Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => Fishing-related Issues & News => Topic started by: IronNoggin on April 30, 2021, 02:56:01 PM
-
This is some very serious Chit Folks!!
Trudeau minister says internet censorship must follow 'government's vision'
Trudeau Minister Steven Guilbeault has told federal regulators that the enforcement of his internet censorship bill must adhere to "the government’s vision."
"Like many, we were surprised to see the Heritage Committee extend Bill C-10 to include social media and user-upload services and apps. This potentially extends CRTC regulation to all audio and audio-visual content on the internet, which has profound implications for not just social media, but virtually all websites, podcasting, online hosting and much more."
This is just the latest condemnation of the Liberal internet censorship bill.
In a statement provided to the National Post, Peter Menzies, who is the former commissioner of the CRTC, said that this legislation was a "full-blown assault" on free expression and ‘the foundations of democracy.’
https://thepostmillennial.com/trudeau-minister-says-internet-censorship-must-follow-governments-vision
Trudeau's internet censorship bill must be stopped
If the idea of the government controlling what you can read online, what you can post online, and what videos you can view doesn’t strike you as quite right, then you might be a Canadian.
Sadly, it’s the government of Canada that’s now putting forward legislation to give itself the type of powers we normally associate with basic dictatorships, like China.
Bill C-10, currently before the House of Commons, would give the government the power to regulate any content you generate and post online.
Previously, the legislation had an exemption for user-generated content, but that was stripped out at the behest of the Liberals last week.
“This is a remarkable and dangerous step in an already bad piece of legislation,” writes Michael Geist.
Geist is a law professor at the University of Ottawa and the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law. This means he not only knows what he’s talking about on this issue, but the federal government agrees, funding his work and research.
His assessment of the bill is brutal but accurate.
“The government believes that it should regulate all user-generated content, leaving it to the regulator to determine on what terms and conditions will be attached the videos of millions of Canadians on sites like Youtube, Instagram, TikTok, and hundreds of other services,” said Geist.
He called the Trudeau Liberals the most “anti-internet government in Canadian history,” a group hellbent on erecting what he calls the “great Canadian internet firewall.” The government wants to be able to block websites it determines Canadians should not see, remove content posted in Canada without any independent review, and to regulate your video postings using the CRTC.
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-trudeaus-internet-censorship-bill-must-be-stopped
I strongly suggest that each and every one of us write to our MP's and demand this garbage bill be tossed immediately!
Nog
-
Bill C-10 isn't about internet censorship. There is no mention of censorship in the Bill what so ever. It's more aimed at leveling the playing field for media formats. Youtube, Facebook etc make advertising revenue from personal videos people post on their platforms. Likewise with media streaming platforms like Spotify which pay next to nothing in Royalties to the artists whose works they broadcast.
Professor Michael Geist has posted a considerable amount of well informed opinion on C-10 and I suggest people get that information from there and not from tiny snippets of careful edited and sifted material from questionable source like The Post Millennial. The original source is always best.
A couple of other articles with a more balanced perspective
https://globalnews.ca/news/7816226/facebook-instagram-youtube-canada-crtc-canadian-content/
https://www.newwestrecord.ca/the-mix/heritage-committee-wont-reverse-change-to-bill-c-10-despite-public-outcry-3682209
-
In this case, as in many others, you are once again in error Ralph.
That's OK I guess, if you support the kind of censorship this Bill will allow.
Nog
-
exactly what censorship will Bill C-10 "allow"? How is the typical cat video published on Youtube any different from typical human interest stories featured on TV news or in the newspapers? How often are such items on traditional media censored? If such features on the internet are not included in C-10 how can personal internet videos and articles that include real harm be controlled?
This appears to be a slippery slope argument with all the usual flaws these have. Slippery slope arguments are generally included among the usual list of logical fallacy arguments.
You are just assuming because the exclusion is removed there will be censorship. Of what and for what reason? Much of the stuff also comes from outside Canada and there is otherwise no recourse to controlling content from other countries.
-
exactly what censorship will Bill C-10 "allow"?
You are just assuming because the exclusion is removed there will be censorship.
The way the Bill now stands, every and anything is open for censorship. Period.
You actually going to trust this particular government that it won't use that to it's own benefit??
