Canadian government plans to put user-generated online content under CRTC regulation

[Delicieuxz]

Canadian digital rights advocacy group, OpenMedia, is reporting that the government of Canada has added a clause into an upcoming bill to be voted on, which will make all user-generated content posted on the internet regulated by the Canadian broadcasting and telecommunications agency, the CRTC.

 

 

If you're a Canadian and would like to send a message to your MP telling them to vote against Bill C-10, OpenMedia has a form you can easily do that with here:

 

https://action.openmedia.org/page/81358/action/1

 

 

This is a copy of a newsletter from Canadian digital rights advocacy group, OpenMedia:

 

==================== start of newsletter ====================

 

Free speech on the Internet in Canada is under unprecedented attack. Last Friday, the federal government shocked observers by including user generated content as a part of what the CRTC would now regulate, as a part of its updates to the Broadcast Act, in Bill C-10.1

 

This overreaching Bill was supposed to update regulations for TV and Radio for the digital age, and instead is giving the CRTC the power to regulate every single piece of content on the Internet – including the kind of content that you and I post daily. 

 

Unless we stop it, all video, audio, apps and pictures you upload to Internet platforms could be regulated by the CRTC.

 

This could mean:

 

- Censoring videos and audio with language or content that don’t meet CRTC broadcast standards;
- Forcing our timelines to show a mandatory minimum of pictures and audio from Canadian sources (hope you don’t have too many friends abroad!);
- Imposing CanCon content requirements on apps and video games;
- Taxing Youtube channels to fund official traditional CanCon media;

And a whole lot more! The scope of this inclusion is vast. Just about everything on the Internet would now be subject to regulation.

That’s far too much power to give to any government appointed body. We campaigned against C-10 before3, but this amendment makes it the most dangerous censorship attack on the Internet we’ve seen in years.

 

The government lied to us about this Bill, and has gone back on its promises. Their own press release on C-10 clearly promised it would exclude user generated content. The Department of Justice even called that exclusion “carefully tailored” to appropriately limit the scope of the Bill.4,5

 

But at the very last minute, when they thought no one was looking, they’ve turned this into one of the worst attacks on the open Internet we’ve ever seen.

 

But there’s one vote left, to stop this Bill before it passes. Will you join us and make sure your MP knows they must vote no to Bill C-10?

 

==================== end of newsletter ====================

 

 

It's always a bad idea to give the government (including all future administrations) open-ended powers which it can decide what to do with on a whim. That's the recipe for a downward spiral. And such a broad reach as this clause would grant the government only needs to be abused by a single current or future administration or CRTC chairman-appointee to royally screw-up the internet in Canada, potentially permanently.

 

[Vishera]

6 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

make all user-generated content posted on the internet regulated by the Canadian broadcasting and telecommunications agency, the CRTC.

Have they ever heard of freedom of speech and expression?

"User generated content" = speech,expression.

[jagdtigger]

1 minute ago, Vishera said:

Have they ever heard of freedom of speech and expression?

"User generated content" = speech,expression.

They dont care about such outdsted ideals.....

[LienusLateTips]

Yeah.... I just wrote several letters to my MP and the ministers responsible... this seems like a really bad idea.

[Bombastinator]

14 minutes ago, Vishera said:

Have they ever heard of freedom of speech and expression?

"User generated content" = speech,expression.

Not all speech is protected. You could be posting kiddie porn or hate speech for example.  They could just be going after pedos and nazis of course, but it sounds potentially a bit open ended for my taste.  Might want to nail down the limits a bit more. “Could” is not “will”.  It’s not to be ignored though because “could” can become “is now” later, as Cricut users have learned.

[WereCat]

1 minute ago, Bombastinator said:

Not all speech is protected. You could be posting kiddie porn or hate speech for example.  They could just be going after pedos and nazis of course, but it sounds potentially a bit open ended for my taste.

That's such a short sighted argument though... Yes, what you're pointing out is bad but it shouldn't be forced upon because of that. 

[Bombastinator]

14 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

They dont care about such outdsted ideals.....

This I doubt.

[TetraSky]

I don't see this as being enforceable anyway. Doubt it will pass.

[Bombastinator]

6 minutes ago, WereCat said:

That's such a short sighted argument though... Yes, what you're pointing out is bad but it shouldn't be forced upon because of that. 

