Nearly three years after introducing legislation to combat online hate speech, the Liberal government has upped the ante with its new ‘online harms’ act, which ii introduced in the House of Commons Monday.Among its other elements, the law is expected to present a broadened, and controversial legal definition of what constitutes ‘hate speech’ and proposes amendments to the criminal code for violations. Users will also be able to file complaints to the Human Rights Commission.The legislation would see the establishment of a five-member ‘digital safety’ commission to order the removal of online content that sexualizes children or victims of sexual violence, and sexual content that is posted without consent.Speaking in Ottawa on Monday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said the aim of the law is aimed squarely at protecting children from online predators.If passed, social-media companies must remove content that sexually victimizes a child and intimate content that is communicated without consent within 24 hours, subject to an undetermined review process. In a media briefing, government officials complained of a “lack of accountability and transparency on how platforms protect users from harmful content.”But both critics and supporters say it is still too early to say whether the proposed law is a prurient way to crack down on free speech or an alternatively prudent means of tackling pornography and violent content on social media and other websites..“I point out the irony that someone who spent the first half of his adult life as a practicing racist, who dressed up in hideous racist costumes so many times he says he can't remember them all, should then be the arbiter of what constitutes hate.“Opposition Leader Pierre Poilievre.Similar legislation went into effect in the UK in October of last year. The US is debating it own version that is virtually identical to Canada’s. But the Electronic Frontier Foundation says “it’s still an unconstitutional censorship bill that continues to empower state officials to target services and online content they do not like.”Under terms of Canada’s bill, the government will form a new regulatory body separate from the CRTC to crack down on seven types of online ‘harms’ including: hate speech; terrorist content; incitement to violence; sharing of non-consensual intimate images; child exploitation; cyberbullying; and inciting self-harm.It also includes measures to crack down on non-consensual artificial-intelligence pornography ‘deepfakes’ and require provisions for removal of what's become known as ‘revenge porn’. The law would also see the creation of a new digital safety ombudsperson charged with fielding concerns and complaints over various social media platforms’ decisions — or lack thereof — around content moderation and what exactly constitutes ‘harmful’ content.According to the legislative notice given prior to its introduction, the bill seeks to advance amendments to the Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act, as well as laws regarding the mandatory reporting of child pornography on the internet..The law also amends the Criminal Code to create a new standalone hate crime offence with penalties of up to life imprisonment as well as raising the maximum sentence for hate propaganda from five years to life imprisonment for advocating genocide.It also amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to specify that posting hate speech online is discrimination and creates a process for the Human Rights Commission to handle hate speech complaints.Supporters say it fills gaps in existing laws that take into account changes in technology while critics suggest it’s just an excuse for further government censorship and an unnecessary intrusion into people’s lives.The Liberal government had previously proposed an on-line hate speech bill that died on the order paper after 2021’s snap election call. Trudeau had vowed to reintroduce the bill within 100 days of being reelected but Monday was the first time it was brought forward.Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has said the bill is aimed squarely at protecting children from online hate while opposition leader Pierre Poilievre said it’s more about controlling “the speech he hates.”“I point out the irony that someone who spent the first half of his adult life as a practicing racist, who dressed up in hideous racist costumes so many times he says he can't remember them all, should then be the arbiter of what constitutes hate. What he should actually do is look into his own heart and ask himself why he was such a hateful racist," Poilievre said..“Given the slippery slope that Mr. Trudeau's previous legislative forays into internet regulation have proven to be steep, any of these measures should be viewed with a lens of deep skepticism as to their true motives.”Calgary MP Michelle Remple-Garner .Likewise, Calgary MP Michelle Remple-Garner suggested Prime Minister Trudeau’s motives are highly suspect.“Given the slippery slope that Mr. Trudeau's previous legislative forays into internet regulation have proven to be steep, any of these measures should be viewed with a lens of deep skepticism as to their true motives.”
