Social media regulation, should you be worried?

 

Bill C-11, also known as the Digital Charter Implementation Act, and Bill C-36, also known as the Online Harm Prevention Act, have recently been introduced in the Canadian Parliament, raising concerns about their potential impact on free speech and privacy. While these bills are intended to address concerns about online harm and misinformation, their provisions have been criticized for being too broad and potentially infringing on individual rights. This article will examine the dangers of these bills and the legal protections provided by the Canadian Constitution.

Bill C-11: The Digital Charter Implementation Act

Bill C-11 aims to update Canada's privacy laws to address concerns about data protection and privacy in the digital age. One of the most controversial provisions of the bill is the creation of a new federal data commissioner with the power to issue binding orders and fines for privacy violations, its critics claim that it potentially allows the government to censor content or suppress free speech under the guise of protecting privacy.

Moreover, Bill C-11 also includes provisions that require social media platforms to remove content that violates Canadian law, including hate speech and disinformation. While this provision may seem reasonable on its face, critics have argued that it may be too broad and allow the government to censor legitimate dissent or criticism.

Bill C-36: The Online Harm Prevention Act

Bill C-36 aims to address concerns about online hate speech and other forms of harmful content, including disinformation and cyberbullying. One of the most concerning provisions of the bill is the creation of a new regulator with the power to impose significant fines on social media platforms that fail to remove harmful content, its also being criticized for potentially allowing the government to suppress free speech and dissent.

Moreover, Bill C-36 includes provisions that require social media platforms to take action to prevent the spread of harmful content, including through the use of algorithms and other automated tools. While these provisions may seem reasonable, critics have argued that they may be too broad and potentially allow the government to censor legitimate dissent or criticism.

The Legal Protections of the Canadian Constitution

While Bill C-11 and Bill C-36 have raised concerns about potential government overreach, the Canadian Constitution provides legal protections against such overreach. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects the right to freedom of expression, which includes the freedom to communicate and share information through social media platforms. Any attempt to limit free speech or privacy rights must be done within the bounds of the Canadian Constitution.

Moreover, any limit on an individual's Charter rights must be reasonable and justifiable in a free and democratic society. This means that any government regulation of social media or free speech must be done in a way that is proportionate and does not unduly restrict individual rights. Individuals also have the right to challenge any government action that violates their Charter rights through the courts.

Conclusion

In recent years, there has been growing concern about the spread of misinformation on social media platforms. Governments and tech companies alike have been grappling with how to regulate and combat the spread of false information, particularly during public health crises or election seasons. However, attempting to regulate misinformation can be a dangerous proposition, particularly when so-called "misinformation" turns out to be true concise and correct information and/or possibly lifesaving like we saw with the use of ivermectin as a covid treatment and/or cure.

While these bills were still being debated in Parliament, the current government closed debate this week and is moving to pass it into law. Irrespective of if this bill passes or not, its still remains difficult to distinguish between genuine misinformation, alternative viewpoints, accurate information that individuals disagree with or controversial claims, and it attempts to suppress or punish those expressing such views, which can have a chilling effect on free speech and open discourse. This move by the current government will certainly have unintended consequences and must be done within the bounds of the Constitution, and any limit on individual rights must be reasonable and justifiable in a free and democratic society.