Conservative pundit Dennis Prager feels muzzled by ongoing Big Tech restrictions on his media company PragerU, the radio talker told The Washington Times on Tuesday.

If I say the wrong thing whatever that might be on my Fireside Chat podcast for PragerU, I can be yanked off YouTube or Facebook. When big business and big government work together to muzzle free speech, thats fascism, Mr. Prager said.

The nationally syndicated talk show hosts comments came as his company PragerU continues to wage a long legal battle against Googles YouTube.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year ruled unanimously against Mr. Pragers claim of illegal censorship of conservatives. But Mr. Prager continues to allege that YouTube prevents PragerU from advertising videos due to unexplained violations of community guidelines, restricting other videos as likewise inappropriate and adding a disclaimer that the content may be factually incorrect.

Never in the history of this country has free speech been in such jeopardy. Whats even more shocking is that the threat is not coming directly from the government but from woke corporations, Mr. Prager said.

One disputed video depicts Mr. Prager, who testified about it in July 2019 to a U.S. Senate committee hearing, discussing the Bibles commandment against killing. Mr. Prager said in his testimony that Google placed the video on a restricted list due to him using the word murder.

We go to extraordinary lengths to build our products and enforce our policies in a way that doesnt take political leanings into account, said Ivy Choi, a YouTube spokesperson. And were proud that YouTube continues to be a place where many different voices are welcome, including PragerU, which has 2+ million subscribers.

Attempts to reach Facebook and Twitter, who have issued no comments on his allegations, were unsuccessful.

PragerU has claimed that other videos and audio podcasts targeted for censorship center around dissenting opinions on COVID-19 lockdown policies.

The Times reported Oct. 18 that Mr. Prager, a vaccine skeptic, had tested positive for the virus after deliberately seeking infection to acquire herd immunity.

Mr. Prager said Tuesday: A doctor cant offer his best medical advice to his patients without risking his medical license? When has that ever happened?

Marissa Streit, CEO of PragerU, said social media platforms routinely restrict the companys videos by preventing them from advertising and keeping the videos inaccessible to most of its followers for short periods.

These big tech companies invited us to invest in their platforms, but then they started changing the rules, making it impossible to benefit from reaching the very audience that we paid to build, Ms. Streit said.

She added that the California-based media company, which has 90 employees, is still seeking an explanation from Big Tech companies on why their videos get banned.

We dont understand which videos are inappropriate and why they flag them. They wont give us the guidelines and that allows them to take down things that they just dont like ideologically, Ms. Streit said.

She said PragerU signed a million-dollar annual lease last week on a 40,000 square foot building and has no plans to stop pushing out Mr. Pragers video content.

But PragerU isnt the only company complaining about Big Tech restrictions on political influencers.

The nonprofit Social Movement Technologies, an international NGO that advises the media campaigns of human rights protesters, called on Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to stop suspending the accounts of human rights activists while leaving other accounts intact.

Left or right, Twitter got a lot of good press for being accessible to democracy movements during the Arab Spring. Today, however, Twitter has left human rights activists of all stripes out to dry, and needs to fix its human rights problem, Hannah Roditi, the groups executive director, told the Times.

Transparency in how Big Tech censors content cant come soon enough for Mr. Prager, whose company purports to make edutainment like PBS, but without what it calls left-wing indoctrination.

Time to stand up and fight back, Mr. Prager said. No free speech, no America. Its as simple as that.

Original post:

Conservative pundit Prager says he feels 'muzzled' by Big Tech censorship - Washington Times

President Joe Bidens selection to lead the Federal Communications Commission, Jessica Rosenworcel, has a track record that suggests she is unlikely to help him overhaul a controversial law that gives social media platforms legal immunity for content moderation decisions.

Biden has expressed an interest in both repealing and reforming Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects social media companies such as Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter from being sued for content posted by their users, toward the goal of empowering regulators to crack down on misinformation and disinformation.

The FCC has some jurisdiction over Section 230, but Rosenworcel has said she doesnt believe the agency should play a role in moderating or censoring content.

