Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Censorship Industrial Complex

Trudeau’s new online censorship law – Problems with Bill C-63 / the Online Arms Law

Published

4 minute read

From the Canadian Constitution Foundation

Proposed Online Harms Act (Bill C-63) described by the Canadian Constitution Foundation

The Trudeau government has proposed a new law to regulate the internet, and it has major constitutional problems.

The Online Harms Act would limit constitutionally-protected expression in the following ways:

– The Bill would create a new process for individuals and groups to complain to the Canadian Human Rights Commission that online speech directed at them is discriminatory. The tribunal could order fines of up to $50,000, and awards of up to $20,000 paid to complainants, who in some cases would be anonymous. Findings would be based on a mere “balance of probabilities” standard rather than the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

– The subjectivity of defining “hate speech” will lead to punishments for protected speech. The mere threat of human rights complaints will chill large amounts of protected speech.

– The Bill would increase the maximum sentence for “advocating genocide” from five years in prison to life in prison. That means words alone could lead to life imprisonment.

– The Bill would allow judges to put prior restraints on people who they believe on reasonable grounds may commit speech crimes in the future. The accused would be forced to choose between imprisonment or a “recognizance to keep the peace” that may be accompanied by severe conditions such as giving a bodily sample, refraining from drugs and alcohol, giving up firearms and wearing an ankle monitor.

– The Bill would require social media companies to “minimize the risk that users of the service will be exposed to harmful content” with the threat of massive fines if they don’t properly mitigate the risk. Social media companies will likely err on the side of caution and block large amounts of speech that is close to the legal line.

– The Bill would require social media companies to provide a mechanism for users to flag content that they believe is “harmful content,” which is defined as including speech that “foments hatred.” This will inevitably lead to censorship of legally-protected speech.

– The Bill would require social media companies to report on how they dealt with perfectly legal but otherwise “harmful content” that “the operator had reasonable grounds to believe posed a risk of significant psychological or physical harm.” This appears aimed at encouraging social media companies to censor speech that the government cannot outlaw.

In this episode I mention a tweet thread by my colleague Josh Dehaas. You can read it here:   / 1762510237032951848  

I also mention an op-ed by my colleague Joanna Baron. You can read it here: https://thehub.ca/2024-02-28/joanna-b…

I also talk about two important Supreme Court cases about hate speech. You can read those cases here: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc…   https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc…

Please write to your MP to express your concerns about this law using this online portal we created: https://theccf.ca/fix-c-63/

Censorship Industrial Complex

WEF Pushes Public-Private Collaboration to Accelerate Digital ID and Censorship

Published on

logo

By

World Economic Forum pushes private funding for UN-led agendas under the guise of resilience and collaboration.

The World Economic Forum (WEF) has prepared a white paper – titled, Resilience Pulse Check: Harnessing Collaboration to Navigate a Volatile World – to go with its ongoing annual meeting taking place this week in Davos.

Yet again reiterating the main theme of the gathering – “collaboration” – the document seeks to promote it among private and public sector entities in order to speed up the process of reaching UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

This collection of 17 interconnected goals is criticized by opponents of the spread of digital ID and censorship, since the first is openly, and the second indirectly pushed via the initiative – when it deals with “hate speech,” “misinformation,” and “disinformation” that the UN wants to be treated as threats to information integrity, which negatively impact the ability to achieve the SDGs.

The WEF white paper states that its own goal was to find out how businesses are tackling “today’s challenges,” opting once again for some doom-mongering by revealing that responses from 250 (highly likely hand-picked) participants, leaders from the public sector, showed that “84% of companies feel underprepared for future disruptions.”

And among the ways to achieve greater “resilience” in this context, the WEF endorses the SDGs, as well as the Paris Agreement (on climate change), and the “societal shifts” they aim for.

The white paper invites businesses to “work collectively” and promotes public-private collaboration as “essential” – as it turns out, mainly to find efficient ways to bankroll SDGs with private sector money.

The WEF wants to see “determined (and coordinated) action across both the public and private sectors” to get there. This informal group with a massive influence on elites in a large number of countries also pushes a pro-SDG entity, the Global Investors for Sustainable Development (GISD) Alliance, and singles it out as a positive example.

The white paper’s authors explain that the GISD Alliance is led by the UN and gathers major financial institutions and corporations who are coming up with coordinated strategies to “channel private investment towards SDGs.”

That, however, is not enough – besides the UN-led alliance, the WEF sees other “still untapped opportunities to deepen public-private collaboration.”

Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

‘Don’t Write About The Laptop’: Two Reporters Allege Outlets Killed Stories About Bidens

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Harold Hutchison

“I was covering Biden at the time, and I remember coming to my editor and saying, ‘Hey, we need to write about the Hunter Biden laptop.’ And I was told this came from on high at Politico: Don’t write about the laptop, don’t talk about the laptop, don’t tweet about the laptop.