That was actually the point of my statement. It’s an apologist argument, but I don’t think it’s short sighted.  Rather the reverse actually.  Blanket “NOooo!!!” Without at least examining things is potentially more short sighted imho.  There has to be a justifying  incident for such a thing to be even  proposed or it wouldn’t have come up.   That instance needs to be addressed.  It’s not stated though so I have to guess.  I suspect there is some edge case or something that is the cause here.  

Edited April 28, 2021 by Bombastinator

[Fasterthannothing]

Sounds like Canada is becoming a communist county. Why should any government control what can be posted outside of obvious illegal content.

[CarlBar]

9 minutes ago, SlidewaysZ said:

Sounds like Canada is becoming a communist county. Why should any government control what can be posted outside of obvious illegal content.

 

Hey look an American. Newsflash, a lot of the rest of the 1st world doesn't have america's freedom of speech laws and never has. The government stepping in and regulating the hell out of everything is 100% the norm.

 

That said i agree this is unenforceable. It's got the same issues as the companies hosting it doing this. Not enough man hours available to even scratch the surface. Not to mention their jurisdiction stops at the Canadian border with creates all kind sof issues.

 

That said whilst just expecting them to apply their methods and powers that they use for policing TV, radio, Cinema, e.t.c. to the internet isn't realistic, i actually agree that this is exactly who SHOULD be regulating this in At the end of the day regulating what multimedia content is available to the masses is exactly what these organisations around the world where created to do.They are the one's who should eb regulating things in their country on places like twitter, youtube, facebook, e.t.c. The question is the methodology they'll have to sue, and especially the enforcement powers they'll have. They basically need all new in both area's to be workable.

[TheReal1980]

Quote

Free speech on the Internet in Canada is under unprecedented attack.

Canada has no freedom of speech in the first place?

[Delicieuxz]

36 minutes ago, TheReal1980 said:

Canada has no freedom of speech in the first place?

Canada has freedom of expression, and speech is a form of expression.

 

https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-12.html

Quote

Fundamental Freedoms

 

2 Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

 

Though, a person can choose from a multitude of ways to express themselves, and can still be held accountable for how they choose to do so. And so freedom of expression can still require responsible speech. But freedom of speech just says that anything goes, and in its declaration it claims that the truth and a lie are equally justified things to say. But the truth and a lie are not of equal merit, and so freedom of speech is a falsehood and a lie, itself.

 

And in the US, you can be tried for a lie - such as lying to Congress, lying in part of an investigation, lying under oath, lying on your tax return, lying in business dealings, lying to customers, lying that causes financial and property losses, lying that causes physical harm due to negligence... Which goes to show you that freedom of speech is a falsehood, as a society which claims it is unable to stand-up to its own principle. And so, the US doesn't actually have freedom of speech, either.

 

Under freedom of speech, if you censure someone over speaking a certain thing, then you have violated their right to speak freely, free from persecution for it.

 

But under freedom of expression, if you censure someone for expressing something in a particularly offensive or damaging way, you haven't taken away their right to express themselves - they had and still have a multitude of options to express the same thing that they wanted to express, in a more appropriate way. Only if there were no other remaining means to express themselves in a better way would censuring someone over expressing themselves a particular way be a violation of their right to express themselves.

 

So, I think that a claimed right of freedom of expression encourages mindfulness and responsibility. And that a belief in a right to freedom of speech encourages boorishness, obnoxiousness, and gets people to say stupid things just because they can and just to prove that they can as their right. And as any falsehood taken as though truth will, I think that a belief in freedom of speech has a dumbing-down effect over a society.

 

Unfortunately, too many Canadians think we have freedom of speech and don't understand the difference between freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

[whm1974]

37 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

Unfortunately, too many Canadians think we have freedom of speech and don't understand the difference between freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

Sorry but as an US Citizen, Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression is the same thing.

 

Like Freedom of Religion and Freedom from Religion is the same right.

[Henrique_mineiran]

Oh my... 

[Kisai]

2 hours ago, Vishera said:

Have they ever heard of freedom of speech and expression?

"User generated content" = speech,expression.

Canada does not have Freedom of Speech as an enshrined right, and can be suspended by the not-withstanding clause to impose hate policies whenever a province wants to, which is what Quebec did twice (as recent as 2019), and Alberta twice attempted to do.