While social media can be frustrating, turning this agency into the president's speech police is not the answer, Rosenworcel said in July 2020 in relation to a Trump administration petition asking the commission to develop rules to stop social media platforms from censoring content under Section 230.

Earlier this year, Biden revoked Trumps order for the commission to review the law.

BIDEN ADMINISTRATION REVIEWS CONTROVERSIAL LAW THAT PROTECTS BIG TECH FROM LAWSUITS

Liberal scholars of internet and tech policy say that its highly unlikely that Rosenworcel will change her mind regarding Section 230 now that Biden is in power and she runs the FCC.

I would be shocked if she tried to change Section 230 now, said Eric Goldman, who heads the Santa Clara University High Tech Law Institute. Because it would be a complete flip, a 180, from the position she took earlier, and its a terrible idea for the FCC to weigh in on this issue.

Biden cannot revoke or amend Section 230 by himself, using an executive order or any other mechanism. Only Congress has the power to change the law.

Capitol Hill is divided, though, regarding how to solve issues related to content moderation, with Democrats focused on curbing the spread of misinformation and disinformation while Republicans are targeting what they say is rampant censorship of conservatives by the social media giants.

Despite bipartisan agreement to hold Big Tech companies more accountable for unfair and unclear behavior in regards to content moderation, the two parties do not agree on how to change Section 230 within Congress.

Conservatives say that the only way Rosenworcel would take action on Section 230 is if shes pushed into doing so by other Democrats.

Biden wants to address the issues of misinformation and disinformation online, and his administration could put pressure on her to at least evaluate how she and the FCC could tackle that issue through 230, said Joel Thayer, a lawyer and telecommunications policy expert who worked for former Republican FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

But that seems like a long shot. It would be a total 180 that could only happen if she comes under big pressure from Biden, he added.

See the original post:

FCC nominee's record is at odds with Biden censorship goals - Washington Examiner

Pornography. Extremism. Fake News. Few words have as visceral an effect on a person as these. Together, these three items embody almost everything that is wrong in American society. And how has the government responded to their increase? By inviting them in as guests of honor through internet servers around the country.

Since its inception, the internet has been a nearly universal hub of information and activity. Everything from debates, auctions and photo albums is shared across the web in plain view of the public. Unfortunately, the internet contains much more sinister files than these. Pornography, drug deals and explicit content are all only a few clicks away from anyone with access to a computer. In this age, parents are forced to protect the eyes of their children from graphic content and sexual innuendos from the moment they touch their first device. Sexual addictions and crime rates across the country are on the rise and the vulgarity of the internet bears the brunt of the blame.

For years there has been an ongoing argument regarding the subject of internet censorship. Many groups claim that any content that someone desires to put on the web should be allowed to be posted. Others staunchly believe that the internet has become too explicit and harmful to be allowed to continue unchecked.

I believe that there is a difference between the restriction of useful information that can be applied and evaluated freely by consumers and the restriction of material that has little to no positive application. To be clear, I dont believe that the internet needs to be dismantled. It is a wonderful tool with limitless potential for the improvement of mankind. But, I also believe that it is a tool that can easily be misused. Evil was not born on the day the internet was created, but it was given a new foster home. In the days of newspapers and encyclopedias, evil things were still captured and mass-produced but not on the scale that the internet allows them to be.

Much of the content on the internet including pornographic websites fall within that category of harmful material. These are things that have no potential to improve society and serve as a stumbling block to many who are exposed to them. We are becoming a culture that is more addicted, sexualized and uncaring than we ever have been before, and it is happening at a younger age than we have previously seen. Left unchecked, this exposure could lead to a dramatic shift in the moral values of American youth. When exposure to explicit content becomes normalized, other more socially unacceptable acts become more acceptable. Several scholars and studies have made the connection between rape acceptance and pornography exposure. Pornography is not simply images or videos; it is the breeding place of complacency and acceptance of heinous acts.

