Trudeau warns of 'meaningful financial consequences' for social media giants that don't combat hate speech

A new digital charter will dictate how the country will combat hate speech, misinformation and online electoral interference in Canada, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told a technology conference in Paris on Thursday.

Trudeau made the announcement at the VivaTech conference, an international summit that brings together startups and technology leaders.

The announcement was short on details, which Trudeau says will be revealed in various announcements over the coming weeks. But he warned there will be hefty penalties for social media companies that don't clamp down.

Link

SanDiegoLover wrote:

Give me a break. Regulating corporations that publish content, which is what social media companies do, is no different than what is in place at newspapers and television stations now. “Free speech” only applies to governments punishing individuals.

opticalilyushin wrote:

Hate speech shouldn't be allowed or encouraged- it's as simple as that. Good on Trudeau for taking a stance on this.

Create new regulations for social media platforms, starting with a requirement that all platforms remove illegal content, including hate speech, within 24 hours or face significant penalties. This should include other online harms such as radicalization, incitement to violence, exploitation of children, or creation or distribution of terrorist propaganda.

TSS wrote:

opticalilyushin wrote:

Hate speech shouldn't be allowed or encouraged- it's as simple as that. Good on Trudeau for taking a stance on this.

Define "hate speech", please.

TSS wrote:

opticalilyushin wrote:

Hate speech shouldn't be allowed or encouraged- it's as simple as that. Good on Trudeau for taking a stance on this.

Define "hate speech", please.

casinterest wrote:

I notice there is no link in the thread start. So I will ignore the right wing slanted "free speech" that does not actually post the direct source.

https://pm.gc.ca/en/mandate-letters/min ... ate-letter

Create new regulations for social media platforms, starting with a requirement that all platforms remove illegal content, including hate speech, within 24 hours or face significant penalties. This should include other online harms such as radicalization, incitement to violence, exploitation of children, or creation or distribution of terrorist propaganda.

They have yet to create any legislation, but these are good aims. Far too much misinformation goes unchecked when there is just a like button.

opticalilyushin wrote:

TSS wrote:

opticalilyushin wrote:

Hate speech shouldn't be allowed or encouraged- it's as simple as that. Good on Trudeau for taking a stance on this.

Define "hate speech", please.

Anything that encourages division or discrimination of others, often based on race, gender, religion, sexuality etc.

TSS wrote:

casinterest wrote:

I notice there is no link in the thread start. So I will ignore the right wing slanted "free speech" that does not actually post the direct source.

https://pm.gc.ca/en/mandate-letters/min ... ate-letter

Create new regulations for social media platforms, starting with a requirement that all platforms remove illegal content, including hate speech, within 24 hours or face significant penalties. This should include other online harms such as radicalization, incitement to violence, exploitation of children, or creation or distribution of terrorist propaganda.

They have yet to create any legislation, but these are good aims. Far too much misinformation goes unchecked when there is just a like button.

I'm all for punishing incitement to violence, exploitation of children, or creation or distribution of terrorist propaganda because those are things that can be clearly and unambiguously defined, but the definitions of "hate speech" and "radicalization" are a bit harder to nail down because what one person might might define as "hate speech" or "radicalization" another might define as "just good, plain, common sense", which in the end makes it come down to opinions and the possible censorship thereof, and that's way too Orwellian for me.

tommy1808 wrote:

SanDiegoLover wrote:

Give me a break. Regulating corporations that publish content, which is what social media companies do, is no different than what is in place at newspapers and television stations now. “Free speech” only applies to governments punishing individuals.

There is no such thing as "free speech", and plenty of restrictions apply in the US as well.

There is no good reason to consider deliberate lies protected speech. Lies can be felonies, try lying to the FBI, the IRS or your bank....

