The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) said it is troubled the Online Harms Act (OHA) was introduced in the House of Commons because it will hamper freedom of expression. “Justice Minister [Arif] Virani has tied these speech restrictions to defensible measures like removing images of child sexual exploitation material and revenge porn,” said CCF Executive Director Joanna Baron in a press release. “But don’t be fooled.” The CCF alleges the OHA would limit freedom of expression by creating a process for people and groups to complain to the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) that online speech directed at them is discriminatory. The CHRC could order fines of up to $50,000 and awards of up to $20,000 paid to complainants, who in some cases would be anonymous. Additionally, the OHA would increase the maximum sentence for advocating genocide from five years in prison to life in prison. That means words alone could lead to life imprisonment. It would allow judges to put prior restraints on people who they believe on reasonable grounds might commit speech crimes in the future. Accused people would be forced to choose between imprisonment or an agreement to keep the peace that might be accompanied with conditions such as giving a bodily sample, refraining from drugs and alcohol, giving up firearms and wearing an ankle monitor. It states it would require social media companies under threat of massive fines to “minimize the risk that users of the service will be exposed to harmful content.” The CCF predicted social media companies will err on the side of caution and block large amounts of speech close to the legal line. The OHA would require social media companies to provide a mechanism for users to flag content they believe is harmful, which is defined as including speech fomenting hatred. Therefore, legal speech could be censored. It would require social media companies to report on how they dealt with legal but harmful content. The CCF said this appears aimed at encouraging social media companies to censor speech the Canadian government cannot outlaw.Baron said the OHA is concerning and took issue with censorship provisions being placed in with laudable measures. When it comes to its purpose, she said it “is aimed at restricting freedom of expression.”“This heavy-handed bill needs to be severely pared down to comply with the constitution,” she said. CCF counsel Josh Dehaas said he is concerned the threat of crossing the line between legal and hate speech will cause many Canadians to stay silent about controversial issues. “It’s difficult for me, a lawyer who works on free expression cases, to know exactly where the line is between protected speech and hate speech,” said Dehaas. “If this bill passes, I suspect many Canadians will now be too afraid of a human rights complaint to participate in policy debates around things like race, religion and gender.”The Canadian government upped the ante at stopping online hate by introducing the OHA in the House of Commons on Monday.READ MORE: UPDATED: Liberals introduce ‘online harms’ legislationIt presented a broadened, controversial definition of what constitutes hate speech and proposed amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada for violations. Users would be able to file complaints to the CHRC. It would see the establishment of a five-member digital safety commission to order the removal of online content sexualizing children or sexual violence victims and sexual content posted without consent.
The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) said it is troubled the Online Harms Act (OHA) was introduced in the House of Commons because it will hamper freedom of expression. “Justice Minister [Arif] Virani has tied these speech restrictions to defensible measures like removing images of child sexual exploitation material and revenge porn,” said CCF Executive Director Joanna Baron in a press release. “But don’t be fooled.” The CCF alleges the OHA would limit freedom of expression by creating a process for people and groups to complain to the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) that online speech directed at them is discriminatory. The CHRC could order fines of up to $50,000 and awards of up to $20,000 paid to complainants, who in some cases would be anonymous. Additionally, the OHA would increase the maximum sentence for advocating genocide from five years in prison to life in prison. That means words alone could lead to life imprisonment. It would allow judges to put prior restraints on people who they believe on reasonable grounds might commit speech crimes in the future. Accused people would be forced to choose between imprisonment or an agreement to keep the peace that might be accompanied with conditions such as giving a bodily sample, refraining from drugs and alcohol, giving up firearms and wearing an ankle monitor. It states it would require social media companies under threat of massive fines to “minimize the risk that users of the service will be exposed to harmful content.” The CCF predicted social media companies will err on the side of caution and block large amounts of speech close to the legal line. The OHA would require social media companies to provide a mechanism for users to flag content they believe is harmful, which is defined as including speech fomenting hatred. Therefore, legal speech could be censored. It would require social media companies to report on how they dealt with legal but harmful content. The CCF said this appears aimed at encouraging social media companies to censor speech the Canadian government cannot outlaw.Baron said the OHA is concerning and took issue with censorship provisions being placed in with laudable measures. When it comes to its purpose, she said it “is aimed at restricting freedom of expression.”“This heavy-handed bill needs to be severely pared down to comply with the constitution,” she said. CCF counsel Josh Dehaas said he is concerned the threat of crossing the line between legal and hate speech will cause many Canadians to stay silent about controversial issues. “It’s difficult for me, a lawyer who works on free expression cases, to know exactly where the line is between protected speech and hate speech,” said Dehaas. “If this bill passes, I suspect many Canadians will now be too afraid of a human rights complaint to participate in policy debates around things like race, religion and gender.”The Canadian government upped the ante at stopping online hate by introducing the OHA in the House of Commons on Monday.READ MORE: UPDATED: Liberals introduce ‘online harms’ legislationIt presented a broadened, controversial definition of what constitutes hate speech and proposed amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada for violations. Users would be able to file complaints to the CHRC. It would see the establishment of a five-member digital safety commission to order the removal of online content sexualizing children or sexual violence victims and sexual content posted without consent.
