Bill’s C-10 & C-11. If we aren’t talking about it already, shouldn’t we be?

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
17,354
3,089
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
This has to start somewhere, so might as well start with a Wiki summary of C-11 (as C-10 got squashed when the last election got called):


The Online Streaming Act (Bill C-11) is a proposed Canadian federal legislation. It was first introduced on November 3, 2020 by Minister of Canadian Heritage Steven Guilbeault during the second session of the 43rd Canadian Parliament as An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act (Bill C-10), which passed in the House of Commons on June 22, 2021, but failed to pass the Senate before Parliament was dissolved for a federal election. It was reintroduced with amendments as the Online Streaming Act during the first session of the 44th Canadian Parliament in February 2022.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
17,354
3,089
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
 
  • Like
Reactions: B00Mer

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
17,354
3,089
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
The Liberal government has re-tabled its controversial broadcasting bill, bringing back an exemption for user generated content, whose removal from the legislation previously drew outrage over free speech concerns.

In the new version of the bill, C-10 in the last parliament, now dubbed the Online Streaming Act or C-11, most social media content will be exempt from CRTC regulation.

 

Serryah

Time Out
Dec 3, 2008
6,163
1,016
113
New Brunswick
The Liberal government has re-tabled its controversial broadcasting bill, bringing back an exemption for user generated content, whose removal from the legislation previously drew outrage over free speech concerns.

In the new version of the bill, C-10 in the last parliament, now dubbed the Online Streaming Act or C-11, most social media content will be exempt from CRTC regulation.


I'm still not sure how I feel about this bill.

On the one hand I feel like trying to regulate/control the internet in any way is like herding cats.

On the other hand, there needs to be some sort of regulations/guidelines at least for content at least on commercial platforms, and considering what's out there online, relying on individual people to do the regulating isn't smart, cause... people won't.

But again, I'm not sure which is worse.
 

Decapoda

Council Member
Mar 4, 2016
1,641
716
113
What's the point in talking about it? This needed to be talked about prior to the last election, and it was...but not enough, and not with the seriousness and respect it deserved. Trudeau was still subsequently given a minority mandate by people who don't seem to see this as a seroius issue. Now that we got that pesky election stuff over with, It's obvious Trudeau is intent on solidifying his dictatorship further by regulating online speech and government controlled censorship. There's "a certain level of admiration he has" for ideas like this. And there is little doubt this bill was negotiated with Mini-me Jagmeat during their "not a coalition" coalition guaranteeing him a defacto majority. The senate is stacked with "independent" senators who will no doubt be more than excited to support this.

At this point in the state of our country, talking about anything does little... except serve to divide people further, and make the inevitable kick in the balls more painful and frustrating for anyone left who still has a functioning brain and a modicum of respect for what remains of our freedom and democracy.
 

Decapoda

Council Member
Mar 4, 2016
1,641
716
113
But again, I'm not sure which is worse.
Giving Trudeau and his band of hapless idiot MP's more control of anything is always worse. Period. If you can't see there is an underlying motive behind this, then you're either blind, brainwashed, or partisan to their motive.

The internet and the free exchange of information doesn't need to be controlled. We already have a countless multitude of laws that are already in place to protect people. We don't need the Government telling us what we are and are not allowed to say or hear. It's amazing people think giving up more freedoms is a positive thing.
 

Serryah

Time Out
Dec 3, 2008
6,163
1,016
113
New Brunswick
Giving Trudeau and his band of hapless idiot MP's more control of anything is always worse. Period. If you can't see there is an underlying motive behind this, then you're either blind, brainwashed, or partisan to their motive.

None of that.

But if you think the "Liberals" are the only ones who would do this kind'a stuff, maybe you're the brainwashed, blind or partisan one.

The internet and the free exchange of information doesn't need to be controlled.

Really? So the Internet should be free and accessible to any and everyone?

We already have a countless multitude of laws that are already in place to protect people.

That I agree with, which is another reason why I think this is a bad bill and overkill.

We don't need the Government telling us what we are and are not allowed to say or hear.

It already does though in some way.

But I agree, to a point.

It's amazing people think giving up more freedoms is a positive thing.

When that "freedom" involves the removal of the freedom of others, or denial of even life of others, we should still be all for it? That I have to disagree with you on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ron in Regina

Decapoda

Council Member
Mar 4, 2016
1,641
716
113
None of that.

But if you think the "Liberals" are the only ones who would do this kind'a stuff, maybe you're the brainwashed, blind or partisan one.
I didn't say they were the only ones. They are however, the ones holding power who are pushing this despotic, Orwellian bill right now.

