Panelists call on government to rethink C-11

The Canadian government should broaden its consultation over its online harms bill, a Wednesday Canadian Internet Governance Forum (CIGF) panel hosted a 90-minute discussion on the topic of Regulating Online Harms in Canada. One year ago the Trudeau government introduced Bill C-11 but it died on the order paper when the September election was called. The bill was attacked at the time and continues to be assailed. The government has indicated that it will reintroduce a new form of the legislation in the new Parliament. At the CIGF panel, Jeanette Patell, head of government affairs and public policy at Alphabet Inc.'s YouTube, said one of the concerns is how wide a net the government will cast in terms of what is acceptable content. It could lead to different standards about what may be said online versus what may be said offline. She noted that YouTube gets 190,000 flags from users each day and that the system is not foolproof. “Flags can be misused,” Patell pointed out, with people targeting material they dislike or disagree with rather than material that is harmful. She also stated that the 24-hour deadline for removing contentious content does not allow for the consideration that the postings may not truly violate the regulations. Platforms need to consider the context of the posts so that content is not withdrawn only to be permitted to be reposted. Dianna Gheoghiu, legal and policy officer at the Child Rights International Network, said any new legislation should balance the rights of free expression with protecting children from harm. Harmful online content affects children disproportionately, she added. She advocated promoting education and digital literacy for younger generations. Cara Zwibel, director of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association’s Fundamental Freedoms Program, said the government needs to start again from what it had proposed previously and needs to consult with stakeholders more. The old proposals created a lot of bureaucracy. She raised a red flag about requirements that platforms must report suspected violations to authorities like the RCMP and CSIS. “It’s concerning for privacy and due process,” she noted. Ron Bodkin, CIO of the Vector Institute, said the government cannot go from having no regulations to eliminating all harmful content. “It would be like going from saying there will be no gas-powered cars to all-electric.” He said the definitions of online harm are too narrow. He cited material that deals with addictive behaviour or mental issues that, while not illegal, still hurt users. During the discussion portion of the session, the panelists unanimously called for any new version of C-11 to do away with the proviso that objectionable material be withdrawn within 24 hours. Patell said automated reviewing systems cannot accurately account for context and human oversight is necessary. “I’m not in favour of proactive action,” the CCLA’s Zwibel stated. “It’s prior restraint on freedom of expression.” When the session turned to audience questions, observers raised questions about the five different pillars of harm outlined in the bill. Gheorghiu said the five categories were quite different and that a tailored approach would mitigate confusion. Zwibel pointed out that under Canadian law the definition of hate speech was quite narrow. None of the panelists agreed with a question about splitting the bill into five separate pieces of legislation. “There are different metrics but I don’t think we need to break it into five bills,” Bodkin said. One questioner raised the current case of Spencer Elden, who is suing the band Nirvana over a nude image of him as a baby. Although his parents consented to use of the photo, Elden claims he suffered damage from the ensuing publicity. Zwibel said this case shows how difficult it is to categorize harmful content. Earlier in the day advocacy-group OpenMedia issued a news release calling on the government to reintroduce an improved version of the online harms legislation. “Bill C-11 had many shortcomings, including that the bill failed to classify privacy as a basic human right,” the communique said. “Without this protection in place, the government is sending a clear message that business interests supersede individual rights. Bill C-11 was ripe with loopholes, yet the government refused to engage with stakeholders to introduce the necessary reforms, instead letting it die on the table.” OpenMedia called on the administration to consider critiques of the original bill when it reintroduces the legislation. --Reporting by Paul Park at ppark@thewirereport.ca and editing by Michael Lee-Murphy at mleemurphy@gmail.com

Panelists call on government to rethink C-11

News | November 17, 2021

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

Panelists call on government to rethink C-11

News | November 17, 2021

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

Watchdogs find deceptive privacy practices across majority of websites, apps studied

Meta considers blocking Facebook news in Australia

Rizwan Jamal leaves Xplore to become CEO of Beanfield

Internet service quality bill becomes law

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us