Freedom of speech

One of the past vice-chairs of Canada’s official broadcast regulator, Canada’s Radio-Television Commission (CRTC), has sounded the alarm over recent Conservative-backed federal legislation working its way through the system which looks to severely regulate the internet under the appearance of “protecting children.”

Peter Menzies, who served as the CRTC’s vice-chair for a time after an extensive career in the newspaper industry, and who is not known for being very conservative, wrote in a recent blog post in The Hub that the “[s]tate has no business in the WiFi of the nation,” criticizing in particular Senate Bill S-210.

Remember how totalitarian the CHRC was under Section 13? They’ll be even worse.

OTTAWA – Government officials say online hate speech would have to portray a group as “inherently violent” or “unhuman” to meet the threshold to be probed by a human-rights tribunal under a newly proposed law.

Justice officials briefed reporters today on the Criminal Code provisions in the government’s proposed bill to tackle online harms.

Those changes have come under harsh criticism from civil liberties groups and legal experts who are voicing concerns about the potential to chill free speech.

During the Section 13 Wars the CHRC visited my blog every day. Even Christmas.

Alan Dershowitz: Let me start with a statement that many will disagree with. No country in history has ever really tested free speech: has seen whether the marketplace of ideas works or whether we can really have a society without censorship; where every idea is tested only on its merits, rather than for political benefit. This cannot be a right-left issue. Elon, you may be the first person who has really tried. Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and Abraham Lincoln all compromised. You are trying, for the first time, a great experiment to see whether we can survive with a marketplace of ideas, without censorship, where all thoughts and all ideas are treated equally. For instance, where there are judgments on the basis of whether something is pro-right, pro-life, anti-Jewish, pro-Christian, anti-Christian. What we need is to create a circle in which things that are illegal, such as abusing children, are outside the circle, but anything else has to be inside the circle. So if something is permitted for one idea or “-ism,” it has to be permitted for the others. This is exactly what universities are failing to do. They are creating a line on which favored groups fall on one side and disfavored groups fall on the other side.