Talk:Broadcasting Act (Canada)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Broadcasting Act (1991). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://collectionscanada.gc.ca/pam_archives/public_mikan/index.php?fuseaction=genitem.displayItem&lang=eng&rec_nbr=274&rec_nbr_list=274,2913382,102544,305908,103889
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/B-9.01/FullText.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131214004501/http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/B-9.01/FullText.html to http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/B-9.01/FullText.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Troubled but important

Cut from lead, pending discussion:

The bill is part of the federal government's tripartite response to issues presented by online platforms like social media.

References

First of all, the source is a law firm, no doubt writing in support of their own services and POV. Sometimes these sources recap the issues in a straight line (before adding the special sauce), and sometimes they don't.

This one has a large dollop of "don't". It appears to have manufactured the phrase "tripartite response" from whole cloth. (The phrase does appear in association with the pertinent ministry, concerning Montreal's Biosphere, but not elsewhere, that I could locate.)

The M&C article defines the first and second prong, giving no indication of the nature of the "third" prong whatsoever.

On March 31, Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault announced the anticipated new measures to address so-called "online harms", the second prong of the Federal Government's tripartite response to issues presented by social media and other online platforms. This follows the first prong, which included Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, which was introduced in November 2020.

"Third" occurs nowhere in the body of this source.

The conceptual core of this source is here (not actually concerning the "prong" of C-1) [with added para breaks]:

The Minster explained that the provisions will aim to strike a fair balance between freedom of speech and safety for users online from abuse from bad actors.

Noting that these "bad actors" are in the minority, Minister Guilbeault argued that regulation of online speech is necessary for a safer and more inclusive online community.

In other words, in his view, in order for everyone to enjoy their right to freedom of expression, certain limitations must exist.

Safety, he said, is a core Canadian value along with freedom of expression.

The government says that it is trying not to compromise one value to support the other.

Minister Guilbeault argued that not acting would in fact be harmful to freedom of expression, as many Canadians do not feel that they can safely express themselves online when they are silenced by minority actors.

These, he said, are not sustainable conditions for healthy public debate, especially when groups such as women and racialized persons are three to four times more likely to be the targets of online abuse.

Not a bad summary of the import of this "prong", if this were the pertinent prong for the present page.

On a personal note, it's not a core value of this Canadian to shove two terms of eternally nebulous delineation (freedom, safety) into the ring of the powdered wig to shadow box amid the smog of culture war. My deepest values are process values. As they say on film, I've got a bad feeling about this: carving out "human rights" basically amounts to the designation of a tier 1 division. This only works to avert circular debacle if the tier 1 division remains tiny and elite. I do not entirely welcome this headlong expansion.

In the self-help literature aimed at the briefcase brigade: when everything is a priority, nothing is a priority. What is safety, precisely? In the Libertarian gospel, my liberty ends where your nose begins (smugly implying that the threat of dominance lives free, so long as it never accidentally strays over an infinitely thin line into becoming actual violence).

But here, on the other side of this steaming pile of libertarian claptrap, we are setting ourselves up to measure Pinocchio's nose. For this new Pinocchio, at the first encounter with the sandpaper of real life, "their" nose instantly grows a yard long (we can never be alone in the modern world, now that even the singular pronoun is implicitly plural).

Be that as it may, this is the wrong source introducing the wrong language for the page at hand, so I've moved it here for deliberation. Note that I'm an everywhere editor, and usually one-and-done on any particular subject matter. — MaxEnt 15:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)