From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

A report from the House of Commons Heritage Committee claimed that ‘some individuals and groups create disinformation to promote political ideologies including extremist views and conspiracy theories or simply to make money.’

A report from a Canadian federal committee said MPs should enact laws to penalize social media and tech companies that don’t take action to quell so-called “undesirable or questionable” content on the internet.

MPs from the ruling Liberal, New Democratic Party (NDP), and separatists Bloc Québécois party on the House of Commons Heritage Committee summarized their opinions in a report.

“The Government of Canada notes some individuals and groups create disinformation to promote political ideologies including extremist views and conspiracy theories or simply to make money,” reads the report titled Tech Giants’ Intimidation and Subversion Tactics to Evade Regulation in Canada and Globally.

“Disinformation creates ‘doubt and confusion’ and can be particularly harmful when it involves health information,” it continues.

The report notes how such “disinformation” can cause “financial harms as well as political polarization and distrust in key institutions,” adding, “The prevalence of disinformation can be difficult to determine.”

As noted in Blacklock’s Reporter, the report claims that many of Canada’s “major societal harms” have come from “unregulated social media platforms relying on algorithms to amplify content, among them disinformation and conspiracy theories.”

Of note is the committee failed to define what “disinformation” or “conspiracy theories” meant.

Most of the MPs on the committee made the recommendation that Google, Facebook, and other social media platforms, which ironically have at one point or another clamped down on free speech themselves, “put mechanisms in place to detect undesirable or questionable content that may be the product of disinformation or foreign interference and that these platforms be required to promptly identify such content and report it to users.”

“Failure to do so should result in penalties,” the report stated.

As it stands, the federal government under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has plowed ahead to push laws impacting free speech online.

As reported by LifeSiteNews, Canadian legal group The Democracy Fund (TDF) warned that the Liberal government’s Bill C-63 seeks to further clamp down on online speech and will “weaponize” the nation’s courts to favor the ruling federal party and do nothing but create an atmosphere of “fear.”

Bill C-63 was introduced by Liberal Justice Minister Arif Virani in the House of Commons in February and was immediately blasted by constitutional experts as troublesome.

Jordan Peterson, one of Canada’s most prominent psychologists, recently accused the bill of attempting to create a pathway to allow for “Orwellian Thought Crime” to become the norm in the nation.

Conservative MPs fight back: ‘A government bureaucracy should not regulate content’

Conservative MPs fought back the Heritage Committee’s majority findings and in a Dissenting Report said the committee did not understand what the role of the internet is in society, which is that it should be free from regulation.

“The main report failed to adequately explore the state of censorship in Canada and the role played by tech giants and the current federal government,” the Conservatives wrote in their dissenting report, adding, “Canadians are increasingly being censored by the government and tech giants as to what they can see, hear and say online.”

The Conservative MPs noted that when it comes to the internet, it is “boundless,” and that “Anyone who wants to have a presence on the internet can have one.”

“A government bureaucracy should not regulate which content should be prioritized and which should be demoted,” it noted, adding, “There is space for all.”

LifeSiteNews reported how the Conservative Party has warned that Trudeau’s Bill C-63 is so flawed that it will never be able to be enforced or become known before the next election.

The law calls for the creation of a Digital Safety Commission, a digital safety ombudsperson, and the Digital Safety Office, all tasked with policing internet content.

The bill’s “hate speech” section is accompanied by broad definitions, severe penalties, and dubious tactics, including levying pre-emptive judgments against people if they are feared to be likely to commit an act of “hate” in the future.

Details of the new legislation also show the bill could lead to more people jailed for life for “hate crimes” or fined $50,000 and jailed for posts that the government defines as “hate speech” based on gender, race, or other categories.

 By Christina Maas

Was the entire immigration reform rhetoric just a prelude to broadening government spying?

Let’s take a closer look: immigration became a hot-button campaign issue, with plenty of talk about “welcoming” migrants, combined with a healthy dose of hand-wringing about border security. Now, however, critics are uncovering what looks like the real priority—an enhanced federal surveillance operation aimed at monitoring not just new arrivals, but American citizens too. In the name of keeping tabs on who’s coming and going, the administration sank more than $100 million into a social media surveillance system designed to keep an eye on everyone.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) first flirted with these powers under Trump’s presidency, when ICE officials began monitoring social media under the guise of protecting the homeland. The Biden-Harris administration, having previously expressed horror at Trump-era excesses, took a softer tack, but actually increased mass surveillance. They rebranded the initiative as the Visa Lifecycle Vetting Initiative (VLVI), a name that practically exudes bureaucratic charm while implying a methodical, visa-centric approach. But if it was just an immigration program, why was it scanning communications between Americans and their international friends, family, or business contacts?