While your at it Ralph, explain why you are comfortable with the intentional removal of the exclusion, leaving every single individual who posts anything anywhere susceptible to government defined censorship. What possible motive resides behind that over-reach?
Nog
-
What’s wrong with Bill C-10? An FAQ
Anatomy of a legacy media power grab
https://openmedia.org/article/item/whats-wrong-with-bill-c-10-an-faq
-
you know of course anything that this or any other future government ( and historically most censorship in North America originated with the political right wing) may do is subject to a Charter challenge such as Section 2b:
freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
so much of this concern about C-10 seems moot. Exactly what has government proposed that contravenes the Charter? The only valid worries voiced has been some platforms may choose to leave Canada to avoid paying taxes on revenues they collect from Canada or copyright infringements they may commit by allowing copyright material from other sources on their platforms. Which others think is unlikely.
BTW one of my points is that the 2 media sources you provided, the Post Millennial and the Toronto Sun are known for issues with the quality of their reporting.
Example your Open Media article does not list "Internet Censorship" as "What's wrong with Bill C-10?" yet that's your subject.
-
From the already bought & paid for CBC (surprisingly enough!):
Your free speech is at risk with Ottawa's push to regulate online content, experts warn
The federal government is facing an uproar over controversial changes to a bill that would bring videos and other content posted to social media sites like YouTube under the purview of the country's broadcasting regulator.
The changes to Bill C-10 — made at the behest of Liberal MPs on the heritage committee — would allow the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to regulate user-generated content uploaded to social media platforms, much as it regulates radio and TV content now.
In its original form, Bill C-10 exempted user-generated content posted to social media sites from the CRTC's authority.
That meant professionally-produced shows or songs streamed on Crave, Netflix, Amazon Prime or Spotify would be subject to CRTC regulation, while music videos on YouTube, posts made to Facebook or podcasts uploaded to Apple Podcasts would be exempt — because they are uploaded to those platforms by individual users.
Guilbeault himself touted these exclusions when he introduced the bill to the House. "Our approach is balanced and we have made the choice to exclude a number of areas from the new regime," Guilbeault told MPs. "User-generated content will not be regulated."
But the exclusion for user-generated content was removed by members of the heritage committee last Friday. Another amendment approved by the committee on Monday would grant the CRTC the power to regulate smartphone apps as well.
Critics say these amendments could give the CRTC the power to regulate the posts that millions of Canadians upload every day to platforms like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and YouTube.
Michael Geist, a University of Ottawa professor and the Canada Research Chair in internet law, said those posts could be treated as "programs," which would allow the regulator to set terms and conditions associated with that content.
"The kind of speech that many Canadians engage in on these platforms is just basic, fundamental freedom of expression that does not require, and should not be subject to, any sort of regulation or regulatory oversight by a broadcast regulator," said Geist.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bill-c10-user-generated-content-1.6007192
-
Freedom of speech and expression is already subject to limitations both in the Charter and by Common Law. The US also follows these basic principles as do most Western Democracies:
https://ccla.org/cclanewsite/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Freedom-of-Expression-101-FINAL.pdf
The following are some general exclusions to protection under s. 2(b) of the Charter:
•conveying meaning through a violent form of expression is not protected expression under the Charter;
•threats of violence are not protected;
•The location from which a message is conveyed might also exclude it from s. 2(b) protection if it would conflict with the values underlying freedom of expression (noted above)
For example, staging a protest inside a Cabinet meeting could interfere with the way our government functions to such a degree that it prevents important political discourse from taking place, even though that same protest would likely be protected outside the Parliament building.
Likewise with Hate Speech. Not specifically covered by the charter but limited by law and support by the SCOC. It's cover in the same link on Pgs 2 & 3.
The real question the article, Professor Geist and you never ask is why shouldn't "The kind of speech that many Canadians engage in on these platforms is just basic, fundamental freedom of expression" be subject to regulatory oversight when necessary?
Unless it breeches the few limited exceptions in the Charter or laws such as those against Hate Speech it would not be subject to any specific or censorship. That's how the law generally works, unless there is a breech there is no need for it to be regulated or reviewed.
-
Explain it to the liberals Ralph. Maybe they'll take the point from you... ::)
Nog
-
Explain it to the liberals Ralph. Maybe they'll take the point from you... ::)
Nog
Miss it don't you? It won't be subject to censorship.