Another more controversial item needing censorship from the internet is websites and forums that foster extreme or criminal opinions. The United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime published a document that records multiple examples of how the internet has been used to foster terrorism across the globe. One of the main ways these groups use the internet to reach people is through propaganda, including messages, videos or games that intended to sway people to a more extreme mindset.

This topic becomes startling when we realize that none of this is actually prohibited. The UNODC states that the dissemination of propaganda is generally not, in and of itself, a prohibited activity. How is this not illegal? Criminal groups are embedding dangerous messages into the internet, and there is nothing the law can do to stop them.

The final commonality on the internet that needs to be regulated is fake news. As internet users, we are practically drowned in a flood of news. I understand that storylines will differ based on the perspective from which they are told, but an issue arises when two stories become irreconcilable. We are correct to assume that a narrative contains multiple storylines, but those lines should not contradict each other.

Somehow, individuals and news outlets manage to transform a single-threaded story into a web of self-contradiction and fallacy. Often, only a select few of those accounts are reasonably factual, leaving the rest as pure fiction, written to incite an emotional response in undiscerning people. It has become increasingly difficult to find cultural common ground with people around us because of the sheer quantity of fallacies we are fed. Humanity requires a standard to be set for news on the internet if groups are to begin to fix bridges and restore broken relationships.

But my viewpoint is uncommon. As a whole, the general American consensus is that freedom of speech should not be infringed. They cry that the First Amendment protects our freedom and keeps the government from influencing our lives. The American Constitution makes it clear that information should be free for all, and that it cannot be restricted by the government.

There is certainly justification in their fears. Governments should not be allowed to abuse their power to subjugate their citizens by scrubbing the internet. Many people fear what may happen to America if internet censorship is allowed. They fear that their freedom of speech will be infringed upon, and they will not be able to express their doubts and concerns to the public. In the opinion of many, internet censorship is the first step down the road leading to the eventual loss of freedom for Americans. Without freedom, innovation and progress will come to a standstill, leading to the undoing of American society.

The discussion regarding internet censorship is just one example of a larger ongoing debate. The core of this issue lies the question of mans moral compass. If a man is born good, then there is no need to regulate content on the internet or anywhere else. But if man is inherently evil, regulation is imperative. Without guidance, humanity will slowly fall away from moral rightness, and we will begin to suffer the consequences of our arrogance.

The question also remains, who exists that is good enough to regulate us? Certainly not the government. They are human as well and have shown that they fall victim to the same errors as the public. The regulator would have to be a group with objective goals and moral uprightness. I am not sure if such a group exists. But if humanity has proven anything, it is that we are a people sorely in need of regulation if we are to remain on a path to improvement.

Read the rest here:

Averting our eyes: The controversy of internet censorship The Threefold Advocate - Three fold Online

Audio articles on Wilson County News made possible by C Street Gift Shop and Boutique, located in downtown Floresville

By the time you read this, Tuesdays election will be history. We will know whether or not Texans came out to vote for Proposition 3, which would ban the state from prohibiting or limiting church services and other religious worship, as happened during the pandemic.

We will know whether Virginias new governor is Democrat Terry McAuliffe or Republican Glenn Youngkin. This race has garnered national attention and may be a harbinger of things to come as we approach the 2022 elections.

The intensity of this race escalated following a dust-up in Loudoun County over whether parents can have a say in what their children are taught in public schools.

McAuliffe exacerbated the controversy when he was widely quoted saying that he doesnt think parents should be telling schools what they should teach. In another debate, he said parents should have no role in directing the education of their children.

Parents as voters, taxpayers, and as guardians of their children should have every right to be heard and to attend school board meetings without fear of being labeled domestic terrorists.

The Loudoun County controversy is what led to the current kerfuffle in Texas over books in public-school libraries. We conservatives are familiar with intimidation and censorship as we experience the effects of cancel culture. We are boycotted, deplatformed, and intimidated with toxic attempts to silence conservative speech. The woke crowd goes after conservative thought and speech wherever and however they can.