According to a lawsuit from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the program evolved into something much larger than a mere visa vetting system. The scheme entailed broad surveillance of communications and social media activity, conveniently sidestepping pesky things like “probable cause” or the First Amendment. “Government officials peering through their correspondence with colleagues visiting from overseas and scrutinizing the opinions expressed in their communications and their work,” read a lawsuit that laid bare the VLVI’s invasive nature. What started as a system to vet foreigners’ eligibility to enter the U.S. quietly metastasized into an excuse to monitor anyone who dared connect across borders.

We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here.
We obtained a copy of documents batch one for you here.
We obtained a copy of documents batch two for you here.

Of course, in true Washington style, this story wouldn’t be complete without a twist of political theater. The administration’s rhetoric has leaned heavily on a supposed dedication to protecting civil rights and personal freedoms—while simultaneously doubling down on programs that do the opposite.

A Little Privacy, Please? DHS Puts American Social Media on the Watchlist
Ah, the Fourth Amendment — one of those quaint, old-timey Constitutional protections that grant Americans the basic human right not to be poked, prodded, or probed by their own government without a solid reason. It’s a promise that Washington will think twice before sifting through your life without a warrant. Yet somehow, in the age of social media, this Fourth Amendment right seems to be slipping into the hazy realm of memory, particularly when it comes to Uncle Sam’s latest pastime: keeping tabs on everyone’s online chatter under the banner of immigration vetting.

Welcome to the VLVI, a Homeland Security special that appears to have mistaken “security” for “surveillance.” This bureaucratic marvel was dreamed up as a means to monitor non-citizens and immigrants, ostensibly for national security. But according to recent lawsuits, it’s not just foreigners on the watchlist—average Americans now get to share the surveillance limelight too, all thanks to the Department of Homeland Security’s fondness for “indiscriminate monitoring” of citizen communications. And why? Because in the brave new world of VLVI, any American chatting online with an overseas connection might just be suspicious enough to keep an eye on.

A Sweeping “Security” Measure or Just Mass Surveillance?

Here’s where the Constitution starts to feel like an afterthought. Traditionally, the government can’t simply jump into your emails, texts, or online rants without a warrant backed by probable cause. The Fourth Amendment makes that pretty clear. But in the VLVI’s playbook, this notion of “probable cause” becomes something of a suggestion, more of a “nice to have” than a constitutional mandate. Instead, they’ve embraced an approach that’s less “laser-focused security effort” and more “catch-all dragnet,” casting wide nets over American citizens who happen to connect with anyone abroad—no illegal activity necessary.

Imagine you’re a US citizen messaging your friend in France about a summer trip, or maybe you’re just exchanging memes with a cousin in Pakistan. Under this initiative, that simple exchange could land you in a Homeland Security database, your innocent messages cataloged alongside the truly suspicious characters of the internet. And this is happening without any individual warrants, without specific suspicion, and in some cases, without probable cause. One might ask, exactly how does that square with the Constitution’s protections?

Privacy Protections? That’s for Other People

This is all a question of government trust and hypocrisy. The program began under a previous administration but was quickly shuttled along by the current one, despite its public stance championing privacy rights. There’s something ironic about politicians who rally for civil liberties in campaign speeches, only to maintain and expand government surveillance in office. The backlash has been predictably loud, and for good reason. Here we have a policy that effectively treats every social media user as a latent threat and a government that somehow expects people to swallow this as reasonable.

Critics have slammed this “watch-all” approach, pointing out that it doesn’t take a legal scholar to see how this might just cross a constitutional line or two. It’s not just Americans with foreign friends who are worried—it’s anyone who believes the government shouldn’t rummage through citizens’ lives without cause. “This type of program, where citizens’ digital lives are surveilled under a sweeping policy without individual warrants or specific reasons, sounds like an unreasonable search,” privacy advocates say.

The Price of a Free Society: Now With Less Freedom

Of course, VLVI supporters wave away these concerns with a dismissive “it’s for security” mantra as if that excuse covers every constitutional breach. And true, there’s little doubt that some level of monitoring is necessary to keep the truly dangerous elements out of the country. But we’re talking about ordinary people here, law-abiding citizens getting swept up in a bureaucratic machine that fails to distinguish between a casual chat and a credible threat.

When the government can tap into anyone’s social media profile because of a flimsy association, what’s left of the citizen’s “reasonable expectation of privacy”? In theory, the Fourth Amendment protects it; in practice, programs like VLVI gnaw away at it, one seemingly “harmless” violation at a time. If we keep pretending this is just another harmless tool in the security toolkit, we might as well hang up any remaining illusions about the privacy rights we’re supposedly guaranteed.

Just Another Step Toward a Surveillance State?

For Americans, it’s a chilling reminder that a swipe on Instagram or a chat on Facebook can mean more than just casual social interaction. For the DHS, it seems the message is clear: treat everyone as a suspect first, and figure out the legalities later. What happens to the expectation of privacy for ordinary Americans? It’s probably time we all start looking over our digital shoulders, because in the world of VLVI, “reasonableness” is a government privilege, not a citizen’s right.