Section 2b, protects us from government censorship ... it doesn't allow it.
Subjecting personal content posted on website owned & operated by huge corporations, almost invariably foreign corporations that profit from that content does not constitute censorship. No one with any credibility has said it does or will.
-
Quite the surprise in this move by the fawning NDP:
NDP will vote with Conservatives on motion to ensure censorship bill does not violate charter rights
NDP Critic and Deputy Critic for Canadian Heritage Alexandre Boulerice and Heather McPherson will now be voting in favour of the Conservative-led motion that would suspend Bill C-10 until it is confirmed to not violate any Charter rights.
The statement, released on Monday, calls out Heritage Minister Guilbeault for "not do[ing] the necessary review before moving forward."
https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-ndp-will-vote-with-conservatives-on-motion-to-ensure-censorship-bill-does-not-violate-charter-rights
-
Looks like the pressure on this one is getting to them...
Feds plan change to Bill C-10 to make it ‘crystal clear’ social media uploads won’t be regulated
The government is bringing forward an amendment to make it “crystal clear” that content individual users upload to social media sites like YouTube and Instagram won’t be regulated by Bill C-10, according to Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault.
He confirmed the news in a statement sent to Global News on Monday, following pushback from politicians and experts alike who warned that proposed changes to the Broadcasting Act could infringe on freedom of speech.
“We also want to make sure that the content that people upload on social media won’t be considered as programming under the Act and that it won’t be regulated by the CRTC,” Guilbeault said in the statement.
“And that’s why we will be bringing forward another amendment that will make this crystal clear.”
https://globalnews.ca/news/7829583/social-media-free-speech-regulation-bill-c-10-broadcasting/
It seems to be an all-too-frequent occurrence that many of the Bills designed by the liberals require amendments to ensure they are not over-stepping their bounds. Guess its difficult for some to get it right the first time around.
Nog
-
It seems to be an all-too-frequent occurrence that many of the Bills designed by the liberals require amendments to ensure they are not over-stepping their bounds. Guess its difficult for some to get it right the first time around.
that's why they have committee reviews and multiple readings of a Bill, superman. ::)
The system is designed to get feedback and public input. Sometimes it even works!
-
The debate continues:
In an opinion piece in the Globe and Mail, Sue Gardner, former head of Wikimedia called the controversy over Federal Bill C-10 "a sideshow...[Minister] Guilbeault and his team are on a mission to regulate Big Tech. It’s important work, it’s overdue and it needs to move forward."
Among other things she documents the many scandals and controversies that have arise from the Big Tech Corporations inability to regulate their content and the world wide push by Western Democracies to put some controls that will help prevent future catastrophes such as Cambridge Analytica harvesting of the personal account activity of over 50 million Facebook users that lead to targeted political ads aimed at individual American.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-the-crackdown-on-big-tech-targets-symptoms-rather-than-the-disease/
It's not the 1990s anymore. The internet and web stopped being a playground for quirky and individual expression long ago. It has since been taken over by big corporate interests that ensure users see what these corporations want them to see. Google search results and prioritized by revenue such companies pay to Google. Free speech was long ago eroded and what's still available has become caustic. Both Public and Private sectors needs to act. Most Western Countries have are proposing similar legislation to C-10. The US is the exception of course where free speech and freedom of expression increasing means the freedom to lie.
-
Here's another Big Tech issue that C-10 should address - fake business reviews and worse fake reviews for money. It's fraud, it's harmful but there is no law that lets the Police or other enforcement agency control it:
"The environment is such that cheating, faking reviews is actually rewarded and honest businesses actually suffer tremendously from it," said Kay Dean, a former fraud investigator with the U.S. department of education. "I would argue millions of consumers are being duped and deceived and honest businesses are being clobbered in the current environment."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/investigates/fake-reviews-on-google-1.6033859
-
Fourteen Newspapers ran with various versions of this same letter yesterday:
(https://scontent.fyvr4-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/198240249_4258861384179168_6404165942681981082_n.jpg?_nc_cat=109&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=V2_ooBUTQf8AX_LnOsI&_nc_ht=scontent.fyvr4-1.fna&oh=74058162c552eed06c5a65534f7e0f47&oe=60C80E97)
Getting it yet Ralphie?
