Quebec court greenlights class action suit against YouTube’s COVID-related content censorship

The lawsuit, led by video blogger Éloïse Boies, argues YouTube violated freedom of expression under the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms by censoring COVID-related content.

A class action lawsuit against YouTube’s censorship of COVID-era speech on the platform has been allowed to proceed in Canada.

The primary plaintiff in the case which has now been greenlit by the Quebec Superior Court is YouTuber Éloïse Boies, while the filing accuses the Google video platform of censoring information about vaccines, the pandemic, and the virus itself.

A copy of the order can be found HERE.

READ: Elon Musk skewers Trudeau gov’t Online Harms bill as ‘insane’ for targeting speech retroactively

Boies, who runs the “Élo Wants to Know” channel, states in the lawsuit that three of her videos got removed by YouTube (one of the censored videos was about… censorship) for allegedly violating the website’s policies around medical disinformation and contradicting World Health Organization and local health authorities’ COVID narratives of the time.

However, the content creator claims that the decisions represented unlawful and intentional suppression of free expression. In February, Boies revealed that in addition to having videos deleted, the censorship also branded her an “antivaxxer” and a “conspiracy theorist,” causing her to lose contracts.

The filing cites the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms as the document YouTube violated, while the class-action status of the lawsuit stems from it including any individual or legal entity in Quebec whose videos dealing with COVID got censored, or who were prevented from watching such videos, starting in mid-March 2020 and onward.

Google, on the other hand, argues that it is under no obligation to respect the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, and can therefore not be held accountable for decisions to censor content it doesn’t approve of – or as the giant phrased it, provide space for videos “regardless of their content.”

But when Superior Court Judge Lukasz Granosik announced his decision, he noted that freedom of expression “does not only mean freedom of speech, but also freedom of publication and freedom of creation.”

Google was ordered to stop censoring content because it contradicts health authorities, WHO, or governments, pay $1,000 in compensation, and $1,000 in punitive damages to each of the lawsuit’s plaintiffs, as well as “additional compensation provided for by law since the filing of the request for authorization to take collective action, as per the court’s decision.”

As for those who were prevented from accessing content, the decision on damages will be the subject of a future hearing.

Reprinted with permission from Reclaim The Net.

Related Topics:#DidiRankovic #EloiseBoies #LifeSiteNews #QuebecSuperiorCourt #YouTubeCensorship #YoutubeFreedomOfExpression

Up Next

Kenyan doctor: WHO pandemic treaty aims to ‘maim and kill’ and ‘establish a one-world government’

Don't Miss

Elon Musk skewers Trudeau gov’t Online Harms bill as ‘insane’ for targeting speech retroactively

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Trump Abolishes DEI for the Feds

Business / 4 hours ago

Trump, taunts and trade—Canada’s response is a decade out of date

Business / 4 hours ago

Trade retaliation might feel good—but it will hurt Canada’s economy

Business

Trump signs executive order banning government censorship

Published on January 20, 2025

Todayville

From The Center Square

By Dan McCaleb

President Donald Trump on Monday signed an executive order banning the federal government from taking any action to restrict Americans free speech rights.

The order ensures “that no Federal Government officer, employee, or agent engages in or facilitates any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen.”

It also ensures “that no taxpayer resources are used to engage in or facilitate any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen” and “identify and take appropriate action to correct past misconduct by the Federal Government related to censorship of protected speech.”

Meta earlier this month ended its practice of censoring posts on Facebook, Instagram and Threads after CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted that the Biden administration pressured the company to remove posts related to COVID-19, the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections – including suppressing the New York Post’s explosive story on Hunter Biden’s laptop – and other matters.

“We started building social media to give people a voice,” Zuckerberg said in announcing the decision. “What started as a movement to be more inclusive has increasingly been used to shut down opinions and shut out people with different ideas, and it’s gone too far.”

Twitter, now X, also removed posts under pressure from the Biden administration before Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk bought the social media platform in 2022.

Trump’s executive order also instructs the U.S. Attorney General to investigate past cases of government censorship.

“The Attorney General, in consultation with the heads of executive departments and agencies, shall investigate the activities of the Federal Government over the last 4 years that are inconsistent with the purposes and policies of this order and prepare a report to be submitted to the President, through the Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, with recommendations for appropriate remedial actions to be taken based on the findings of the report,” the order states.

Dan McCaleb is the executive editor of The Center Square. He welcomes your comments. Contact Dan at [email protected].

Dan McCaleb

Executive Editor

Business

UK lawmaker threatens to use Online Safety Act to censor social media platforms

Published on January 20, 2025

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Didi Rankovic

Labour MP Lola McEvoy defended the Online Safety Act’s censorious measures, including bans and fines for social media platforms which ‘don’t comply’ with the strict age verification law.

Politicians from the U.K.’s ruling Labour party are starting to openly “out” the country’s Online Safety Act for the sweeping censorship law that its opponents have all along been warning it is.

The extreme case of using the law to completely ban social media platforms in the U.K. is now being promoted as a possibility by Labour MP Lola McEvoy.

“If these big platforms that have huge users don’t comply with the Online Safety Act, then they have no right to be accessed in this country,” the MP said while appearing on a podcast, adding, “So I think that’s what the law’s about.”

The masks are coming off, prompted by the latest clash between the government and Prime Minister Keir Starmer in particular and X owner Elon Musk – who criticized their role in a historical child sex exploitation scandal in the U.K.

In addition to saying that failure to comply with the law could result in the platforms getting banned, McEvoy suggested that “unelected citizens from other countries” should not be allowed to criticize U.K.’s government – she justified this by saying the criticism of Minister for Safeguarding Jess Phillips created “a very dangerous situation,” equating it to “bullying and harassment.”

McEvoy even made a point of public figures needing to be even more aggressively protected through censorship – effectively from whatever the government backing those figures decides to pack into the vague categories such as “bullying” and “harassment,” and in that way deal with critical, including legitimate, speech.

And where would any controversial call to step up online censorship be without getting served to the public as a way to above all – protect children?

McEvoy spoke about regulator Ofcom’s powers, which she described as “really significant” in enforcing the fines under the law that is being gradually implemented.

And as that is happening, this MP wants the Online Safety Act to be “strengthened” where it concerns the focus on things it treats as harmful to children, such as access to illegal content or pornography.

Reprinted with permission from Reclaim The Net.