In recent years, books such as The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, Huckleberry Finn, and Charlottes Web have been censored. Even some of the popular Dr. Seuss books were pulled. In fact, the criticism was so severe, that Dr. Seuss Enterprises joined the woke crowd and committed to discontinue publishing certain titles because of possible racist or insensitive imagery.

And to Think I Saw it on Mulberry Street was pulled because it contained Asian and Arab stereotypes. A Google search pulls up some of the questionable illustrations along with a cautionary note: Due to the nature of this story, this article contains images that some might find offensive.

Now that conservatives are finding titles of books that some students, parents, and taxpayers find offensive, we are told books unite us; censorship divides us.

Banned Books Week was established in 1982 to unite librarians, booksellers, publishers, journalists, teachers, students, and readers of all types in an effort to support the freedom to seek and to express ideas.

When the tables are turned and it is the conservatives, specifically in Texas, who are offended, its a different story: Suddenly, censoring reading materials makes the world smaller. What happened to being insensitive and offensive?

Perhaps its time to put the independent back in the local school districts, for example La Vernia Independent School District. Nowhere does it say La Vernia Federal School District.

Now the National School Boards Association cautions that some of Americas public schools are under an immediate threat from parents. Its time to argue that differing views must be allowed.

Divergent views are good, but perhaps a public school library where we send our children to learn might not be an appropriate place for certain controversial topics.

Its not un-American to use a certain amount of discretion in stocking school libraries. Public libraries and information online can provide any and all topics. When pressure is applied to the extent that a publisher ceases to publish a book because it might offend someone, that is un-American.

Elections for local school boards, and, yes, even for constitutional amendments, should play a part in determining how this country goes forward as we approach the 2022 elections. The information is there; use it wisely.

This is my opinion. Whats yours?

More:

Censorship in this, the age of information overload - Wilson County News

Filipino teachers, researchers, school administrators, and other education professionals called out Commission on Higher Education (CHED) Chairperson Popoy De Vera for justifying the removal of so-called subversive books from libraries of various universities nationwide.

The Academics Unite for Democracy and Human Rights (ADHR) on Wednesday, Nov. 3, slammed De Vera for twisting the meaning of academic freedom to include book censorship and other forms of attacks on the free exchange of ideas that form the very essence of academic freedom.

When De Vera first broached the idea of constituting a panel of experts to redefine academic freedom back in January, we found it laughable because this is already enshrined in the 1987 Constitution, said ADHR lead convenor Dr. Ramon Guillermo.

Now it has become clear that the intention is to repress and limit the scope of academic freedom to whatever is acceptable to the state, added Guillermo who is also a former University of the Philippines (UP) Faculty Regent.

ADHR alleged that De Vera is diverting the attention to respecting the prerogative of schools when the issue is about book censorship and the real threat this poses to the freedoms of academic institutions, faculty, and students.

READ:

Guillermo stressed that academic freedom includes the right to challenge dominant ideologies without fear of repression thus, book censorship represses the freedom to pursue knowledge and engage in social critique sans reprisals and persecution.

CHED wishes to make book censorship, by itself a concrete threat on academic freedom, acceptable by reducing academic freedom to the matter of respecting administrative prerogative of affected universities Guillermo added.

Furthermore, Guillermo pointed out that CHEDs calls for respecting book censorship defies logic noting that it was the governments National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC) and military that have been actively calling for the removals of these books from libraries in the first place, thereby intruding on the academic freedom of affected higher education institutions.

ADHR said that CHED in the Cordillera Administrative Region late in October 2021 issued regional memo nos. 113, series of 2021 calling on all universities and colleges to surrender subversive reading materials to authorities.

To oppose book censorship, the ADHR launched an online petition dubbed Defend Academic Freedom, Hands Off Our Libraries (https://forms.gle/HRm3NiwUsp5Zghb68) which has garnered over 400 signatures from members of the countrys academic community as of press time.

ADHR also launched the Aswang sa Aklatan website (https://handsoffourlibraries.crd.co) which seeks to provide the public updates on the #HandsOffOurLibraries campaign as well as free and easily accessible resource of endangered books and materials.

