Canadian Gov’t Pushes UK’s ‘Online Harms’ Abandonware In Hopes Of Regulating More Speech
The UK government spent months trying to pass a bill named the “Online Harms Act.” As opposition mounted — mainly over the many ways the bill would undermine encryption — the UK government decided to rebrand the bill as the kinder sounding “Online Safety Act.” Who could be against “Safety”?
It seemed a bit too on the nose to call a bill capable of harming online interactions the “Online Harms Act.” The same bill resurfaced under a friendlier name: the Online Safety Act. That bill did become law, but not before dumping most of its anti-encryption baggage.
Among the many targets of the UK’s Online Harms/Safety Act was “hate speech.” “Hate speech” would apparently be determined by the eye of the beholder and backed by the UK government. Where that stands now remains to be seen, now that the UK government has decided it won’t order interactive service providers to engage in client-side scanning to prevent the publication of speech the government views as harmful.
Despite concessions, rebranding, and the failure to undermine end-to-end encryption, the UK government still believes it still has a chance to firmly regulate online speech. And, despite these failures and concessions, a UK subordinate is pushing a bill of its own that cops the title the UK government abandoned.
Here’s Michael Taube with the details for the Wall Street Journal:
The 2002 film “Minority Report” depicts a specialized law-enforcement unit called Precrime that relies on information from psychics to apprehend would-be offenders before they can commit crimes. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau seems to have taken this as a suggestion rather than a warning.
On Feb. 26 Mr. Trudeau’s Liberal government introduced Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, which targets so-called hate speech on the internet. One of its provisions would enable anyone, with the consent of the federal attorney general, to “lay an information before a provincial court judge if the person fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit” an offense. The judge could then issue a “peace bond” imposing conditions, including house arrest and electronic monitoring, on the defendant merely because it’s feared he could commit a hate crime.
Pre-criming speech is a very dangerous road to go down. But that appears to be the intent of the nascent bill, which would create an avenue for civil complaints that can be pursued by anyone who believes they’ve been hate-crimed on the internet. If the complaint is upheld, the law would allow the Canadian Human Rights Commission to levy fines of $15,000 (USD). On top of that, social media companies found to be “non-compliant” with the Online Harms Act could be hit with additional fines of up to 6% of their “global gross revenue.”
There’s real money on the line here. The bill is still under development, so it’s not immediately clear what’s expected of social media services, nor any definition of what’s clearly “hate speech” and what’s just people being stupid online. As to why service providers should be held accountable for the actions of their users, the bill has yet to explain. And there’s also a life sentence option for violators: “advocating genocide,” which means Canadians should probably limit their pro-Israel comments until the latest Palestine conflict is resolved.
Who’s going to do all of this watching of the internet to ensure no one gets hit with any hate? The bill provides for the erection of an entirely new set of speech police:
The Online Harms Act would introduce not one but three new bureaucracies—a Digital Safety Commission of Canada to “ensure that operators of social media services . . . are transparent and accountable” and “contribute to the development of standards with respect to online safety”; a Digital Safety Ombudsperson of Canada to “provide support to users . . . and advocate for the public interest in relation to online safety”; and a Digital Safety Office of Canada, which would support the commission and the ombudsperson “in the fulfillment of their mandates.”
Sure, there’s some due process being put in place, but it doesn’t mean much. As the article points out, guilty parties will not need to be proved as such beyond a reasonable doubt. Something less than probable cause will be put in place, ensuring those complaining (or prosecuting) only need to meet the ultra-low bar of “balance of probabilities.”
The bill is still in its early stages, so there’s a chance its shortcomings will be addressed and its vague and ominous aspects refined. Then again, governments seem to believe the internet is in desperate need of direct government intervention and will exploit any useful tragedy to further these efforts. But it hardly seems as though Canada is riddled with online hate speech issues, nor is it under constant threat of attacks by domestic or foreign extremists. This is a bill in search of a problem. And if it isn’t shot down soon, it will become a problem pretending to be a solution.