Connect with us

Censorship Industrial Complex

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

Published

2 years ago

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/

Related Topics:

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

More from this author
espionage / 3 hours ago

Trump: “I HAVE JUST SIGNED THE BILL TO RELEASE THE EPSTEIN FILES!”

Energy / 3 hours ago

The Carney Government is Hijacking the Phase “Energy Superpower” to Advance Their Agenda

Alberta / 4 hours ago

‘Weird and wonderful’ wells are boosting oil production in Alberta and Saskatchewan

Censorship Industrial Complex

Quebec City faces lawsuit after cancelling Christian event over “controversial” artist

Published on November 17, 2025

By

Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that lawyers have filed a claim in Quebec Superior Court against Quebec City (City) on behalf of Burn 24/7 Canada Worship Ministries, a Christian organization whose worship event was abruptly cancelled by the City this past summer.

The claim seeks reimbursement of rent, punitive damages, and judicial declarations that the City violated Burn 24/7 Canada’s fundamental freedoms protected under both the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Quebec’s Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

Based in British Columbia, Burn 24/7 Canada is a non-profit Christian ministry that organizes musical worship and prayer events across the country. Its July 2025 Canadian tour featured American singer-songwriter Sean Feucht, known for his contemporary Christian music. Mr. Feucht had been portrayed negatively in some Canadian media outlets for his opposition to abortion, his support for traditional marriage, and his public support of U.S. President Donald Trump.

On July 4, 2025, Burn 24/7 Canada signed a lease with the City to hold a worship and prayer event at ExpoCité. The organization paid the full rental fee of $2,609.93 on July 14. However, without notice, the City cancelled the lease on July 23—just one day before the scheduled event—claiming the presence of a “controversial” artist had not been disclosed. Officials stated publicly that ExpoCité had terminated the contract after determining an “artist who generates significant controversy has consequences for ExpoCité’s reputation.”

The City cited sections of the lease related to “illegal solicitation” and “use of premises,” arguing these clauses gave it authority to terminate the agreement. Lawyers representing Burn 24/7 argue this claim is absurd, made in bad faith, and reflective of clear discrimination on the basis of religion and political opinion.

Constitutional lawyer Olivier Séguin said, “In this era of cancel culture, it’s easy to see why some private citizens might yield to public pressure. But when government officials do the same, it crosses a line. The City’s conduct is inexcusable and must be punished.”

The lawsuit comes amid a wave of cancellations that swept across Canada in July 2025, after Parks Canada and several municipalities—including Halifax, Charlottetown, and Moncton—revoked permissions for Mr. Feucht’s scheduled events, citing “security” concerns following threats of protest.

In this brief video, constitutional lawyer Mr. Séguin summarizes the details of this matter.

Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

EU’s “Democracy Shield” Centralizes Control Over Online Speech

Published on November 14, 2025

By

logo

By Christina Maas

Presented as a defense of democracy, the plan reads more like the architecture of a managed reality.