RELATED STORY:

SIGN UP TO DAILY NEWSLETTER

See the rest here:

Book censorship is an 'assault' on the very essence of academic freedom, CHED told - Manila Bulletin

By banning @TamilGuardian, @Instagram and @Facebook are contributing to the decades of repression and attacks on the Tamil press. I condemn this act of censorship and call for the account to be reinstated. pic.twitter.com/nq96s7WbBR

Shritharan Sivagnanam (@ImShritharan) October 29, 2021

Tamil politicians from the North-East joined British and Canadian parliamentarians in denouncing Instagrams censoring of Tamil Guardians page.

Tamil Guardians Instagram account, was brieflyreinstated on Friday after itwas disabled on Wednesday without any prior warning or explanation.

However, just over 12 hours later, it was disabled again.

Tamil National Alliance (TNA) MP S Shritharan tweeted that the censorship contributes to the decades of repression and attacks on the Tamil press.

Tamil National Peoples Front (TNPF) leader Gajen Ponnambalam also expressed his dismay and called the move disgraceful and outrageous.

.@Facebooks @instagrams actions against @TamilGuardian is not only disgraceful and unacceptable but must be condemned outright. The world pandered to the #SriLankan state to such an extent that it allowed a war that culminated in #tamil #genocide. (1) pic.twitter.com/n10HDZfcq5

Gajen Ponnambalam MP (@GGPonnambalam) October 29, 2021

These type of actions by Instagram will only embolden the Sri Lankan state in its culture of impunity and make the victims to continue to be voiceless," he added.

Despite reaching out toFacebook and Instagram through various channels, theyhave not provided an explanation as to why the page has been disabled or why posts are repeatedly removed.

See more here:

Tamil politicians say Instagram's censorship of Tamil Guardian contributes to the 'decades of repression and attacks on the Tamil press' - Tamil...

SINGAPORE, Nov 2, 2021 (AFP): Singapore has banned a book on censorship over "offensive images" including controversial cartoons of the Muslim Prophet Mohammed, authorities had said on Monday (Nov 1).

The city-state is majority ethnic Chinese but has a sizeable Muslim minority, and has strict laws to curb hate speech and actions promoting ill-will between religious or racial groups.

The book, "Red Lines: Political Cartoons and the Struggle Against Censorship" is banned from distribution in Singapore, the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) said on Monday.

It has been deemed "objectionable" because it contains reproductions of cartoons published by French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo, which led to violence and protests overseas, the regulator added.

"The offensive Charlie Hebdo cartoons first appeared in 2006 and have been widely labelled as irresponsible, reckless and racist," it said in a statement.

The book also contained denigratory references to Hinduism and Christianity, the IMDA said.

Anyone convicted of importing, selling, distributing, making or reproducing an objectionable publication faces a fine of up to 5,000 Singaporean dollars (US$3,700), imprisonment of up to a year, or both.

"Red Lines" is by Cherian George, a Singaporean media professor now based in Hong Kong, and Sonny Liew, an award-winning Singaporean cartoonist.

Published in August by MIT Press, it features interviews with censored cartoonists around the world and explores censorship in graphic form.

The French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo first joined some other European titles in publishing cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in 2006.

In 2015 a massacre at its office killed 12 people, after it reprinted some of the controversial images.

A French teacher was beheaded by an extremist last year after showing his class Charlie Hebdo's cartoons of the Prophet.

After French President Emmanuel Macron defended the right to publish cartoons, angry protests erupted in Asia and the Middle East. - AFP

Read the original post:

Book on censorship banned in Singapore over "offensive images" - The Star Online

After nearly a yearbanned from most major social media outlets, former President Donald Trump has created his own platform. Trump announced Wednesday night he is creating "TRUTH Social," projected to launch early next year. (Given his constant lying, the site's name is either trollish or Orwellian.) "We live in a world where the Taliban has a huge presence on Twitter," Trump said in the announcement, "yet your favorite American president has been silenced."