 

In the US, you can basically be an awful person and not be thrown in jail for it until you commit a criminal offence (eg lying under oath) as a consequence of being an awful person catches up to you. In Canada, the government of the day can decide nobody can speak a certain language, or wear certain clothing, or anyone diagnosed with autism must be sterilized and locked away.

 

The Not Withstanding clause is the biggest "open ended" hole in Canadian legislation, and given what it's been used for in the past (ultimately for imposing laws rooted in hate), C-10 can not be expected to be used for anything good. 

 

Here's the kind of crap I'd expect C-10 to get abused for:

- Forcing cancon requirements on youtube content

- Forcing all youtube/streaming content created in Canada to be simulcast in english and french, and any non-Canadian content to have english and french audio and captions

- Forcing all advertisements to be bilingual english-french, thus making them twice as long and twice as annoying. Likely even making them unskippable until both the english and french version play.

- Forcing you to be subscribed and unable to unsubscribe to specific Canadian news outlets.

 

Like there is no end to the potential abuse. 

 

For those who don't know, CTV and Global (Corus) basically run mostly American content, and their entire Canadian content section tends to just be the local news and one or two programs developed by CTV or Showcase (Corus) to pad out the Canadian Content requirement, and the "pad" shows are usually widely panned as being awful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_watched_Canadian_television_broadcasts_of_2020

 

The list, literately has one Canadian program, and then the 6pm news hour as the most watched Canadian content, everything else is American programming in English. French though, is all domestic content, cause guess what, nobody outside Quebec produces French-Canadian content, and even then, those are mostly talk and reality shows too. 

 

The bigger issue with "cancon" is that it's also easily weaseled out of by having Canadian actors on an otherwise entirely American production filmed in Canada. This is one of the reasons why "Arrowverse", Supernatural, Riverdale, Netflix (the 100), and Amazon (The man in the high castle) shows filmed in Vancouver fill the cancon quota, despite having no actual relevance to Canadian culture. This is why "Once Upon a Time" and "X-files" always had at least one episode that took place in actual Vancouver-as-itself.

 

I'm not saying that these programs are awful, but the vast majority of "canon" tends to be budget stuff from CW that is simulcast on Netflix, today. Not content that is "Canadian culture" content.

 

Animation tends to have it's cancon quota filled by using Canadian voice actors on otherwise foreign productions.

 

So it doesn't take much exaggeration to see how big of a hole the existing cancon requirements are, and how "Canadian" UGC might be forced to pad their content with filler crap to legally meet the requirement, and thus put them at a disadvantage to all other english-market content on the same platform.

 

 

[FeIIex]

Might be finally time to get a VPN going if this goes through

[Delicieuxz]

1 hour ago, whm1974 said:

Sorry but as an US Citizen, Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression is the same thing.

 

Like Freedom of Religion and Freedom from Religion is the same right.

You might personally think of them as the same thing, but the promised entitlement is different, because the words Expression and Speech have different meanings which set the target of the entitlement in different places and with different focuses. And even without thinking about the difference, the different phrases, if held as beliefs, will subconsciously condition people with different expectations.

 

When a person expresses themselves, they're taking an energy that is inside of them and transmuting it into a form of communication. The basis of freedom of expression is the truth of what's inside a person. And a person has many choices in what form they transmute that energy into, what words they choose, if they choose to use words. The freedom of expression acknowledges the need of people to communicate what's inside of themselves and entitles a person to transmute that energy into a communicable form so that it is expressed to others.

 

If a person speaks a lie, how are they expressing themselves when what they said isn't the truth of what they think or feel? When a person lies, they're using their will to override their truthful expression and to put forth something that isn't real. Their lie is a concoction of will that conceals what they actually feel or think, and so isn't a genuine expression of themselves. And in lying, a person also isn't expressing that they simply don't want to express something - the lie conceals that intent, too, and it isn't expressed to whoever the lie is told to.

 

The freedom of speech ignores whether a person is genuinely expressing themselves, and it entitles people to simply say things detached from truth and reality just as much as does to say what is truth and reality. The freedom of speech doesn't care about truth and reality.

 

Freedom of expression doesn't entitle a person to speak a lie, as a lie isn't a genuine expression of a person but is an artificial enshrouding of what they're not wanting to express.

[SansVarnic]

-= Topic Locked =-

 

Thread and OP is political.