[Curtman]

Proposed Crime Bill Makes Anonymity and Hyperlinks Illegal in Canada

Quote:

Will anonymity and hyperlinks be illegal in Canada?

A new crime bill proposed by the Conservative government suggests that it could. The bill, one of several that is scheduled to be read in Parliament, would place new limits on creating hyperlinks to content considered to be illegal or to using a pseudonym online.

On the surface the idea is ridiculous. Both of these things are central to making the Internet what it is - a vehicle for citizen-centric dialogue and sharing information. Surely the government would never adopt such a position!

But during the past election campaign Stephen Harper made it clear that he intended to ram through a collection of crime bills within his first 100 days of office. These bills include, among other things, allowing government increased power to monitor your activities online. They also include a provision that would penalize people for linking to content that is considered 'hate speech' and for using names that protect their anonymity online.

These laws are meant to give police more powers to fight hate speech and harassment but as a recent Macleans article points out, they are poorly written and vague, leaving them far too open to interpretation.

While advocating and perpetuating hate should absolutely not be tolerated, the proposed crime bill does not make a distinction between people who are spreading hate and those who comment on it. Should it not be our right as citizens to be able to comment on things, regardless of their content? Restricting our ability to do so is a serious violation of our freedom of speech.

As written, the crime bill holds us responsible for the actions of other people. The content of websites on the internet changes all the time. Something that you link to today could contain hate speech tomorrow, and you have no control over that content.

This legislation will inhibit dialogues that need to happen in our society and punish people for exercising their right to freedom of speech.

Canadians need a citizen-centric and affordable internet that enables them to speak openly about issues that matter to them. It's clear that these new crime bills are taking us in the wrong direction.

This is why it is so important that we grow our Pro-Internet Community and continue to pressure the government to promote an open and affordable internet that serves the public. Together we can keep the government accountable and the internet free.

R.I.P. freedom of speech.

[FieryVulpine]

I admit this troubles me greatly because the ambiguity of the proposed law. However, the Internet is unfortunately used as tool for hatred and harassment because the anonymity tends to turn people in first-class jerks they would otherwise not be in real life. I'm no exception.

Besides, this legislation can be challenged in the Supreme Court, correct?

[Curtman]

FieryVulpine wrote:

I admit this troubles me greatly because the ambiguity of the proposed law. However, the Internet is unfortunately used as tool for hatred and harassment because the anonymity tends to turn people in first-class jerks they would otherwise not be in real life. I'm no exception.

Besides, this legislation can be challenged in the Supreme Court, correct?

The coming conservative court: Harper to reshape judiciary

Quote:

Legal experts now believe Mr. Harper will use his choices to usher in a decades-long course of conservative Charter of Rights rulings and low-key deference to Parliament.

What good will that do?

[raydan]

Just my thought on anonymity... if you don't have the conviction or courage to say what you have to say without it, you should just STFU.

[Brenda]

I don't know if this means "goodbye freedom of speech". I have one golden rule that I teach my kids...
"If you do not or can not say what you want to say on the internet in public and to peoples faces, then do not say it online."

[PublicAnimalNo9]

I'm guessing that the "anonymity" part is in connection with posting hyperlinks to questionable sites, otherwise, the Harper gov't has already started off by breaking his own laws by having "lurkers" on sites to "correct" any "misinformation".

[Brenda]

We have police on the streets to catch you when you do something illegal. Why not on the internet? I just do not see the problem...

[dino_bobba_renno]

Why should you have to be anonymous if what you are saying is factual and true?

[Curtman]

raydan wrote:

Just my thought on anonymity... if you don't have the conviction or courage to say what you have to say without it, you should just STFU.

Well I can tell you first hand, that some ideas that are very controversial need to be said, some people really don't like hearing them. They don't need law enforcement to beat people up for expressing their opinion.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Brenda wrote:

We have police on the streets to catch you when you do something illegal. Why not on the internet? I just do not see the problem...

If that was in response to my post, the answer is simple. Harper's lurkers had better use their real names or else Harper's lurkers will be in direct contravention of Harper's Law. Unless as I stated, the anonymity is in combination with a questionable hyperlink.

[wildrosegirl]

Brenda wrote:

We have police on the streets to catch you when you do something illegal. Why not on the internet? I just do not see the problem...

Nor do I.

The anonymity issue seems to be a big deal to some (Internet tough guy types, I assume). If you have to remain anonymous to "exercise your freedom of speech", perhaps you should just keep your mouth shut. Heaven forbid anyone should know you said something, and possibly hold you accountable for it.

Just like real life - if you don't want anyone to know that you said something, keep your mouth shut.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

So between WRG's and Brenda's posts, can we assume that those that are for this particular law will then start using their real names instead of a screen name???

[wildrosegirl]

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

So between WRG's and Brenda's posts, can we assume that those that are for this particular law will then start using their real names instead of a screen name???

Brenda does use her real name.

Mine's Sam. No secret around here.

Care to try again?

[Curtman]

wildrosegirl wrote:

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

So between WRG's and Brenda's posts, can we assume that those that are for this particular law will then start using their real names instead of a screen name???

Brenda does use her real name.

Mine's Sam. No secret around here.

Care to try again?

We'll need two pieces of ID (one photo ID) to know if you're telling the truth.

[wildrosegirl]

Curtman wrote:

wildrosegirl wrote:

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

So between WRG's and Brenda's posts, can we assume that those that are for this particular law will then start using their real names instead of a screen name???

Brenda does use her real name.

Mine's Sam. No secret around here.

Care to try again?

We'll need two pieces of ID (one photo ID) to know if you're telling the truth.

*Hands you passport and PAL along with the serial number off my toaster*


If ya still don't believe me, ask Q.