It is pretty amusing seeing the CBC complain about censorship given that they have been pushing the progressive agenda about 'misinformation.' So what they are really complaining about is CBC being censored - not journalists generally - and certainly not the wrong kind of journalist - say Rebel Media or Joe Rogan or Jordan Peterson - it is just fine to censor them. Reap what you sow fools.
If I'm reading this correctly, does it mean I can lodge a complaint against the CBC for the offence of Material Misrepresentation of Fact? If so, watch out CBC, CTV, Global, et al., because that's a case that is very easy to prove.
Thanks for the post, Tara. I was very interested to hear this. I worry that not enough synthesis is happening in this discussion, so I'd like to drop a few breadcrumbs.
There was a protest in February where the participants were labelled as hateful in different ways. Whether that was true or not, even the people funding the protesters had repercussions applied to them. It became "normal" to punish people who speak out, even indirectly, to a preferred narrative.
There was a pandemic where people raising concerns about its origins or the application of the solution got content labels put on their posts. The public gets trigger warnings if something questions the preferred narrative.
Now the open internet space will be subject to these two precedents... possibly. I worry that Canadian content that disagrees with narratives that our elected officials posit will now be subject to more scrutiny. Some might say that this is already happening in media, some might say that this is alarmist.
And yet, Tata assures us that only a minority are even aware that there is a war.
I am sorry. I thought the level of corruption was obvious 20+ years ago and had no trouble wrapping my head around it. So, pardon me if I doubt the inexorable nature of "our" re-birth. For every adult who re-awakens, there are two school-kids being taught to be SERVANTS TO BIG GOVERNMENT.
I think this whole thing confuses "democracy" with "decency". Democracy does not guarantee good or even decent outcomes, and with the dumbing-down of the population thanks to social media, well, democratically-determined outcomes will likely get worse and worse from here. We have evidence of that right here. Few, if any, of these supposedly eyes-wide-open, well-educated experts Tara interviews are willing to tell the real truth or name names. They all couch there complaints in a potpourri of PC. Want to fail to get things done. Be PC.
Want to make a person dumb? Give him/her/it/pronoundujour a smartphone.
So I ask, who gets to decide what constitutes a "Material Misrepresentation of Fact?"
Do I have to fight it out in court, calling on expert witnesses, in the process incurring far more costs that the applicable fine? Who pays my court costs if I win? If the government brings the complaint on behalf of a third party, do I actually get to face my accuser, or are they shielded by this act?
Since facts are so important, why don't we call this what it really is: The Silencing of Dissent Act.
This is great! Michael Geist recently interviewed Farhan Mohamed (the CEO of Overstory Media Group) who is working to reimagine local news through brands like the Burnaby Beacon, Fraser Valley Current, and The Coast.
It’s a very interesting topic, one that deserves more attention. As a law graduate - I’m glad you and Michael spoke!
How is it an "affront to democracy"? It sounds like democratically-elected politicians got their vote. If they chose to vote like a bunch of sheep instead of voting something down and saying "Let us try that gain later.", that is simply the fault of citizens who insist on voting for SPINELESS politicians.
Democracy does not guarantee good outcomes. It gives the majority of citizens what they think they want. If they vote badly, they get lousy results.
Wow! If Twitter (one of the most censorious platforms out there) finds that some parts of C11 are comparable to those of authoritarian regimes like China, that is absolutely terrifying. I certainly don't want the government telling me what I should be watching.
JJ McCullough also did a great video showing that all of the groups in favour of C11 are heavily funded media backed types. Just goes to show that this bill has nothing to do with the day to day interests of ordinary Canadians. https://youtu.be/ZN5kZPs1XSw
There is no freedom of speech. Please stop the myth.
Make the platform such as Twitter; Instagram, Facebook etc be liable for incorrect information being posted and distributed on their sites;
together with all news media which uses and quotes such posts shall be correspondingly liable.
Besides the entity being liable, the individual members of the board of directors and the shareholders [if an entity is a shareholder then the individual members of that entity's board of directors and its shareholders of the entity] shall correspondingly be liable.
Only real people can post. The platform must require names, birthdates address, drivers license number, social security or similar and picture along with blood type and DNA sample in order to be approved to be on the site and post or distribute information.
Law enforcement shall have the right, without subpoena or warrant, to require production of the detailed information about each person approved to be on the site.
Educators of any type, shall be required to obtain the approval of the board of directors of the institution that they are affiliated with prior to posting and to deliver such approval to the platform. The education institution shall correspondingly be liable for incorrect information being posted.
No information shall be censored by the platform. All correspondence and communications in which the platform is being told to censor such as, covid information, shall be disclosed by the platform and posted along with the post it is censoring for a period of one week, before it is censored and removed.
Yeah, as someone who is trying to do things in the Canadian media and has been for many years, I've been really concerned about this. More that likely it will end up creating a brain drain where those who can make good Canadian content will simply go south of the border.
I love love love people who say "I'm not into conspiracy theories", while pointing out another "conspiracy". Ahem. The system runs on conspiracies. If you refuse to link them, you just don't understand the system. Linkage is what makes a "system".
Thanks for the transcript - this kind of [written] content is what I subscribe for.
Good stuff. Any discussions concerning our freedoms are important right now. Lets go Canada, "Get up, stand up, stand up for your rights..."
It is pretty amusing seeing the CBC complain about censorship given that they have been pushing the progressive agenda about 'misinformation.' So what they are really complaining about is CBC being censored - not journalists generally - and certainly not the wrong kind of journalist - say Rebel Media or Joe Rogan or Jordan Peterson - it is just fine to censor them. Reap what you sow fools.
