 
And once the other party is in power, expect the reverse, jt’ll be applied to anyone posting pro-Palestine content etc etc. 

they’ve given a new cudgel to Big Brother. 

Not true. The Online Harms Act focuses on seven categories of harmful content:

 

•     Content that sexually victimizes a child or re-victimizes a survivor
•     Content used to bully a child
•     Content that induces a child to harm themselves
•     Content that incites violent extremism or terrorism
•     Content that incites violence
•     Content that foments hatred, and
•     Intimate content communicated without consent, including deepfakes.

The rules are clear, and no political party can play with them as they see fit.

The primary criticism of the Act is the 24-hour take-down requirement. Privacy experts and civil liberties groups argue that this short window of time might encourage companies to take an overly cautious approach, resulting in suppression of free speech.

[+OverSword]

Years ago when I first posted a thread about this legislation many Canadians here largely thought I was being stupid for worrying this is an attack on free speech and a weapon for the government to use against unpopular opinion.  If you don't fight this Canada, then you deserve this.

[+OverSword]

18 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

•     Content that incites violent extremism or terrorism

Can that be decided before any violence or terrorism is performed?  Are there preset standards?  Is it up to interpretation?

18 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Content that incites violence

Or this?

18 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Content that foments hatred

or this?

Do you think for one second this bill would not have been used to silence Jordan Peterson years ago?  I'm sure it would have been.  I'm sure he was a primary consideration when it was authored.  The left love to say language is violence.  It is not.

Edited February 27 by OverSword

[+DieChecker]

24 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Not true. The Online Harms Act focuses on seven categories of harmful content:

 

•     Content that sexually victimizes a child or re-victimizes a survivor
•     Content used to bully a child
•     Content that induces a child to harm themselves
•     Content that incites violent extremism or terrorism
•     Content that incites violence
•     Content that foments hatred, and
•     Intimate content communicated without consent, including deepfakes.

The rules are clear, and no political party can play with them as they see fit.

The primary criticism of the Act is the 24-hour take-down requirement. Privacy experts and civil liberties groups argue that this short window of time might encourage companies to take an overly cautious approach, resulting in suppression of free speech.

I hope they can explicitly spell out what "hate", and "violence", are.

We had a LGBTQ person at work who was pushing that "looking" at them, even with no expression, was hate and violence. It didn't fly with HR. But in many other settings, it very well might become the rule.

Too loose of wording is one of the main reasons I don't support such kinds of legislation.

Like 'Hats said, could be used as a political cudgel.

[DayoOlabisi]

53 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Not true. The Online Harms Act focuses on seven categories of harmful content:

 

•     Content that sexually victimizes a child or re-victimizes a survivor
•     Content used to bully a child
•     Content that induces a child to harm themselves
•     Content that incites violent extremism or terrorism
•     Content that incites violence
•     Content that foments hatred, and
•     Intimate content communicated without consent, including deepfakes.

The rules are clear, and no political party can play with them as they see fit.

The primary criticism of the Act is the 24-hour take-down requirement. Privacy experts and civil liberties groups argue that this short window of time might encourage companies to take an overly cautious approach, resulting in suppression of free speech.

declaring something like 'there are only two genders'  or 'that child advocating that particular view is wrong' could be a violation of bullying a child. those claims already exist, they just aren't enforced via a concise, explicit law. content that foments hatred could be applied to anyone advocating for protests where any amount of physical conflict or threats of physical conflict could result. this could easily be used to punish protest organizers of all kinds. these things will absolutely be used politically unless we change 99% of our political operatives and even then the chances only decrease below the threshold of 'absolutely' to something more like 'probably'. it would be best to just not pass the law.

[Hawken]

Simply disagreeing with someone on an issue is viewed as hate speech with some people. People get angry because one doesn't buy into their narratives. It's comparable to a child throwing a tantrum because the mother won't buy them candy.

Edited February 27 by Hawken

[Edumakated]

44 minutes ago, Hawken said:

Simply disagreeing with someone on an issue is viewed as hate speech with some people. People get angry because one doesn't buy into their narratives. It's comparable to a child throwing a tantrum because the mother won't buy them candy.

They use accusations of hate speech to avoid actually having to debate or address the issue.  A common tactic of the left.  Label everything hate speech to justify suppressing it.

