As child safety advocates, we are often asked whether we support legislative measures like Canadian Bill C-63, The Online Harms Act. (1) While the intention behind this Bill is noble, seeking to protect Canadians, especially youth, from the risks of online harm, our answer to whether we support the whole Bill, as it reads now, is “NO.” – here’s why:
The Structure of Bill C-63
The Bill addresses several critical areas:
- Protection from Online Harms: Measures aimed at preventing online harm to Canadians, particularly youth (Parts 1 and 4).
- Hate Speech, Free Expression, and Human Rights: Provisions that delve into hate speech and their implications for free expression and public discourse (Parts 2 and 3).
While we agree wholeheartedly with the goals of Parts 1 and 4, Parts 2 and 3 present serious concerns about fundamental freedoms and the long-term effects on Canadian society.
Why We Support Parts 1 and 4
Parts 1 and 4 focus on protecting Canadians, particularly vulnerable populations such as children and youth, from online harm. These sections emphasize:
- Combating cyberbullying, exploitation, and digital abuse.
- Providing tools to address harmful content effectively, without overstepping personal freedoms.
Such measures align with our mission to create safer digital spaces for youth. We recognize the urgent need for these safeguards and would fully support a Bill centered solely on these aspects.
Why We Oppose Parts 2 and 3
Parts 2 and 3 of the Bill go beyond preventing online harm, instead delving into areas like regulating hate speech, free expression, and human rights. While the intent might be to reduce harmful rhetoric, the methods outlined in these sections raise significant red flags.
Suppression of Speech
These provisions risk suppressing legitimate conversations and public discourse. In trying to combat hate speech, the Bill may inadvertently silence diverse perspectives, stifling open dialogue necessary for understanding and addressing societal issues.
Overreach and Vagueness
The vague definitions of what constitutes hate speech or harmful content leave room for misinterpretation. This could lead to:
- Overregulation of online platforms.
- Fear among individuals to express dissenting opinions.
Unintended Consequences
Suppressing speech and limiting discourse often lead to increased misunderstanding, resentment, and polarization. Rather than fostering unity, such measures risk fueling further hatred by driving conversations underground, where they remain unchallenged.
Some Canadian online child safety advocates have been vocal in their support for Bill C-63, The Online Harms Act, particularly applauding its focus on protecting youth from cyberbullying and exploitation under Parts 1 and 4. Again, these sections align closely with their mission, ours as well, to safeguard children in digital spaces, emphasizing essential measures to combat online harm.
However, what many fail to fully acknowledge, or even consider, are the serious concerns raised by Parts 2 and 3, which delve into regulating hate speech and content moderation. Supporting the Bill without grappling with these sections can have unintended, far-reaching consequences for Canadian society.
A Lack of Critical Scrutiny
While the goals of Parts 1 and 4 are noble and necessary, endorsing the Bill as a whole demonstrates a lack of due diligence in evaluating the broader legislative framework. Parts 2 and 3 raise fundamental questions about free expression, vague definitions of harmful content, and the potential overreach of regulatory powers.
Risk of Overreach and Misuse
Parts 2 and 3 introduce mechanisms to regulate speech under the guise of combating hate, but they lack clarity and safeguards against misuse. This vagueness creates a slippery slope where legitimate conversations could be silenced, platforms could face excessive regulation, and individuals might feel intimidated into self-censorship.
Unintended Polarization
Censoring speech and regulating content too broadly can backfire. By driving controversial or dissenting opinions underground, these measures could inadvertently fuel extremism and resentment, as such conversations fester in spaces where they are unchallenged.
Ignoring Long-Term Societal Impact
Online child safety and free expression are not mutually exclusive; both are integral to a healthy digital landscape. Overlooking the implications of Parts 2 and 3 might result in legislation that prioritizes short-term gains in child protection while causing long-term harm to Canadian freedoms.
Child safety advocates, such as us, have an important role to play in shaping policies that protect youth. However, an endorsement of Bill C-63 without a thorough understanding of all its provisions undermines the nuanced approach necessary for effective legislation.
Supporting the Bill’s measures under Parts 1 and 4 is understandable, given its alignment with protecting children from online harm. But it is equally important to question Parts 2 and 3, where vague language and overreach threaten free expression and democratic dialogue.
Advocates must demand revisions to the Bill, urging lawmakers to separate the protections against online harm from the hate speech regulation provisions that risk infringing on fundamental freedoms. Only then can Canada achieve a truly balanced and effective solution – one that safeguards children without compromising the liberties that define Canadian society.
While Bill C-63, The Online Harms Act, presents well-intentioned measures aimed at protecting Canadians from online harm, particularly vulnerable youth, it falls short of achieving a balanced and effective solution. We fully support the goals outlined in Parts 1 and 4 to combat cyberbullying, exploitation, and digital abuse, as these align with our mission to create safer digital spaces for children. However, the provisions in Parts 2 and 3 raise serious concerns about suppressing free expression, regulatory overreach, and the unintended consequences of stifling legitimate discourse.
As child safety advocates, we urge lawmakers to revise the Bill by separating the critical protections against online harm from the problematic hate speech regulation provisions. This would ensure that the legislation safeguards children without compromising the fundamental freedoms that define Canadian society.
Protecting youth and preserving free expression are not mutually exclusive goals -they must coexist to foster a healthy, inclusive, and democratic digital landscape. Until such revisions are made, we cannot support Bill C-63 in its current form.
We call on policymakers, advocates, and stakeholders to engage in meaningful dialogue to refine Bill C-63. The protection of youth from online harm is a cause that deserves unwavering support, but it should not come at the expense of freedoms that are foundational to Canadian democracy. By addressing the overreach and vagueness in Parts 2 and 3, lawmakers can create a framework that effectively protects children while preserving the open exchange of ideas that is critical to progress and societal cohesion.
The path forward is clear: legislation must be precise, balanced, and mindful of long-term consequences. Advocates must resist the temptation to endorse the Bill in its entirety without critically assessing its broader implications. Instead, they should champion a revised approach that builds on the strengths of Parts 1 and 4 while addressing the significant flaws in Parts 2 and 3.
In doing so, we can protect youth, empower families, and uphold the liberties that make Canada a vibrant and free society. Advocacy for online safety must not overlook the importance of preserving democratic dialogue, ensuring that efforts to shield our children do not inadvertently undermine the very freedoms we seek to protect for future generations.Top of FormBottom of Form
By failing to critically assess the broader implications of the Bill, some advocates risk undermining their own cause and inadvertently endorsing measures that could harm the very communities they aim to protect. Here’s a YouTube video we did that drills down deeper into our concerns:
Digital Food For Thought
The White Hatter
Facts Not Fear, Facts Not Emotions, Enlighten Not Frighten, Know Tech Not No Tech
References: 1/ https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-63/first-reading