But if Trump used the launch announcement to sneer at Twitter, that doesn't mean he's given up on returning to the platform. The launch of TRUTH a typically all-caps appellation comes while the former president is still pursuing a lawsuit bent on forcing Twitter to let him start blaring missives to the millions of followers he once claimed, before being locked out after the Jan. 6 election.

But surely his involvement in a new social media platform undermines the logic of that lawsuit.Twitter "exercises a degree of power and control over political discourse in this country that is immeasurable, historically unprecedented, and profoundly dangerous to open democratic debate," his lawyers argued in a filing just three weeks ago. The company is "censoring" Trump, the filing said.

But TRUTH seriously, ugh isn't exactly a free speech zone. Axios' Lachlan Markay pointed out Thursday morning that the platform's terms of service bans users from posts that "disparage, tarnish, or otherwise harm, in our opinion, us and/or the Site." If you're looking to criticize Trump, this is not the place to start posting.

More importantly, Trump's lawsuit depends on the idea that Twitter is so omnipotent it has a virtual stranglehold on democratic discourse in this country. The platform is powerful, yes, but the existence of conservative-oriented competitors Parler, Gab, GETTR suggest there are plenty of options for the MAGA crowd to express themselves. Trump's involvement in yet anothercompetitor is a signal the discourse can happen even without Twitter.

Then again, Trump may be less concerned about the discourse and more interested in cash: The new company has reportedly generated nearly $300 million in financing. And if Twitter's ban is ever dropped, you can probably expect Trump to run back immediately. It's the digital space where he was most fully himself. If that's the case, we'll probably find out again that Trump has only a casual regard for TRUTH.

The rest is here:

If Trump has TRUTH, does he still need Twitter? - The Week Magazine

Breadcrumb Trail Links

Consultation on the governments proposal wrapped up in September, but the government is refusing to release the 423 submissions it received publicly

Author of the article:

Publishing date:

The Liberal governments proposed online harms legislation willall-but guarantee that the system will leadto the mass removal of content,according to the Canadian Association of Research Libraries.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

And thatwill impact individual freedom of expression rights, increase the spectre of censorship and damagethe historical record, says the association.

The association has joined civil liberties groups and international organizations who are raising the alarm about the billwhich will mandate social media and other platforms monitor online posts and remove illegal content.

The bill would target terrorist content, content that incites violence, hate speech, intimate images shared non-consensually, and child sexual exploitation material. Platforms would have to remove illegal content within 24 hours of it being flagged, and a new regulator called the Digital Safety Commissioner of Canada would be in charge of enforcement.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Experts have warned various aspects of the proposal, including the mandatory monitoring and removal of content, as well as sweeping new powers given to the regulator, would violate Canadians Charter rights.

The Liberals have promised to introduce the online harms legislation within 100 days of Parliaments return on Nov. 22. The Heritage Canada consultation on the governments proposal wrapped up in September, but the government is refusing to release the 423 submissions it received publicly. Some of the documents have been released by the organizations who participated.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

A number of those have taken issue with a proposal to require online platforms to report flagged content to law enforcement. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association wrote that it has significant concerns the proposal would leverage online platforms as agents of law enforcement, creating mandatory reporting and preservation obligations that may expand over time and significantly impact the privacy rights of Canadians. It added that the governments proposal to include CSIS is of particular concern.

Advocacy group OpenMedia warned that the proposal would lead to the automatic reporting of an enormous volume of lawful content directly to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), deputizing online platforms as surveillance agents of the state in a system not seen anywhere else in the democratic world.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The group wrote that if the government goes ahead with the proposal to require platforms to take down content, such a law would lead directly and predictably to an unprecedented increase in the removal of considerable legitimate and lawful forms of speech online. Thats because platforms face heavy legal and financial risk if they dont take down content that could potentially be found illegal, and have no counter-balancing incentive to consider the posters rights.

