Is blocking fake news a form of censorship?
In light of some of the proposed laws floating around, many have been wondering if you could censor fake news without infringing on freedom of speech.
The simple answer is "sure".
The more complex answer is that it really boils down to how the law is worded.
People often talk as though freedom of speech is an "absolute" freedom of speech. This is, however, not the case. There are constitutional rights which preempt certain uses of speech.
Put another way, your constitutional rights are not things which can be examined in isolation. They impact each other at some level.
For instance, a constitutional right here in Canada which takes precedence is article 7 which states that:
So, the simple question is, can false information about COVID-19 jeopardize people's rights to these are other constitutionally protected rights? And I think the answer is yes.
Again, it does depend rather heavily on how the law is implemented.
And, if such a law were used widely enough, it would undoubtedly be raised to the supreme court and put under substantially heavy scrutiny. And, I think this really has a lot more to do with why the Liberals backed down for now on this, rather than it being caused by any particular opposition. Certainly, they would need support of other parties to pass the bill, being a minority government. But, a bigger hurdle would be where to start.
More than likely, they would need to find rather concrete evidence that fake news is in fact directly robbing Canadian's of their safety. They would then need to word the law specifically enough to ensure it wasn't overly broad as to allow abuses. And then, it may still require a bit of luck, with even supreme court justices likely to err on the side of caution in such a debate.
So, I don't think that such a law will be passed in response to this pandemic. Nor, if one does, that it will survive the test of time.
While I have no doubts that such a law would be beneficial. I hold equally no illusions that a future administration might find a way to interpret the law to try and abuse it. Most laws which tread into constitutionally protected actions are under such immense scrutiny that they can rarely be abused in the generation when they are drafted.
It is ludicrous in my opinion to assert that there is anything malicious in the Liberals plan or anything intentionally overarching or anything of that sort.
That being said, I am of two minds on this one. Firstly, in the US, where the President himself has floated some potential misinformation, there have been reported cases of people who already had access to some of these drugs which weren't tested for COVID-19 taking them and either dying or putting themselves in the emergency room.
Misinformation leading to personal harm is a very real thing.
On the other hand, while I don't suspect any ill of the government, predicting how a law made today might be used to rob people of their rights in the future is a real bitch. So, there is definitely hesitation in supporting such a move.
Ultimately, I think I would side against such a law. While it is true that individuals are spreading misinformation. Some even wilfully misleading others. I don't believe this is endangering people at a high enough rate to justify the potential for the law to be abused in the future.
And, those most likely to have a broader impact are least likely to be tried.
Jason Kenney's insistence on ignoring Canada's regulation for drug testing for example. This could very likely lead to a Premiere advocating for a drug approved by a country with either a less stringent testing requirement or, perhaps with ties to the producer. People seem to quickly forget that lobby groups hold a lot of sway with governments and things are often approved which put lives at risk. And, in an environment where governments are desperate for solutions, that influence is even greater.
If the Premiere of Alberta chose to endorse a drug which was approved by another nation and publicly announce it as safe despite Canada having not drawn that conclusion, and it turned out to be harmful, what then?
Even if the PM had passed such a law, it would be VERY hard to enact against a Premiere. And even if it could be used in such circumstances, and eventually did end up apply to the Premiere, it would be far too late.
The simple answer is "sure".
The more complex answer is that it really boils down to how the law is worded.
People often talk as though freedom of speech is an "absolute" freedom of speech. This is, however, not the case. There are constitutional rights which preempt certain uses of speech.
Put another way, your constitutional rights are not things which can be examined in isolation. They impact each other at some level.
For instance, a constitutional right here in Canada which takes precedence is article 7 which states that:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.In short, in your attempt to invoke your right to free speech violated another person's right to life, liberty or security it would not be covered by your freedom of speech. This why death threats are illegal, and being persecuted for issuing death threats is not a violation of your constitutional rights.
So, the simple question is, can false information about COVID-19 jeopardize people's rights to these are other constitutionally protected rights? And I think the answer is yes.
Again, it does depend rather heavily on how the law is implemented.
And, if such a law were used widely enough, it would undoubtedly be raised to the supreme court and put under substantially heavy scrutiny. And, I think this really has a lot more to do with why the Liberals backed down for now on this, rather than it being caused by any particular opposition. Certainly, they would need support of other parties to pass the bill, being a minority government. But, a bigger hurdle would be where to start.
More than likely, they would need to find rather concrete evidence that fake news is in fact directly robbing Canadian's of their safety. They would then need to word the law specifically enough to ensure it wasn't overly broad as to allow abuses. And then, it may still require a bit of luck, with even supreme court justices likely to err on the side of caution in such a debate.
So, I don't think that such a law will be passed in response to this pandemic. Nor, if one does, that it will survive the test of time.
While I have no doubts that such a law would be beneficial. I hold equally no illusions that a future administration might find a way to interpret the law to try and abuse it. Most laws which tread into constitutionally protected actions are under such immense scrutiny that they can rarely be abused in the generation when they are drafted.
It is ludicrous in my opinion to assert that there is anything malicious in the Liberals plan or anything intentionally overarching or anything of that sort.
That being said, I am of two minds on this one. Firstly, in the US, where the President himself has floated some potential misinformation, there have been reported cases of people who already had access to some of these drugs which weren't tested for COVID-19 taking them and either dying or putting themselves in the emergency room.
Misinformation leading to personal harm is a very real thing.
On the other hand, while I don't suspect any ill of the government, predicting how a law made today might be used to rob people of their rights in the future is a real bitch. So, there is definitely hesitation in supporting such a move.
Ultimately, I think I would side against such a law. While it is true that individuals are spreading misinformation. Some even wilfully misleading others. I don't believe this is endangering people at a high enough rate to justify the potential for the law to be abused in the future.
And, those most likely to have a broader impact are least likely to be tried.
Jason Kenney's insistence on ignoring Canada's regulation for drug testing for example. This could very likely lead to a Premiere advocating for a drug approved by a country with either a less stringent testing requirement or, perhaps with ties to the producer. People seem to quickly forget that lobby groups hold a lot of sway with governments and things are often approved which put lives at risk. And, in an environment where governments are desperate for solutions, that influence is even greater.
If the Premiere of Alberta chose to endorse a drug which was approved by another nation and publicly announce it as safe despite Canada having not drawn that conclusion, and it turned out to be harmful, what then?
Even if the PM had passed such a law, it would be VERY hard to enact against a Premiere. And even if it could be used in such circumstances, and eventually did end up apply to the Premiere, it would be far too late.
Comments
Post a Comment