Wondering...
Nog
-
Yeah but do you? Do you read more than 3 sentences from the articles you post? These are consistent with some of the stuff I posted above. Let's see if the Trudeau Gov't follows up on it's promise not regulate personal content.
-
... Let's see if the Trudeau Gov't follows up on it's promise not regulate personal content.
Given that they shut down any and all debate on the matter, then slammed through numerous "amendments" without even bothering to have them read to parliament, I wouldn't be holding my breath...
Nog
-
Again I ask; Do you actually read the content you post?
Did you notice sections such as :
"so shocking is the inaction of your government"
" This isn’t just a Canadian problem. Google and Facebook are using their monopoly powers in the same way throughout the world — choking off journalism from the financial resources it needs to survive."
"Prime Minister, need to keep your word: to introduce legislation to break the Google/Facebook stranglehold on news before the summer recess. It’s about political will — and promised action."
this letter is urging the Trudeau government to get on with it and pass C-10 within weeks.
-
House passes Bill C-10 while senators of the Independent Senators Group (ISG) vow it faces changes and amendments in the Senate and may not pass before summer recess:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-mps-pass-bill-c-10-sending-controversial-broadcasting-act-legislation/
... and who created the ISG after Harper campaigned on an independent Senate but gave the country the same old patronage senate featuring people like Mike Duffy, Patrick Brazeau, Pamela Wallin and Lynn Beyak (who defended the residential school system)?
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/08/27/news/why-harper-corrupted-senate
-
The bottom line on the latest Senate maneuvers: "Bill C-10 received second reading from Senator Dennis Dawson, followed by a pair of speeches on the bill from Senators Tony Loffreda and Paula Simons. Everyone agreed that the bill requires significant study and should not be rubber-stamped.
"The speeches are likely to continue on Monday, after which the bill will be sent to committee. Given that the committee does not meet in the summer, an election call in the fall would kill Bill C-10."
-
"Canada shouldn’t turn away from the difficult task of regulating online speech"
says Taylor Owen, Director of the Centre for Media, Technology and Democracy at McGill University in an Opinion Piece published in the Globe and Mail Saturday:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-canada-shouldnt-turn-away-from-the-difficult-task-of-regulating-online/
while Owen makes the argument for regulation he is also critical of the Federal Liberal Government's handling of Bill C-10. He also discusses the use of internet regulation by "illiberal" countries as a way of suppressing free speech that should be reasonable within anything that could be described as a democracy.
excerpts:
At its core, the problem these laws all seek to address is relatively straightforward: There are a lot of awful things on the internet. And while some of this is a result of there being lots of awful people, the problem is magnified by the very way social-media platforms are designed. The problem of online hate is a difference in kind, not just degree.
By deciding who is seen and heard, by shaping what we read and watch, and by controlling the means of collective action, social-media platforms don’t just facilitate free speech, they shape the character of it. And as such, they bear some responsibility for the ensuing harms.
What’s more, because these companies now look and behave like traditional monopolists, they have little incentive to self-regulate. So citizens are left with little choice other than to accept the harms embedded in the system. Put simply, the free market has failed.
...
Those of us lucky enough to live in democratic societies have a responsibility to show how online speech can be governed in a manner that both minimizes harm and prioritizes and reinforces core democratic principles.
It is undeniable that social-media platforms increasingly govern like states, some more responsibly than others. But they invariably do so in a manner driven by private rather than public interests, without the norms and institutions of democratic accountability we have rightly placed on our governments. And this has come at a significant cost.
...
the question of how we govern online speech will rightly spark important and heated debates, doing it in a manner that prioritizes free expression and accountability will make the internet more democratic, not less.
-
Trudeau's censorship bill FAILS to pass through Senate
MP Pierre Poilievre (PC-Carleton) released a video Saturday where he announced that Bill C-10, the controversial bill that would have regulated Canadians' content online, has failed to pass through the Senate before summer break.
https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-trudeaus-censorship-bill-fails-to-pass-through-senate/
-
The Senate rose for the summer on June 30th. It took Mighty Mouse Poilievre 3 days to produce the video? ::)
BTW the way I appreciate your attribution of his HOC riding. Just as if you'd done a paste and copy from a CPC briefing sheet. What a weird coincidence!
Cheers