“The Online Harms Act: A Case of Good Intentions Gone Wrong
In the realm of internet regulation, the Online Harms Act was presented as the shining beacon of hope, the one piece of legislation from the Trudeau government’s trio of attempts to tame the wild web that actually addressed a legitimate issue. The other bills, the Online News Act and the Online Streaming Act, seemed to be veiled attempts at squeezing money out of tech giants and imposing outdated rules on online platforms.
The Case for Addressing Online Harms
The internet is a vast landscape where the best and worst of humanity can be found. From child pornography to hate speech to cyberbullying, there are real and harmful activities taking place online. The sheer volume and ease of dissemination of such content pose a significant challenge for national regulators. This is where the idea of holding social media platforms accountable for the content on their sites gains traction. If they are platforms for publishing content, shouldn’t they bear the responsibility that comes with it?
A Closer Look Reveals Troubling Aspects
While the initial reception of the Online Harms Act seemed positive, a deeper examination revealed concerning elements. The proposal to increase penalties for promoting genocide to life imprisonment and creating a new hate crime category based on motivations raised flags. Criminalizing speech based on abstract concepts like “advocacy” and “promotion,” especially during a time of heightened political tensions, seemed overly drastic.
The Bill’s Overreaches and Ominous Provisions
Not stopping at increased penalties for speech-related offences, the bill also includes provisions for punishing individuals based on feared future actions, coupled with heavy-handed enforcement measures like electronic monitoring and house arrest. Perhaps the most contentious aspect is the resurrection of hate speech as a prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act, with relaxed burden of proof and steep fines for offenders.
Conclusion: Balancing Protection with Freedom of Speech
While the need to combat online harms is clear, the methods proposed in the Online Harms Act raise serious concerns about free speech and fundamental rights. Criminalizing speech based on intentions, as well as allowing anonymous complaints and lower standards of proof, sets a dangerous precedent. Finding the right balance between protecting individuals from harm and upholding the principles of free expression remains a complex challenge that requires careful consideration and a nuanced approach.”
Reference