If I'm reading this correctly, does it mean I can lodge a complaint against the CBC for the offence of Material Misrepresentation of Fact? If so, watch out CBC, CTV, Global, et al., because that's a case that is very easy to prove.
Thanks for the post, Tara. I was very interested to hear this. I worry that not enough synthesis is happening in this discussion, so I'd like to drop a few breadcrumbs.
There was a protest in February where the participants were labelled as hateful in different ways. Whether that was true or not, even the people funding the protesters had repercussions applied to them. It became "normal" to punish people who speak out, even indirectly, to a preferred narrative.
There was a pandemic where people raising concerns about its origins or the application of the solution got content labels put on their posts. The public gets trigger warnings if something questions the preferred narrative.
Now the open internet space will be subject to these two precedents... possibly. I worry that Canadian content that disagrees with narratives that our elected officials posit will now be subject to more scrutiny. Some might say that this is already happening in media, some might say that this is alarmist.
And yet, Tata assures us that only a minority are even aware that there is a war.
I am sorry. I thought the level of corruption was obvious 20+ years ago and had no trouble wrapping my head around it. So, pardon me if I doubt the inexorable nature of "our" re-birth. For every adult who re-awakens, there are two school-kids being taught to be SERVANTS TO BIG GOVERNMENT.
I think this whole thing confuses "democracy" with "decency". Democracy does not guarantee good or even decent outcomes, and with the dumbing-down of the population thanks to social media, well, democratically-determined outcomes will likely get worse and worse from here. We have evidence of that right here. Few, if any, of these supposedly eyes-wide-open, well-educated experts Tara interviews are willing to tell the real truth or name names. They all couch there complaints in a potpourri of PC. Want to fail to get things done. Be PC.
Want to make a person dumb? Give him/her/it/pronoundujour a smartphone.
PART II.4
Offence — Material Misrepresentation of Fact
Prohibition
34.997 It is prohibited for any person to knowingly make a material misrepresentation of fact to a person designated under paragraph 34.7(a).
Offence
34.998 (1) Every person who contravenes section 34.997 is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable
(a) in the case of an individual, to a fine of not more than $10,000 for a first offence and of not more than $25,000 for each subsequent offence; or
(b) in any other case, to a fine of not more than $100,000 for a first offence and of not more than $250,000 for each subsequent offence.
************************************************************************************
So I ask, who gets to decide what constitutes a "Material Misrepresentation of Fact?"
Do I have to fight it out in court, calling on expert witnesses, in the process incurring far more costs that the applicable fine? Who pays my court costs if I win? If the government brings the complaint on behalf of a third party, do I actually get to face my accuser, or are they shielded by this act?
Since facts are so important, why don't we call this what it really is: The Silencing of Dissent Act.
This is great! Michael Geist recently interviewed Farhan Mohamed (the CEO of Overstory Media Group) who is working to reimagine local news through brands like the Burnaby Beacon, Fraser Valley Current, and The Coast.
It’s a very interesting topic, one that deserves more attention. As a law graduate - I’m glad you and Michael spoke!
How is it an "affront to democracy"? It sounds like democratically-elected politicians got their vote. If they chose to vote like a bunch of sheep instead of voting something down and saying "Let us try that gain later.", that is simply the fault of citizens who insist on voting for SPINELESS politicians.
Democracy does not guarantee good outcomes. It gives the majority of citizens what they think they want. If they vote badly, they get lousy results.
Thank...just posted in GETTR, too....much too important not to share...... https://gettr.com/post/p1i74xy882e
Wow! If Twitter (one of the most censorious platforms out there) finds that some parts of C11 are comparable to those of authoritarian regimes like China, that is absolutely terrifying. I certainly don't want the government telling me what I should be watching.
JJ McCullough also did a great video showing that all of the groups in favour of C11 are heavily funded media backed types. Just goes to show that this bill has nothing to do with the day to day interests of ordinary Canadians. https://youtu.be/ZN5kZPs1XSw
There is no freedom of speech. Please stop the myth.
Make the platform such as Twitter; Instagram, Facebook etc be liable for incorrect information being posted and distributed on their sites;
together with all news media which uses and quotes such posts shall be correspondingly liable.
Besides the entity being liable, the individual members of the board of directors and the shareholders [if an entity is a shareholder then the individual members of that entity's board of directors and its shareholders of the entity] shall correspondingly be liable.
Only real people can post. The platform must require names, birthdates address, drivers license number, social security or similar and picture along with blood type and DNA sample in order to be approved to be on the site and post or distribute information.
Law enforcement shall have the right, without subpoena or warrant, to require production of the detailed information about each person approved to be on the site.
Educators of any type, shall be required to obtain the approval of the board of directors of the institution that they are affiliated with prior to posting and to deliver such approval to the platform. The education institution shall correspondingly be liable for incorrect information being posted.
No information shall be censored by the platform. All correspondence and communications in which the platform is being told to censor such as, covid information, shall be disclosed by the platform and posted along with the post it is censoring for a period of one week, before it is censored and removed.
Basically shut the fuckers down.
Yeah, as someone who is trying to do things in the Canadian media and has been for many years, I've been really concerned about this. More that likely it will end up creating a brain drain where those who can make good Canadian content will simply go south of the border.
I love love love people who say "I'm not into conspiracy theories", while pointing out another "conspiracy". Ahem. The system runs on conspiracies. If you refuse to link them, you just don't understand the system. Linkage is what makes a "system".