The government has also heard international perspectives on its plans. The coalition Global Network Initiative said aspects of the proposal appear to be inconsistent with international human rights principles, regulatory best practice, and Canadas leadership on Internet freedom. GNI, whose members include Google, Facebook, Human Rights Watch, the Wikimedia Foundation and various academics, said the proposed approach presents a set of sweeping obligations for (platforms) in Canada that, as framed, could pose significant risks for freedom of expression and privacy.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Ranking Digital Rights, which advocates for freedom of expression and privacy on the internet, said the proposal contradicts international commitments Canada has made, including to the Freedom Online Coalition and the Global Conference for Media Freedom.

While Canadians can take comfort in the strength of their democratic institutions, all countries are but one election away from democratic decline and a slide into authoritarianism, RDR wrote. Our recent experience in the United States has been a sobering one, reinforcing the importance of balanced institutional powers, good governance, and oversight mechanisms.

Digital rights advocacy group Access Now wrote that the 24 hour deadline to remove content is unreasonable and onerous. Strict and short deadlines for content removals cannot be reconciled with international human rights law, it said, noting that the Constitutional Council of France recently said short deadlines for removing online illegal content were unconstitutional, given their impact on freedom of expression. The UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression has also previously warned 24-hour takedowns could lead platforms to delete legitimate expression, Access Now said.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Requiring online platforms to monitor content is a violation of freedom of expression, the group argued, noting the Council of Europe and United Nations have spoken out against such measures.

Even some who are in favour of putting in place a regulatory system to address online harms took issue with the governments approach. The Womens Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) said that it believes in regulating hateful, discriminatory, and harmful content but it cant support the governments proposal as drafted. LEAF said the government is taking the wrong approach in treating five categories of illegal content the same way, and that lumping non-consensual sharing of intimate images in the same legislation as, for example, terrorist content is highly problematic.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

It also criticized the proposal to require mandatory reporting to law enforcement, noting that while it may be appropriate in the case of child exploitation materials, some individuals have concerns about, fear of, or prior negative experiences with, police involvement especially for those who are Black, Indigenous, and racialized. The group added mandatory reporting risks the over-criminalization of individuals and puts innocent people at risk of being reported to the police.

Many of the participants also took the government to task for the consultation itself. They said the consultation shouldnt have been held during the federal election, which made it more difficult to take part. The CCLA pointed out the consultation didnt ask many questions, suggesting that the government has largely already decided what it intends to do.

OpenMedia said the consultation provides absolutely no opportunity to help shape the framework of either the problem at hand, nor any of the proposed solutions.

It argued this is unacceptable policy-making in a democratic society. But it is particularly egregious as the government considers infringing on our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and limiting citizens ability to participate in the primary public spaces of our era, online platforms.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Sign up to receive the daily top stories from the National Post, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of NP Posted will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notificationsyou will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

Read more:

Impact of online harms bill includes 'spectre of censorship,' library group warns in submission - National Post

It seems we the public are only told of what certain people want printed. For example, it was never reported that the board voted unanimously to move the central office out of the high school to an undesignated location for thirty-two to thirty-four months and up to thirty-eight hundred dollars per month rent. This was to be paid by ESSR Funds, free covid money, so you know what happens next. There have been no estimates of cost of renovation to the high school, so what will this ultimately cost us. They also voted unanimously to have the superintendent enter into a contract with Ms. McCalmon to facilitate strategic planning, again with no mention of how much money would be involved. It was also stated by the board chair at the last meeting there is no state law on public comment at a board meeting. Obviously the havent read Title twenty A subsection 1001, 20, in duties of a schoolboard. They talk about transparency. Hard to be transparent when all the windows are painted black. No light in, you cant see out. I believe we will be hit with the construction of a new building in the near future. What do you think that will cost to build and maintain? I have said before you need to pay attention or the costs in this district will soar, especially when all the positions and other items paid with free money runs out.

Craig StickneyChesterville

Read more here:

Letter to the Editor: Censorship in reporting on RSU 9 board Meetings Daily Bulldog - Daily Bulldog