European authorities have finally unveiled the “European Democracy Shield,” we’ve been warning about for some time, a major initiative that consolidates and broadens existing programs of the European Commission to monitor and restrict digital information flows.
Though branded as a safeguard against “foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI)” and “disinformation,” the initiative effectively gives EU institutions unprecedented authority over the online public sphere.
At its core, the framework fuses a variety of mechanisms into a single structure, from AI-driven content detection and regulation of social media influencers to a state-endorsed web of “fact-checkers.”
The presentation speaks of defending democracy, yet the design reveals a machinery oriented toward centralized control of speech, identity, and data.
One of the more alarming integrations links the EU’s Digital Identity program with content filtering and labelling systems.
The Commission has announced plans to “explore possible further measures with the Code’s signatories,” including “detection and labelling of AI-generated and manipulated content circulating on social media services” and “voluntary user-verification tools.”
Officials describe the EU Digital Identity (EUDI) Wallet as a means for “secure identification and authentication.”
In real terms, tying verified identity to online activity risks normalizing surveillance and making anonymity in expression a thing of the past.
The Democracy Shield also includes the creation of a “European Centre for Democratic Resilience,” led by Justice Commissioner Michael McGrath.
Framed as a voluntary coordination hub, its mission is “building capacities to withstand foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI) and disinformation,” involving EU institutions, Member States, and “neighboring countries and like-minded partners.”
The Centre’s “Stakeholder Platform” is to unite “trusted stakeholders such as civil society organizations, researchers and academia, fact-checkers and media providers.”
In practice, this structure ties policymaking, activism, and media oversight into one cooperative network, eroding the boundaries between government power and public discourse.
Financial incentives reinforce the system. A “European Network of Fact-Checkers” will be funded through EU channels, positioned as independent yet operating within the same institutional framework that sets the rules.
The network will coordinate “fact-checking” in every EU language, maintain a central database of verdicts, and introduce “a protection scheme for fact-checkers in the EU against threats and harassment.”
Such an arrangement destroys the line between independent verification and state-aligned narrative enforcement.
The Commission will also fund a “common research support framework,” giving select researchers privileged access to non-public platform data via the
Digital Services Act (DSA) and Political Advertising Regulation.
Officially, this aims to aid academic research, but it could also allow state-linked analysts to map, classify, and suppress online viewpoints deemed undesirable.
Plans extend further into media law. The European Commission intends to revisit the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) to ensure “viewers – particularly younger ones – are adequately protected when they consume audiovisual content online.”
While framed around youth protection, such language opens the door to broad filtering and regulation of online media.
Another initiative seeks to enlist digital personalities through a “voluntary network of influencers to raise awareness about relevant EU rules, including the DSA.” Brussels will “consider the role of influencers” during its upcoming AVMSD review.
Though presented as transparent outreach, the move effectively turns social media figures into de facto promoters of official EU messaging, reshaping public conversation under the guise of awareness.
The Shield also introduces a “Digital Services Act incidents and crisis protocol” between the EU and signatories of the Code of Practice on Disinformation to “facilitate coordination among relevant authorities and ensure swift reactions to large-scale and potentially transnational information operations.”
This could enable coordinated suppression of narratives across borders. Large platforms exceeding 45 million EU users face compliance audits, with penalties reaching 6% of global revenue or even platform bans, making voluntary cooperation more symbolic than real.
A further layer comes with the forthcoming “Blueprint for countering FIMI and disinformation,” offering governments standardized guidance to “anticipate, detect and respond” to perceived information threats. Such protocols risk transforming free expression into a regulated domain managed under preemptive suspicion.
Existing structures are being fortified, too. The European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO), already central to “disinformation” monitoring, will receive expanded authority for election and crisis surveillance. This effectively deepens the fusion of state oversight and online communication control.
Funding through the “Media Resilience Programme” will channel EU resources to preferred outlets, while regulators examine ways to “strengthen the prominence of media services of general interest.”
This includes “impact investments in the news media sector” and efforts to build transnational platforms promoting mainstream narratives. Though described as supporting “independent and local journalism,” the model risks reinforcing state-aligned voices while sidelining dissenting ones.
Education and culture are not exempt. The Commission plans “Guidelines for teachers and educators on tackling disinformation and promoting digital literacy through education and training,” along with new “media literacy” programs and an “independent network for media literacy.”
While such initiatives appear benign, they often operate on the assumption that government-approved information is inherently trustworthy, conditioning future generations to equate official consensus with truth.
Viewed as a whole, the European Democracy Shield represents a major institutional step toward centralized narrative management in the European Union.
Under the language of “protection,” Brussels is constructing a comprehensive apparatus for monitoring and shaping the flow of information.
For a continent that once defined itself through open debate and free thought, this growing web of bureaucratic control signals a troubling shift.
Efforts framed as defense against disinformation now risk becoming tools for suppressing dissent, a paradox that may leave European democracy less free in the name of making it “safe.”
You read Reclaim The Net because you believe in something deeper than headlines; you believe in the enduring values of free speech, individual liberty, and the right to privacy.
Every issue we publish is part of a larger fight: preserving the principles that built this country and protecting them from erosion in the digital age.
With your help, we can do more than simply hold the line: we can push back. We can shine a light on censorship, expose growing surveillance overreach, and give a voice to those being silenced.
If you’ve found any value in our work, please consider becoming a supporter.
Your support helps us expand our reach, educate more people, and continue this work.
Thank you for your support.
Continue Reading

Trending

X