Best regards
Thomas

Meaning of "hatred"
The various laws which refer to "hatred" do not define it. The Supreme Court has explained the meaning of the term in various cases which have come before the Court. For example, in R v Keegstra, decided in 1990, Chief Justice Dickson for the majority explained the meaning of "hatred" in the context of the Criminal Code:

Hatred is predicated on destruction, and hatred against identifiable groups therefore thrives on insensitivity, bigotry and destruction of both the target group and of the values of our society. Hatred in this sense is a most extreme emotion that belies reason; an emotion that, if exercised against members of an identifiable group, implies that those individuals are to be despised, scorned, denied respect and made subject to ill-treatment on the basis of group affiliation.[4]

More recently, in 2013, Justice Rothstein, speaking for the unanimous court, explained the meaning of "hatred" in similar terms, in relation to the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code:

In my view, "detestation" and "vilification" aptly describe the harmful effect that the Code seeks to eliminate. Representations that expose a target group to detestation tend to inspire enmity and extreme ill-will against them, which goes beyond mere disdain or dislike. Representations vilifying a person or group will seek to abuse, denigrate or delegitimize them, to render them lawless, dangerous, unworthy or unacceptable in the eyes of the audience. Expression exposing vulnerable groups to detestation and vilification goes far beyond merely discrediting, humiliating or offending the victims.[5]

extender wrote:

A new digital charter will dictate how the country will combat hate speech, misinformation and online electoral interference in Canada,

I guess Free Speech won't be free anymore. Another crock of bovine excrement from the thin-skinned people whose feeling count more than facts.

TSS wrote:

opticalilyushin wrote:

TSS wrote:

Define "hate speech", please.

Anything that encourages division or discrimination of others, often based on race, gender, religion, sexuality etc.

With that definition you've just unsheathed a very sharp double-bladed sword: That would mean that ANY reference to race, gender, religion, sexuality etc. would be forbidden

jpetekyxmd80 wrote:

From this thread it's quite clear who benefits from and wants as much hate speech, misinformation, and electoral influence as possible.

casinterest wrote:

TSS wrote:

casinterest wrote:

I notice there is no link in the thread start. So I will ignore the right wing slanted "free speech" that does not actually post the direct source.

https://pm.gc.ca/en/mandate-letters/min ... ate-letter



They have yet to create any legislation, but these are good aims. Far too much misinformation goes unchecked when there is just a like button.

I'm all for punishing incitement to violence, exploitation of children, or creation or distribution of terrorist propaganda because those are things that can be clearly and unambiguously defined, but the definitions of "hate speech" and "radicalization" are a bit harder to nail down because what one person might might define as "hate speech" or "radicalization" another might define as "just good, plain, common sense", which in the end makes it come down to opinions and the possible censorship thereof, and that's way too Orwellian for me.

It could be. this is why there should be a few sub buttons on social platforms with a shall we say "questionable" meter.

stl07 wrote:

Freedom of speech is the biggest hoax people fall for. Speech is never free. If Canada wants to finally admit that, good on them!

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Airontario wrote:

stl07 wrote:

Freedom of speech is the biggest hoax people fall for. Speech is never free. If Canada wants to finally admit that, good on them!

While the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms grants citizens freedom of expression, the first section of that document recognizes that everything has a limit.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

extender wrote:

I guess Free Speech won't be free anymore. Another crock of bovine excrement from the thin-skinned people whose feeling count more than facts.

SanDiegoLover wrote:

You own your own voice, which you are free to say what you want. Others are free to ignore you or refuse to interact with you.

flyguy89 wrote:

SanDiegoLover wrote:

You own your own voice, which you are free to say what you want. Others are free to ignore you or refuse to interact with you.

Unless you say it on social media apparently.

So much of the hand-wringing and arguments we hear here for regulating speech on online platforms are the exact same as those used against books and free presses by feudal despots to justify their censorship back in the day. No thanks.

steveinbc wrote:

Who arbitrates what is hate speech. Interestingly, shortly after reading this thread I saw a headline in th Daily Mail which cited a professor from a university in London, "Calling someone a 'nerd' or 'smarty-pants' is the last taboo and should be made a hate crime says psychotherapy lecturer"
It's a very fine line which if politicized does stifle free speech. And we surely can attribute much of our issues in world politics today to people voting for populist leadership because they feel neglected and unheard.

318 (1) Every person who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years.

