Michael Geist

This is a CBC article so keep in mind its bias in favour of the Liberals who pushed this bill through.

For anyone interested in a more balanced view, Michael Geist is law professor, research chair, and overall internet policy nerd. I highly recommend his review of the bill: https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2023/04/billc11end/

It's also interesting to put what the Trudeau Liberals are doing in perspective. This is just one of three internet censorship bills that they will pass before 2026.

C-11 (this bill), will allow the Liberals to dictate what platforms show. Simply put, the books aren't being censored, they're just telling the book stores what should be on the shelves. It also adds what is effectively a new tax for content creators which the Federal government will distribute for Canadian content. Keep an eye for scandals about how these funds were distributed in a couple of years.

C-18 is the next one. In short, the Trudeau Liberals will implement another a tax on links, so aggregators such as Google may be forced to pay when they link to say the CBC. Google has already said they may simply stop linking to news services in Canada if they pass this, giving the government funded Canadian news agencies even more power. Good write up: https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2023/02/billc18reality/

The Online Safety Bill - not yet formally proposed - will likely be the coup de gras. Not much is known yet, but given how easily you can censor anything under the guise of "safety"…

Google will comply because it is an intermediary and does not lose power from this decision. It comes out of this decision with more power: the ability to pick and choose which laws it wishes to follow.

See this part:

> “Google’s argument that a global injunction violates international comity because it is possible that the order could not have been obtained in a foreign jurisdiction, or that to comply with it would result in Google violating the laws of that jurisdiction is, with respect, theoretical. As Fenlon J. noted, “Google acknowledges that most countries will likely recognize intellectual property rights and view the selling of pirated products as a legal wrong”

> In the absence of an evidentiary foundation, and given Google’s right to seek a rectifying order, it hardly seems equitable to deny Equustek the extraterritorial scope it needs to make the remedy effective, or even to put the onus on it to demonstrate, country by country, where such an order is legally permissible. We are dealing with the Internet after all, and the balance of convenience test has to take full account of its inevitable extraterritorial reach when injunctive relief is being sought against an entity like Google.”

And see Micheal Geist's opinion in relation to that section:

> "This is a key aspect of the decision as the court has effectively concluded that those seeking global takedown orders do not need to canvass the laws in other countries to consider the potential for conflicts with…

I agree with you, and I don't have a full answer to this. The best short answer I have is: why have almost everything (money, land, power) when, with a push, you could have all of everything?

I'm a Canadian. I've been amazed and appalled at how the trucker convoy was handled. The Prime Minister here basically resorted to name calling, disappearing, and then resorting to the nuclear option, abusing the Emergencies Act and freezing bank accounts. The actions don't make sense if we assume the prime minister is a rational actor acting in the best interests of his country. He could've easily de-escalated the situation and met with the truckers when the problem was small. The actions do make more sense if the plan is to pit the people against each other, which, with media support, has been highly successful. There's a lot of hate people who do not wish to be vaccinated, and even against people who just want to have their government-guaranteed freedoms back. Now that hatred has been turned on Russia; I've seen some people ironically say that Putin should get an award for single-handedly ending Covid (not that it is over, just that the news isn't talking about it all the time).

Oh, and I should add that the Canadian government wants to censor the internet. Wish I had a better link, but here's a reputable one: https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2022/02/lobby-harder-canadian-heritage-minister-pablo-rodriguez-issues-industry-call-to-action-to-support-bill-c-11/ . It is also worth noting…

> Indeed here in Canada ISPs have frequently given subscriber contact information to copyright holders to issue warnings based on bittorrent usage without being legally required to.

Citation needed?

The “Notice and Notice” regime legally requires the ISP to pass along a notice from a copyright holder that believes your IP infringed their copyright by uploading their material. It does not permit the ISP to give subscriber information to the copyright holder directly unless ordered to do so by a court.

Here’s Michael Geist, Canadian lawyer, explaining the system and recent developments regarding ISPs seeking to make such information disclosures more difficult for copyright holders, not less

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2018/09/notice-the-difference-supreme-court-rules-isps-can-be-compensated-for-copyright-costs/

> My Globe and Mail op-ed notes that the Canadian system for online infringement was formally established in 2012 and came into effect in 2015. The so-called “notice-and-notice” approach grants rights holders the ability to send notifications of alleged infringement to Internet providers, who are required by law to forward the notices to the relevant subscriber and to preserve the data in the event of future legal action. The system does not prevent rights holders from pursuing additional legal remedies, but Internet providers cannot reveal the identity of their subscribers without a court order.

> While the system has proven helpful in educating users on the…

While I'm not an American, it will be very interesting to watch how Mr. Lessig is able to raise awareness of government corruption and to see how successful his efforts are. Here in Canada, the government seems to be looking into updating copyright legislation in some, shall we say, suspiciously biased ways. If his methods are successful, I hope we can adapt them to the Canadian system.

The Canadian who seems to fill a similar spokesperson / visionary niche as Mr. Lessig is Michael Geist (http://www.michaelgeist.ca/). He was the figurehead in the fight against the recent proposed copyright reforms here and had a great grasp of the situation and how to organize a grass-roots opposition to it.

As an aside, I find Mr. Lessig's presentation style quite interesting. For online presentations, where one can't use the flesh and blood presence of the presenter, the frequent updates are a huge attention magnet. It would be a pretty big departure from the 10-20-30 rule, but I wonder how well a business pitch made in this style would work. Another example of a presentation of Mr. Lessig's that exemplifies the style (and is beautifully and passionately presented) is available at http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/187 . ("How creativity is being strangled by the law")

A couple years ago, I asked Michael Geist[1] a similar question.

Me: I am a Canadian citizen and am rather concerned by what appears to be increasing online censorship and erosion of privacy rights in Australia and the UK. If it can happen there, it can happen here. I'd like to do my part to ensure that we can effectively oppose bad public policy when it's proposed in Canada. I deeply respect both the EFF and the ACLU for their work in the United States, but I'm not familiar with equivalent organizations for Canada. Do you have any suggestions as to where should I be sending my holiday donations?

Michael Geist: Thanks for your note. There are several groups in Canada that do great work on these issues:

1. CIPPIC - the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (cippic.ca). I founded this tech law clinic at the University of Ottawa, the only one of its kind in Canada.

2. Open Media - based in Vancouver

3. CCLA - the Canadian Civil Liberties Association

4. CJFE - Canadian Journalists for Freedom of Expression

5. BCCLA - BC Civil Liberties Association

All do great work with limited resources.

[1]: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/