Nearly three years after introducing legislation to combat online hate speech, the Liberal government has upped the ante with its new ‘online harms’ act, which ii introduced in the House of Commons Monday.Among its other elements, the law is expected to present a broadened, and controversial legal definition of what constitutes ‘hate speech’ and proposes amendments to the criminal code for violations. Users will also be able to file complaints to the Human Rights Commission.The legislation would see the establishment of a five-member ‘digital safety’ commission to order the removal of online content that sexualizes children or victims of sexual violence, and sexual content that is posted without consent.Speaking in Ottawa on Monday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said the aim of the law is aimed squarely at protecting children from online predators.If passed, social-media companies must remove content that sexually victimizes a child and intimate content that is communicated without consent within 24 hours, subject to an undetermined review process. In a media briefing, government officials complained of a “lack of accountability and transparency on how platforms protect users from harmful content.”But both critics and supporters say it is still too early to say whether the proposed law is a prurient way to crack down on free speech or an alternatively prudent means of tackling pornography and violent content on social media and other websites..“I point out the irony that someone who spent the first half of his adult life as a practicing racist, who dressed up in hideous racist costumes so many times he says he can't remember them all, should then be the arbiter of what constitutes hate.“Opposition Leader Pierre Poilievre.Similar legislation went into effect in the UK in October of last year. The US is debating it own version that is virtually identical to Canada’s. But the Electronic Frontier Foundation says “it’s still an unconstitutional censorship bill that continues to empower state officials to target services and online content they do not like.”Under terms of Canada’s bill, the government will form a new regulatory body separate from the CRTC to crack down on seven types of online ‘harms’ including: hate speech; terrorist content; incitement to violence; sharing of non-consensual intimate images; child exploitation; cyberbullying; and inciting self-harm.It also includes measures to crack down on non-consensual artificial-intelligence pornography ‘deepfakes’ and require provisions for removal of what's become known as ‘revenge porn’. The law would also see the creation of a new digital safety ombudsperson charged with fielding concerns and complaints over various social media platforms’ decisions — or lack thereof — around content moderation and what exactly constitutes ‘harmful’ content.According to the legislative notice given prior to its introduction, the bill seeks to advance amendments to the Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act, as well as laws regarding the mandatory reporting of child pornography on the internet..The law also amends the Criminal Code to create a new standalone hate crime offence with penalties of up to life imprisonment as well as raising the maximum sentence for hate propaganda from five years to life imprisonment for advocating genocide.It also amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to specify that posting hate speech online is discrimination and creates a process for the Human Rights Commission to handle hate speech complaints.Supporters say it fills gaps in existing laws that take into account changes in technology while critics suggest it’s just an excuse for further government censorship and an unnecessary intrusion into people’s lives.The Liberal government had previously proposed an on-line hate speech bill that died on the order paper after 2021’s snap election call. Trudeau had vowed to reintroduce the bill within 100 days of being reelected but Monday was the first time it was brought forward.Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has said the bill is aimed squarely at protecting children from online hate while opposition leader Pierre Poilievre said it’s more about controlling “the speech he hates.”“I point out the irony that someone who spent the first half of his adult life as a practicing racist, who dressed up in hideous racist costumes so many times he says he can't remember them all, should then be the arbiter of what constitutes hate. What he should actually do is look into his own heart and ask himself why he was such a hateful racist," Poilievre said..“Given the slippery slope that Mr. Trudeau's previous legislative forays into internet regulation have proven to be steep, any of these measures should be viewed with a lens of deep skepticism as to their true motives.”Calgary MP Michelle Remple-Garner .Likewise, Calgary MP Michelle Remple-Garner suggested Prime Minister Trudeau’s motives are highly suspect.“Given the slippery slope that Mr. Trudeau's previous legislative forays into internet regulation have proven to be steep, any of these measures should be viewed with a lens of deep skepticism as to their true motives.”
