A committee of experts tasked with advising the federal government on drafting a new bill to deal with “online harm” states that “disinformation” should be addressed, but this phenomenon is legal. It warns that it cannot be defined.
In late March, Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez announced that a 12-expert committee would hold discussions to recommend the government to develop a new bill to regulate online content.
“The Internet allows more false, disinformation, and polarization than ever before, and is much more likely to be exposed to and hurt by unacceptable hatred content,” Rodriguez said at the time. Says.
Bill C-36, the government’s previous effort in that regard, collapsed when the last parliament was dissolved.
The panel of experts held 10 sessions and ended the meeting in June, covering various topics on Internet regulation. Session 8 on June 3rd was dedicated to “Disinformation”.
“The expert advisory group agreed that the problem has grown into one of the most imminent and harmful forms of malicious behavior online.” summary Of the discussion provided by Heritage Canada.
The discussions are conducted under the Chatham House Rule and prevent the identification of the speakers and participants involved, so there is no attribution of who said what.
Experts reportedly used disinformation to incite hatred and violence, undermine democracy and democracy discourse, reduce public confidence, national security and the public. It can threaten hygiene. “
As an example, they mentioned disinformation in a pandemic context and how it “weakens”.[d]”American democracy. No further details are provided.
Although “most experts” agree that the government must do something to tackle disinformation, the role of the government is “carefully restricted to protect basic rights.” Must be done. “
However, “Given the serious and urgent nature of the harm caused by disinformation, experts argued that online security legislation should consider disinformation with some capacity.”
Experts pressured the government to tackle disinformation, but “most” expressed “great care” when defining terms in the law.
They said it was problematic because the government could not rule what was true and what was false, and disinformation has the intent that it is usually difficult to establish.
Experts also noted that attempts to establish a Disinformation Governance Commission (DGB) in the United States failed as an example of “government-generated definitions of disinformation cannot withstand public oversight.”
The Department of Homeland Security directed Nina Jankovic in late April and announced the creation of the DGB, but it soon broke up due to public opposition and Jankovic resigned.
Jankowicz Accused For example, by a committee that is partisan and criticizes itself for forging disinformation, for example. call Hunter Biden’s laptop is a “card campaign product”.
Since then, laptops that contain information about the dubious commerce and lifestyle of the US President’s son Authenticated..
Experts have said that countering disinformation coming from abroad may be easier to deal with and justify.
Another notable point is the proposal to tighten disinformation regulations during elections and public health crises.
Experts selected by the government also worked on the grounds that their current job, which is considering forms of censorship, is legal but could be abused by future governments.
“Experts have expressed concern about how measures to deal with disinformation could be duplicated or abused by governments that do not respect basic rights,” the summary said.
A previous review of the panel by 12 experts addressed a variety of issues, including measures against COVID-19, increased vaccination mandates, labeling of “conspiracy” from an alternative perspective, and recent freedom-themed protests. It was shown to share most of the government’s ideology.