Marginal note:Definition of genocide

(2) In this section, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,

(a) killing members of the group; or

(b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.

Consent

(3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

Marginal note:Definition of identifiable group

(4) In this section, identifiable group means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability.

319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Marginal note:Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Marginal note:Defences

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Marginal note:Forfeiture

(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.

Marginal note:Exemption from seizure of communication facilities

(5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply with such modifications as the circumstances require to section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section.

Marginal note:Consent

(6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

Marginal note:Definitions

(7) In this section,

communicating includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means; (communiquer)

identifiable group has the same meaning as in section 318; (groupe identifiable)

public place includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied; (endroit public)

statements includes words spoken or written or recorded electronically or electro-magnetically or otherwise, and gestures, signs or other visible representations. (déclarations)

DocLightning wrote:

extender wrote:

I guess Free Speech won't be free anymore. Another crock of bovine excrement from the thin-skinned people whose feeling count more than facts.

Freedom of speech has always had boundaries. You may not commit libel or slander. You may not (knowingly) falsely report a crime. You may not scream "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.

DocLightning wrote:

I think that to the point that "free speech" is being used to incite violence, spread actual plagues (antivaxxers), defraud people, or subvert democracy, it's reasonable to review those limits.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

What if the Hate Speech was uncertain. Would that be banned too?

extender wrote:

Interesting reads. How about if I said "I hate broccoli," or "I hate traffic jams," that wouldn't offend anyone, would it? Nobody would run to report hate speech. Now if I said I hate the police," or "I hate the military,"

extender wrote:

Someone mentioned libel and slander, those are torts and civil penalties can be derived from such conduct if proven. Yes, I know, I can't yell fire in a crowded theater, but the limits on free speech are on the government, not on us. If you are asking the government to intercede on your behalf, because you have thin skin, it is time to become a hermit, or grow some pachyderm skin.

opticalilyushin wrote:

TSS wrote:

opticalilyushin wrote:

Hate speech shouldn't be allowed or encouraged- it's as simple as that. Good on Trudeau for taking a stance on this.

Define "hate speech", please.

Anything that encourages division or discrimination of others, often based on race, gender, religion, sexuality etc.

tommy1808 wrote:

hate speed usually required intent....

Thomas

Redd wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

hate speed usually required intent....

Thomas

And how do you intend to establish intent without creating an Orwellian world?

tommy1808 wrote:

Redd wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

hate speed usually required intent....

Thomas

And how do you intend to establish intent without creating an Orwellian world?

Courts never had a problem establishing intend without creating an Orwellian world.

Best regards
Thomas

jpetekyxmd80 wrote:

From this thread it's quite clear who benefits from and wants as much hate speech, misinformation, and electoral influence as possible.

PPVRA wrote:

There’s an implicit creation of approved and unapproved thoughts.

I compare that to the burning of books.

SanDiegoLover wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

There’s an implicit creation of approved and unapproved thoughts.

I compare that to the burning of books.

LOL! Do you know how ridiculous you sound? I’d love to see you argue in front of a judge that personal “thoughts” are no different or comparable to published books, and limitations on book publishing infringe the same on personal “thoughts”.

extender wrote:

Interesting reads. How about if I said "I hate broccoli," or "I hate traffic jams," that wouldn't offend anyone, would it? Nobody would run to report hate speech. Now if I said I hate the police," or "I hate the military," people wouldn't mind either, probably get a cheer from some elements here. Now, if I were to say, "I hate Cubans," or "I hate heterosexuals," or "I hate LGBTs" people will start feeling a bit of a burn. Yet nothing therein contained calls for violence and/or discrimination to Cubans, heterosexuals or LGBTs. So, that cannot be hate speech. If I dislike something, whether it is a race, an ethnicity, creed, preference, planetary origin, that would be my choice. BTW, all this is hypothetical. But if something I say, that isn't seeking violence or discrimination, but triggers your feelings that would propel you to commit violence, I submit it isn't hate speech, but feelings. As I have heard somewhere, your feelings don't trump facts.

seb146 wrote:

extender wrote:

BTW, no one says they hate heterosexuals. We do say we hate being oppressed and beaten by the "traditional family values" types. I find it interesting that we have to be very VERY careful and choose our words VERY carefully but the "I hate gays" and "I hate Cubans" don't need to.