Two former reporters with Politico accused the outlet of suppressing negative stories about former President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden during the 2020 presidential election in a video clip posted to YouTube Thursday.

Dozens of former intelligence officials signed an October 2020 letter published by Politico that claimed a bombshell New York Post report about emails from a laptop supposedly abandoned by Hunter Biden “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” Puck News reporter Tara Palmeri and Axios reporter Marc Caputo discussed the Politico newsroom’s alleged approach to unflattering reports about the Bidens on Palmeri’s podcast, “Somebody’s Gotta Win,” though the outlet has denied their allegations.

“Politico did that terrible, ill-fated headline: 51 intelligence agents, or former intelligence agents, say that the Hunter Biden laptop was disinformation, or bore the hallmarks of disinformation. Turns out that story was closer to disinformation because the Hunter Biden laptop appeared to be true,” Caputo told Palmeri, who responded. “But then Facebook also pulled all stories down about the Hunter Biden laptop, and I think Twitter did at the same time, too.”

WATCH:

Twitter locked multiple accounts, including the New York Post’s and the personal account of then-White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany for sharing the Oct, 14, 2020 report, citing a “hacked materials” policy. Documents released to journalist Michael Shellenberger by Elon Musk show that the FBI contacted Twitter about the potential for leaks involving Hunter Biden prior to the New York Post’s report.

“Correct, they punished The New York Post, that didn’t help. I mean, Politico, my former employer and I knew at the time, didn’t do itself any favors,” said Caputo. “I was covering Biden at the time, and I remember coming to my editor and saying, ‘Hey, we need to write about the Hunter Biden laptop.’ And I was told this came from on high at Politico: Don’t write about the laptop, don’t talk about the laptop, don’t tweet about the laptop. And the only thing Politico wound up writing was that piece that called it disinformation, which charitably could be called misinformation, at the least.”

Palmeri claimed to have experienced difficulty getting a story regarding Hunter Biden’s purchase of a .38-caliber revolver in 2018 published. Hunter Biden was convicted on three felony counts related to buying the gun in June 2024, but received a pardon from his father on Dec. 1.

Biden pardoned five other family members shortly before his term ended.

“Yeah, I mean, I had a hard time — you know I wrote some pretty serious reporting on Hunter Biden, which actually ended up getting him prosecuted — the story on the gun,” Palmeri said, with Caputo responding, “Yeah! And I remember you consulted with me cause you had, you did the original report on the gun and you came to me like, ‘How do I write about this?’ I’m like, ‘Honestly, I don’t know.’”

“Cause it was hard to get it done. I spent three months on it, I went to the laptop shop, and I did all of the reporting in Delaware, and I did all of that. But yeah  it had, it had to be like much, it had to be 100% nailed down. I had everything, you know, the police reports, every, like, you know, I’m a solid reporter. But I do wonder if it could have, if it would have been published a little quicker if it was a different type of story,” Palmeri said. “It was the beginning of his administration, it was a honeymoon period — you know what I mean?”

Caputo recounted that Hunter Biden’s laptop was not the only story regarding the Bidens that was allegedly killed by Politico’s editors.

“Since we’re spilling tea about our former employer, I still have a copy of the story on my external hard drive. In 2019, a rival presidential Democratic campaign of Joe Biden’s gave to me the tax lien — the oppo research — the tax lien on Hunter Biden for the period of time that he worked at Burisma,” Caputo said. “And I wrote what would have been a classic story saying, you know, ‘The former vice president’s son was slapped with a big tax lien for the period of time that he worked for this controversial Ukrainian oil concern, or natural gas concern, which is haunting his father on the campaign trail.’ That story was killed by the editors, and they gave no explanation for that either.”

“We just get called, like, ‘the terrible mainstream media.’ It’s like you don’t understand the process there,” Palmeri said, with Caputo responding, “Well, you also don’t understand the dumb decisions of cowardly editors that are made above us.”

Politico disputed Caputo’s recollections in response to a request for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation and sent a list of references to their past reporting on the Biden family.

“It’s bullshit. During the years referenced, POLITICO journalists lead the way on wide-ranging reporting on the business dealings of Joe Biden’s closest relatives. Ben Schreckinger was probably the top reporter in the country reporting on these matters—he literally wrote the book on it,” a Politico spokesperson told the DCNF. “Through deeply reported coverage—both pre- and post-election—POLITICO provided readers with a nuanced understanding of the dealings of James Biden, Hunter Biden, and other relatives of the president, along with the ethical questions they raised. Notably, POLITICO was the first to confirm that Hunter Biden’s laptop contained genuine material and to report on the gun incident that led to his conviction.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X