The federal government is using Bill C-10 to regulate video content on YouTube and other social media in the same way that it regulates national broadcasts. “Canadas uploading videos to the Internet may find that their content is under federal scrutiny after a proposed amendment to Canada’s broadcast law was amended last 11 hours,” said April 26. The Toronto Star article of the day states.
If the C-10 is legislated, content that Canadians upload to social media, whether it’s a funny cat video or a serious political commentary on COVID and blockade, will be subject to government regulation. ..
According to Tamir Israel, a technical lawyer at the University of Ottawa, this “may pave the way for future governments to regulate user-generated content on the Internet, even if the current Liberal government does not intend to do so. There is. ” The Toronto Star wrote.
“This is a poorly designed and less carefully thought-out attempt to pass legislation that was initially focused on protecting Canadian content, and is now an unlimited censorship regime on the Internet. There is a possibility. The future for that, “said the article, citing Israel.
The intended purpose of Bill C-10 is to allow the Canadian Radio-Television Commission (CRTC) to force online streamers like Netflix to make financial contributions to produce a certain amount of Canadian movies and television. By doing so, we are strengthening Canada’s content system. Programs available to viewers. However, on April 23, the government removed a section of the bill that would regulate or exempt social media content. In other words, video content created by users on platforms such as YouTube is regulated by CRTC, but individual users themselves are not subject to regulation.
“Like many, I was surprised to see the Heritage Committee extend Bill C-10 to include social media and user upload services and apps. This puts CRTC regulations on all audio and audio on the Internet. It could be extended to visual content, which has serious implications for virtually every website, podcasting, online hosting, etc., not just social media, “a Google spokeswoman said electronically. The email states: According to the National Post, newspaper in an article on April 27.
“We continue to be concerned about unintended consequences, especially with regard to the potential impact of Canadians on expressiveness,” added a Google spokeswoman who owns YouTube.
Even if individual Canadians do not need to report to the CRTC, the fact that the government controls content posted by Canadians undermines freedom of expression.
“”Granting government authority over legitimate content created by users not only violates freedom of expression, but also attacks content in earnest, especially when backed by government speculation about deleting websites. And through it the foundation. In a post-media article on April 26, former CRTC Commissioner Peter Menzies said.
According to the article, Menzies will allow regulators to do so, even if CRTC decides to oppose the enforcement of regulations on user-generated content, despite the new powers. Said it was still a problem. “”They still hold the hammer of legislative power over everyone’s head, which will threaten freedom of expression. Even without the conditions, people would still be speaking with the permission of the CRTC, “Menzies said, as the post-media reported.
In the same article, Professor Michael Geist of the University of Ottawa states, “In a free and democratic society, basic speech is not regulated in this way.” “I think the idea that broadcast regulators play a role in basic speech is an aversion to a free and democratic society where freedom of expression is regarded as one of the basic freedoms.” He added.
The bill is being led by Heritage Minister Stephen Gilbeau, who previously proposed that all Canadian media should be required to obtain a government license. In a briefing note on December 10, the Heritage Department censored Internet posts that “target communities, jeopardize people’s security, and undermine Canada’s social cohesion or democracy,” and “bring Canadians online.” He said he had to “protect”.
In addition, Guilbeault said that the regulation was “disgusting online content” and “disgusting online content” for civil servants. [this] “Harmful content that also reduces public sector” wrote a Blacklock reporter in an April 9 article on the minister’s remarks on the podcast.
Government will never deprive us of our rights and freedoms without providing justification. As former British Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger said very well, “Necessity is a plea for any infringement of human freedom. It is a tyranny’s argument. It is a slave’s belief.”
Excuse for human rights abuses includes the fight against terrorism, the protection of security and public health, the fight against communism, the prevention of evil enemies trying to attack us, and the realization of so-called utopian ideals like Germany. Will be. Lebensraum, Stalinist workers’ paradise, and various types of theocracy. Health and security are now an excuse to impose pandemic measures that violate the freedom of conscience, religion, association and peaceful assembly, and also have the right to a charter to freely enter and leave Canada.
In this context, Gilbo is no different from the authoritarians of other nations today, or the authoritarians who ruled in the past. He promises to “protect” Canadians by removing the right to think for himself and making his own choices about “hate,” “harm,” and “damage.” This is tyranny, not protection. Social cohesion should not be defined as anyone who has the same opinion as the minister, or who thinks the same way.
The purpose of Minister Gilbo to stop the “harmful effects of harmful content” that ridicule politicians and undermine public institutions is particularly horrifying. Democracy relies on lively public debate to make politicians accountable and improve existing legislation. Parliament, civil servants, police, universities, and other public institutions are not diminished by criticism. They depend on it.
The passage of Bill C-10 in its current form will be a further step towards a totalitarian nightmare. There, dignity and freedom should be respected for naive and deceptive citizens.
Attorney John Carpay is the director of the Judiciary Center for Constitutional Freedom (jccf.ca).
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.