PPVRA wrote:

seb146 wrote:

extender wrote:

BTW, no one says they hate heterosexuals. We do say we hate being oppressed and beaten by the "traditional family values" types. I find it interesting that we have to be very VERY careful and choose our words VERY carefully but the "I hate gays" and "I hate Cubans" don't need to.

You’re inventing crap.

If you want to use the words “I hate heterosexuals” the go ahead and use it. It’s stupid, but should NEVER be ilegal.

Don’t confuse criticism of a term with criticism of criminalizing its use.

Redd wrote:

opticalilyushin wrote:

TSS wrote:

Define "hate speech", please.

Anything that encourages division or discrimination of others, often based on race, gender, religion, sexuality etc.

Do you have any idea what would happen with society? To be able to think, at all, you risk being divisive and discriminatory. You've pretty much just created the Stalinist Soviet Union with one sentence.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

What if the Hate Speech was uncertain. Would that be banned too?

TTailedTiger wrote:

casinterest wrote:

TSS wrote:

I'm all for punishing incitement to violence, exploitation of children, or creation or distribution of terrorist propaganda because those are things that can be clearly and unambiguously defined, but the definitions of "hate speech" and "radicalization" are a bit harder to nail down because what one person might might define as "hate speech" or "radicalization" another might define as "just good, plain, common sense", which in the end makes it come down to opinions and the possible censorship thereof, and that's way too Orwellian for me.

It could be. this is why there should be a few sub buttons on social platforms with a shall we say "questionable" meter.

Or you can be an adult and keep scrolling.

casinterest wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

casinterest wrote:

It could be. this is why there should be a few sub buttons on social platforms with a shall we say "questionable" meter.

Or you can be an adult and keep scrolling.

The problem is that as evidenced by multiple social media platforms, there are far too few adults that can reason on their own. The success of Fox News nightly opinion shows is a highlight that some folks think it is better that others think for them.

TTailedTiger wrote:

casinterest wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

Or you can be an adult and keep scrolling.

The problem is that as evidenced by multiple social media platforms, there are far too few adults that can reason on their own. The success of Fox News nightly opinion shows is a highlight that some folks think it is better that others think for them.

So in other words you think you know what is best for everyone else. Their views be damned.

Redd wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Redd wrote:

And how do you intend to establish intent without creating an Orwellian world?

Courts never had a problem establishing intend without creating an Orwellian world.

Best regards
Thomas

So we'll be putting people into court for discussing something, to establish if they're guilty of a thought crime? Very Orwellian indeed.

opticalilyushin wrote:

Redd wrote:

opticalilyushin wrote:

Anything that encourages division or discrimination of others, often based on race, gender, religion, sexuality etc.

Do you have any idea what would happen with society? To be able to think, at all, you risk being divisive and discriminatory. You've pretty much just created the Stalinist Soviet Union with one sentence.

Freedom of speech, like all human rights should be respected and encouraged, but let's look at a scenario. An adult says "gays are disgusting!", their child hears them saying it, that child now has a form of hatred impressed on their mind, they go to school, they call other kids gay as it seems funny, they then tease, mock and punch the gay kid in class...so where do we draw the line? Or do you think hate speech, irrespecitve of the severity, is fine? Freedom of speech is ok until it results in physical, social or psychological abuse on the person or society in which the negativity is aimed at.

tommy1808 wrote:

Redd wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Courts never had a problem establishing intend without creating an Orwellian world.

Best regards
Thomas

So we'll be putting people into court for discussing something, to establish if they're guilty of a thought crime? Very Orwellian indeed.

Yeah, like for any other crime that requires a guilty mind. Not Orwellian at all and what happens in courts every day.
So you think murderers can't be prosecuted outside if Orwellian regimes as intend needs to be established?

Best regards
Thomas