Really? So the Internet should be free and accessible to any and everyone?
Absolutely!

When that "freedom" involves the removal of the freedom of others, or denial of even life of others, we should still be all for it? That I have to disagree with you on.
No ones' freedom is being threatened by maintaining the freedom we all currently have. Freedom is guaranteed equally under the laws and constitution of this country. I fail to see who's life is being threatened or denied by our current constitutional freedoms. This is crazy talk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ron in Regina

Serryah

Time Out
Dec 3, 2008
6,163
1,016
113
New Brunswick
I didn't say they were the only ones. They are however, the ones holding power who are pushing this despotic, Orwellian bill right now.

Point taken.

Absolutely!

Good! Kids will enjoy having unlimited net access now.

No ones' freedom is being threatened by maintaining the freedom we all currently have. Freedom is guaranteed equally under the laws and constitution of this country. I fail to see who's life is being threatened or denied by our current constitutional freedoms. This is crazy talk.

...

*facepalm* okay then. As I don't feel like arguing the issue at the moment... okay, keep those blinders on, bud.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
49,231
3,177
113
Washington DC
I didn't say they were the only ones. They are however, the ones holding power who are pushing this despotic, Orwellian bill right now.


Absolutely!


No ones' freedom is being threatened by maintaining the freedom we all currently have. Freedom is guaranteed equally under the laws and constitution of this country. I fail to see who's life is being threatened or denied by our current constitutional freedoms. This is crazy talk.
A comedian named Lenny Bruce got jailed for his "freedom" several times in the early 60s.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. This is a bad law that will inevitably be used to quell speech. Just saying don't rely too heavily on your constitution to protect you.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
49,231
3,177
113
Washington DC
Argument (noun)
ar·gu·ment | \ ˈär-gyə-mənt

1: the act or process of arguing, reasoning, or discussing

2: a reason given for or against a matter under discussion
Just drop it, both of you. She's using "argument" in the sense of "people yelling past each other," and you're using it in the more formal sense.

Both are valid. Drive on.
 

Decapoda

Council Member
Mar 4, 2016
1,641
716
113
A comedian named Lenny Bruce got jailed for his "freedom" several times in the early 60s.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. This is a bad law that will inevitably be used to quell speech. Just saying don't rely too heavily on your constitution to protect you.
Agreed! All the more reason not to give the state more power and control over our "freedom".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ron in Regina

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
49,231
3,177
113
Washington DC
Agreed! All the more reason not to give the state more power and control over our "freedom".
Yup. Generally, any time you grant the government power, you need to imagine what a future government of the party you hate most might do with it.

The internet's full of trash that should never be spoken (or thought, but that's another argument). But I see good signs in that the major purveyors of this crap are being reined in by market forces and moral suasion.

Thirty-some years ago, the City Attorney of the city of Cincinnati was defending the city's ban on topless dancing before the Supreme Court. He argued that showing off boobs was always obscene. No less a personage than the great Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said "Less than two blocks from this courthouse [at the highly respected Shakespeare Theatre at the Folger Library] they are presenting Shakespeare's Othello, which they introduce with a brief scene of Othello and Desdemona kneeling on a bed nude. Are you saying that is obscene, Counsel?" The poor, dumb bastard stuck to his guns and said it was. O'Connor buried his hapless ass in the opinion.

I'm not sure Amy Coney Barrett or Brett Kavanaugh would do the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ron in Regina

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
49,231
3,177
113
Washington DC
Lol, your kidding, right? Too much.
She don't wanna get in a contentious debate right now. Be cool.

There are reasons to censor the internet. Good reasons.

Just not good enough. Little kids stumbling across (or deliberately seeking) Granny getting spit-roasted or some slobbering moron worshipping Hitler and bashing gays will survive. Raise 'em right and it won't have any lasting effect. Raise 'em to be cowards and fools, and they'll find their fix anyhow.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
49,231
3,177
113
Washington DC
Besides, there are market solutions to these problems. Nanny-ware can be made much more smart and powerful. If a family, school, library, or any other place wants to put nanny-ware on its computers, I'm perfectly OK with that.

The most depressing thing about the whole flap we had down here over false, racist, violent, and sexual speech and images on the internet (especially the social media sites) is that the software industry failed to step up. Maybe it's time for the anti-antis to put their donations received where their mouths are and finance the writing and distribution, free or at cost, of nanny-ware packages.