The bill has some good ideas, but stifling freedom of speech isn’t one of them

The proposed Online Harms Bill in Canada isn’t all bad or all good – no matter how much spin it’s given one way or the other.

There are many parts of the proposed Bill C-63 that make sense to me: as a parent and as a human being.

Included in the bill is creating a new regulatory body that has the authority to legally direct companies to takedown content that includes pedophilia (child sexual abuse), or even intimate photos and videos shared without consent (aka revenge porn).

Can’t argue with any of that. Much of the Internet has become – as comedian and political commentator Bill Maher likes to say – “rapey.” Protecting the innocent – especially children, sexual assault or rape victims, and those whose exes are so pathetic they need to “get revenge,” is a good thing.

Further to that point, the aforementioned regulatory body would also have the power to start inquiries and investigations of tech companies and impose hefty, multimillion dollar fines. Media companies – especially those of the social kind – would be made to submit digital safety plans, including design features to shield children from potentially harmful content.

Protecting our children – in all shapes and forms – is a must. The online world has become a haven for despicable predators and anything that helps combat that evil is a good thing.

That should include anything that hyper-sexualizes children in any way, shape, or form. And I considered any non-adult (from newborn to 19) a child.

There is the argument to be made that parents need to be more vigilant, and that’s true. But, even coming from a family that is hyper vigilant about our children’s screen time and viewing materials, things creep in when you least expect it.

And that’s where the rules to protect children need to come into play. There is too much free, unfiltered content that anyone at any age can access: much of it is much, much too mature for children.

In fact the stronger the laws to protect children and support families in this regard, the better.

So, that’s the good part of the bill … the part of the bill that should stay and be refined to help our society move forward and bring back the innocence to children’s lives.

Now, to the bad part of the bill.

The part of the Online Harms Bill that is set up to eliminate free speech in any way, shape, or form.

This part of the bill includes a plan to allow people to file complaints about hate speech online.

The problem is not with the good intentions of having a world where people interact kindly with each other.

The problem lies in what each person believes constitutes “hate speech.” Any intelligent and honest person must admit that in today’s world anytime someone doesn’t get their way, they can (and do), play the victim: often resorting to falsely accusing others of hate or racism or islamophobia or homophobia or whatever.

Think I’m way off base here?

It just happened the other day in one of my favourite restaurants (with plenty of witnesses).

A tourist to our town tried to bring his dog in the restaurant (not a service dog, just a regular dog), which is against the health code and could cause issues for the restaurant.

He was told he was welcome to come in and sit down, but his dog had to stay outside. He kept insisting the dog could stay, despite it being against the rules and there being no other pets or animals in the establishment.

Then when he didn’t get his way, he started saying it was because of his skin colour. Ignoring the vastly multi-cultural room full of those with various levels of melanin.

Now, imagine the online world of keyboard warriors, cowards, bullies, and pathetic idiots (oh, there are so many of those), who could – and most definitely would – call hate speech on anyone who they disagreed with on any topic.

They could do their troll-like worst and really hurt people’s lives.

We have already seen this occur due to party politics, where the left and the right will call opinions they disagree with “hate speech” or accuse the other side of “stifling free speech” or worse.

This is the dangerous part of the Online Harms Bill that we need to tell our MPs to vote against – no matter what party they’re from.

True freedom of speech unfortunately will include a modicum of what some will call “hate speech,” however intentional or unintentional. Free speech, open discussions, disagreements, and agreements is how we build bridges and breakdown barriers.

Having a society afraid to speak their mind is a society that will only become more divided, more tribalistic and more prone to acts of violence.

People will point to threats of viloence or other acts. Those are a different story.

We already have laws about uttering threats (orally or written), so we don’t need anything new to regulate that, just uphold tge current laws or give them more teeth.

Most of us can agree what constitutes a threat. Not so much when it comes down to hate speech.

My good friend Juan Barbosa had some interesting thoughts on free speech and being able to disagree while responding on a Facebook thread to someone saying some opinions should be called “hate speech.”

“I fully agree, but sometimes hate speech comes from both sides and I am strongly against all forms of it, and not just to forms I agree with. If you’re only for free speech when it’s speech you agree with then you’re not for free speech. It’s only when it offends you that it truly counts. That being said I am all for free speech having consequences. You can say what you want, but don’t expect there to be zero negative consequences for it.

It’s a strange tightrope to walk, but I can say that I’m pro free speech for nazis even. But of someone happens to arrest or beat the **** out of said nazis for what they expressed then well, I consider that free expression too lol.

My dad who lived through an era of extreme hatred toward Latinos in New York city in the 40s and 50s always said ‘I prefer that if I’m sitting in a room with an enemy, I know who they are’ and that has always stick with me, and I believe suppression of speech only helps those people hide. That’s my view.”

Personally, I’ve been called all manner of derogatory things about my heritage while playing sports, in arguments, or just on the street. At no point did I ever feel like it was “hate speech” or that it should be reported.

The way I see it, it’s better to have the mentality of “go ahead, say what you want, I’ll happily disagree with you and prove to you why. If it’s too ignorant for my time, I’ll smile or laugh and move along.”

Again, if the situation goes beyond just disagreements and ignorant words, to include threats or violence, there are laws that already exist to protect the public from that.

It’s up to us and our representatives to ensure free speech remains by adjusting Bill C-63 to focus only on the good part about protecting children and those targeted by revenge videos.