Edited February 27 by Edumakated

[+DieChecker]

1 hour ago, Hawken said:

Simply disagreeing with someone on an issue is viewed as hate speech with some people. People get angry because one doesn't buy into their narratives. It's comparable to a child throwing a tantrum because the mother won't buy them candy.

The real issue though is that many politicians, and law enforcement agencies, agree with this grown-ass-children.

[+OverSword]

21 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

The real issue though is that many politicians, and law enforcement agencies, agree with this grown-ass-children.

That's because this is a pathway to holding more power and control, every bureaucrats dream.

[+and-then]

2 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

• Content that incites violent extremism or terrorism
•     Content that incites violence
•     Content that foments hatred,

The problem with these are the latitude that officials have in which to use their discretion.  Yes, it will definitely be politicized, just as everything else is today.  Few things would motivate this old codger to protest in the streets but something like this in the US would definitely do it.  When you begin allowing any government the ability to take away your liberty based on subjective interpretations of laws that are meant to "protect", you are traveling a very dangerous path, IMO.

[+OverSword]

3 minutes ago, and-then said:

The problem with these are the latitude that officials have in which to use their discretion.  Yes, it will definitely be politicized, just as everything else is today.  Few things would motivate this old codger to protest in the streets but something like this in the US would definitely do it.  When you begin allowing any government the ability to take away your liberty based on subjective interpretations of laws that are meant to "protect", you are traveling a very dangerous path, IMO.

My favorite manipulative phrase, "It's for the children" 

Edited February 27 by OverSword

[Myles]

4 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

And they’ll apply it to only people they don’t like. 
Expect anyone posting pro-Israel content to get an allegation. 
Expect anyone posting “only two genders” to get an allegation. 
And once the other party is in power, expect the reverse, jt’ll be applied to anyone posting pro-Palestine content etc etc. 

they’ve given a new cudgel to Big Brother. 

I agree.   i bet, not one, of the multiple online posters who slams Jews like a NAZI is brought up on charges.  talk hateful to biological women and you are OK.  

[Myles]

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

That's because this is a pathway to holding more power and control, every bureaucrats dream.

Unbelievable that the Democrats will support this.

[Hankenhunter]

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

My favorite manipulative phrase, "It's for the children" 

So we (Canada) should be modeling it after the US free speech? Your model gave you Trump, Jan 6, project 2025,  polititions free reign to spew hate, and the reversal of the separation of church and state. That about right?  

[Hankenhunter]

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

My favorite manipulative phrase, "It's for the children" 

At least we care about our children. We don't stand by helplessly while kids are killed wholesale in schools because of 2A. Guns are more important than children  right? Hypocrite. 

[+OverSword]

16 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

So we (Canada) should be modeling it after the US free speech? Your model gave you Trump, Jan 6, project 2025,  polititions free reign to spew hate, and the reversal of the separation of church and state. That about right?  

And your model gave you illegally freezing legal protesters bank accounts and tyranny. 

Edited February 28 by OverSword

[+OverSword]

9 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

At least we care about our children. We don't stand by helplessly while kids are killed wholesale in schools because of 2A. Guns are more important than children  right? Hypocrite. 

 

Rights are more important than individuals lives.

[Hankenhunter]

1 minute ago, OverSword said:

And you model gave you illegally freezing legal protesters bank accounts and tyranny. 

Lol, they tried to shut down Toronto. They were parroting your model. We don't want to be you. Looks like you've fully embraced the hate. 

[Hankenhunter]

3 minutes ago, OverSword said:

 

Rights are more important than individuals lives.

What a lame answer, hypocrite. So guns are more important than children, right?

[WVK]

4 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

    Content that incites violence

Does that include silence?

[Myles]

1 hour ago, Hankenhunter said:

What a lame answer, hypocrite. So guns are more important than children, right?

Swimming pools, bikes and lots of things that children are killed by.

Edited February 28 by Myles

[simplybill]

1 hour ago, Hankenhunter said:

So guns are more important than children, right?

The Left focuses on the results of the illegal use of guns, whereas those of us on the Right focus on the benefits of the legal use of guns.
I watched a video today by a woman who was at home with her three children when a man began kicking in her front door. The Mom retrieved her firearm and called 911, and when the assailant entered her home she gave him a lesson in Home Protection. The police arrived some time later. 
Incidents similar to that one in which children’s lives are protected occur more often than school shootings.