> The website blocking provisions are focused on limiting user access and can therefore be applied to websites anywhere in the world with Canadian ISPs required to ensure that the sites are rendered inaccessible. And what about the risk of overblocking? The bill not only envisions the possibility of blocking lawful content or limiting access to those over 18, it expressly permits it. Section 9(5) states that if the court determines that an order is needed, it may have the effect of preventing access to “material other than sexually explicit material made available by the organization” or limiting access to anyone, not just young people. This raises the prospect of full censorship of lawful content under court order based on notices from a government agency.
It's silly to contrast a narrow restriction on speech like "you can be charged for making statements which constitute harassment" or "this specific product cannot be advertised in certain ways" with a massive restriction on speech like "any website that does not check users' IDs can be blocked at an ISP level if it is found to have content on it which is not appropriate for children."
If you like free speech, am I "free" to "speak" loud screams directly into your ear? Am I free to speak lies to you about the safety features in my airplane, when you're buying tickets? Free speech absolutism is a childish position; what crosses a line is subjective.
I think any reasonable person would agree that this internet blocking regime crosses a line and unfairly stifles people's ability to communicate. Not every public space should be obliged to be child-appropriate; obscenity laws are best left in the 20th century.
When a kid can walk into a 18+ movie showing at a theater or buy a porn magazine from the corner store without proof of age you'll have an argument.
Until then you're advocating for the continuation of a a special exemption for online porn sites, which are worse than adult movies and magazines because they are known and habitual hosts of child sexual abuse materials, non-consensual porn, child and adult sex trafficking victims.
Corner stores don't track your ID and purchases. Come on. We all know that any information you enter into a website will be used to create a profile on you. The fact that these profiles will be attached to very personal information about people's sexualities should be very troubling to you. This is a huge privacy violation.
On top of that, it's not just porn websites that this will apply to. It's any website featuring explicit material that could be "harmful to children." That includes most discussions of sex. You're going to have to register your ID to even have an R-rated conversation online. That'll have a huge chilling effect on free speech.
Children's internet access can easily be controlled by parents with readily-available tools. The problem here is parental negligence. There are plenty of ways the government can push parents into using these tools, and none of them are damaging privacy or free speech.
And don't bring child sex abuse material into this. If you're concerned about CSAM on porn sites, you should be advocating that the government investigate that. Not that they institute draconian ID-checking laws. Unless you think CSAM is only a problem when it's viewed by someone under 18?
It uses a one drop rule to test websites. Once theres a teensy bit of adult content, and as has been pointed out this covers things like googles unsafe search modes, then the requirement is to block first and ask questions later.
Requiring people to be licensed or verified to access content is as much censorship as blocking it entirely. There are valid reasons to not want to be on a conservative governments list of porn users. You need to expose yourself to risk to access content? Censorship.
You expect that once this is law, that a single adult picture on the site and a complaint to the CRTC will result in a website being blocked or forced to implement age verification?
So if someone links to or sneaks in a naked picture in the comment section of a tech site that and makes a complaint, then that site face serious consequences?
> The website blocking provisions are focused on limiting user access and can therefore be applied to websites anywhere in the world with Canadian ISPs required to ensure that the sites are rendered inaccessible. And what about the risk of overblocking? The bill not only envisions the possibility of blocking lawful content or limiting access to those over 18, it expressly permits it. Section 9(5) states that if the court determines that an order is needed, it may have the effect of preventing access to “material other than sexually explicit material made available by the organization” or limiting access to anyone, not just young people. This raises the prospect of full censorship of lawful content under court order based on notices from a government agency.