{"id":1168,"date":"2021-12-04T09:37:34","date_gmt":"2021-12-04T14:37:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.ryerson.ca\/extraocadsmhr\/?post_type=chapter&p=1168"},"modified":"2022-02-14T20:06:25","modified_gmt":"2022-02-15T01:06:25","slug":"planned-social-media-regulations-set-a-dangerous-precedent","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/extraocadsmhr\/chapter\/planned-social-media-regulations-set-a-dangerous-precedent\/","title":{"raw":"6a. \"Planned social media regulations set a dangerous precedent\" (Short news article)","rendered":"6a. “Planned social media regulations set a dangerous precedent” (Short news article)"},"content":{"raw":"

Introduction to the article \"Planned social media regulations set a dangerous precedent<\/a><\/span>\"<\/h1>\r\nFree expression is an incredibly complex issue to regulate.\r\n\r\nLimiting speech invites self-censorship by speakers and could set the stage for the erosion of other fundamental rights.\r\n\r\nIn contrast, completely free expression can leave vulnerable populations victimized through hate speech.\r\n\r\nThe balance between the two impulses is incredibly difficult.\r\n\r\nIn his article, \"Planned social media regulations set a dangerous precedent,\" the author Vivek Krishnamurthy discusses the perils of regulating social media in Canada as well as the bad precedent it set for more authoritarian countries with poor track records of protecting human rights.\r\n\r\nIf democratic countries like Canada limit free speech, how much more narrow will it be in countries governed by authoritarian regimes?\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n

Planned social media regulations set a dangerous precedent<\/a><\/span><\/h2>\r\nVivek Krishnamurthy, The Conversation<\/em>, March 15, 2021 2:45pm EDT<\/span> \u00a0<\/span>\r\n\r\nAs the federal government prepares<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>to introduce legislation to regulate content on social media<\/a><\/span>, Canadians have reason to be concerned about the effectiveness of its approach and the poor example we are about to set for countries that don\u2019t share our commitment to human rights.<\/span>\r\n\r\nHeritage Minister Steven Guilbeault<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>has hinted in recent weeks that Canada\u2019s forthcoming legislation will be modelled after Germany\u2019s NetzDG law<\/a><\/span>. The law allows for social media companies to be fined up to 50 million euros for failing to remove<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>what the legislation calls \u201cobviously illegal\u201d content<\/a><\/span>\u00a0<\/span>from their sites within 24 hours of being notified.<\/span>\r\n\r\nThe details of the government\u2019s approach remain unknown since no meaningful public consultations were held about the development or drafting of this legislation. What we do know about the upcoming bill should concern all Canadians for at least two reasons.<\/span>\r\n
\r\n

\u2018Lawful but awful\u2019<\/h2>\r\nThe first is that it won\u2019t be effective in dealing with the bulk of the harmful content we find on the internet today.\r\n\r\nSocial media companies are not perfect at removing content that violates Canadian law, such as child sexual exploitation material or terrorist propaganda, but they\u2019ve improved considerably in recent years. Where they struggle, however, is in dealing with \u201clawful but awful<\/a><\/span>\u201d content that is legal under the laws of most democracies, including Canada\u2019s, but is known to create real-world harm.\r\n\r\nConsider the vast amounts of pandemic-related misinformation on YouTube and Facebook, or the casually racist or misogynistic memes that populate many Instagram feeds.\r\n\r\n<\/a>The broad protections that Canada\u2019s Charter of Rights and Freedoms provide for the right to free expression makes it difficult for governments to ban such content outright, or to even restrict the expression of such harmful and distasteful ideas in public spaces. Correspondingly, a new law that seeks to penalize technology companies for failing to promptly remove illegal material will only scratch the surface of the problems with harmful content online.\r\n\r\nMore troubling, however, is the example that the forthcoming legislation will set for countries that don\u2019t share our respect for human rights.\r\n\r\nAuthoritarian governments around the world are adopting social media laws that are similar to the one set to be unveiled here in Canada. Those laws impose draconian penalties on social media companies that fail to take down content that is illegal under national laws.\r\n\r\nThe problem, however, is that the laws in many authoritarian countries criminalize forms of expression that are protected under international human rights law, from voices dissenting against the regime in power to the cultural and religious expression of minority communities.\r\n\r\nPakistan provides a stark example<\/span><\/a>\u00a0<\/span>of this trend. Last year, the country enacted a law strikingly similar to what Ottawa is considering, but in the context of a legal system where\u00a0<\/span>blasphemy can be punished by death<\/a><\/span>\u00a0<\/span>and where it\u2019s a crime to violate \u201creligious, cultural or ethnic sensibilities.\u201d\r\n\r\nIn Poland, the increasingly authoritarian government of Andrzej Duda also introduced\u00a0<\/span>similar legislation in parliament last month<\/a><\/span>, while Victor Orban\u2019s administration in Hungary\u00a0<\/span>is also reported to be considering legislating a similar measure<\/a><\/span>.\r\n

Internet at risk<\/h2>\r\nCanadians should be concerned about the enactment of such laws in faraway places not only because we value human rights, but because this type of legislation puts the future of a global internet at risk.\r\n\r\nAs governments seek to regulate the online sphere according to their own peculiar national laws \u2014 regardless of whether those laws comply with international human rights standards \u2014 there is a risk that the internet will splinter into a series of national networks. That has profound implications for all of us.\r\n\r\nAgainst this bleak international backdrop, Canada needs to think carefully about our approach to regulating online harm. Rather than going it alone by seeking to enforce laws aimed at social media companies, Canada should work with other rights-respecting democracies to develop a multilateral approach to addressing harmful online content.\r\n
<\/figure>\r\nThis is precisely what was done to deal with terrorist and violent extremist content online following the 2019 Christchurch massacre, when a coalition of governments led by New Zealand and France worked with industry and civil society stakeholders to devise the\u00a0<\/span>Christchurch Call to Action<\/a><\/span>.\r\n\r\nA multilateral approach grounded in the shared language of human rights can help keep the internet free and open while moderating its worst excesses. It will also deny authoritarians around the world of the argument that what\u2019s good for Canada is good for them too.\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n

Quiz<\/h2>\r\nQuiz on \"Planned social media regulations set a dangerous precedent<\/a><\/span>\"<\/strong>\r\n\r\n[h5p id=\"104\"]<\/span>\r\n\r\n[h5p id=\"105\"]<\/span>\r\n\r\n[h5p id=\"106\"]<\/span>\r\n\r\n[h5p id=\"107\"]<\/span>\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\nTopics\/Keywords\/Tags<\/strong>:<\/span>\r\n