Behind the curtains of the Senate is a piece of legislation that, if passed, could potentially ruin the internet for everyone. Bill S-210 is not too dissimilar to the infamous Bill C-11 or Online Streaming Act, which grants the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (or CRTC for short) power to regulate almost every online audio/visual service. Bill S-210 is an act of similar breadth and power, but with far worse implications.
The idea behind Bill S-210
Before we criticize this bill, we first need to understand what it does and what goal it is supposed to accomplish. Bill S-210 is described by parliament as “An act to restrict young persons’ online access to sexually explicit material”, which sounds totally reasonable. However, reading further reveals the first juicy sentence:
Any organization that, for commercial purposes, makes available sexually explicit material on the Internet to a young person is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
– Section 5 of Parliament’s Bill S-210
In theory, this is fine, but if we look on the internet we will find that there are many services that offer a wide variety of content including some sexually explicit content, such as Reddit, YouTube, and Twitter. In this Bill, the only ways to defend one’s company from these offences is if either: the offender has a legitimate purpose related to science, medicine, education, or the arts, OR the offender implements age verification to limit access to sexually explicit content. If neither of these situations applies, then the offender may receive a warning for a few days, before eventually being liable to fines of up to $500,000 in the worst case.
My Criticism
The first criticism for this Bill is that since services like Reddit and Twitter have such a broad range of topics and content, it would be virtually impossible to put age verification on ALL sexually explicit content, without age restricting the entire site. What is even more troubling is that reading further into this Bill reveals that the Federal court will have the power to outright block these sites in Canada if they determine it to be necessary. In the words of my most relevant source, Michael Geist:
The danger of over-blocking legitimate websites raises serious freedom of expression concerns, particularly since experience suggests that over-blocking is a likely outcome of blocking systems.
– Michael Geist’s opening statement during his appearance before the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
There is an abundance of sites and services in the internet that have some amount of explicit content on them. This doesn’t only affect social media platforms but may also affect online shopping sites like Amazon, review sites such as Rotten Tomatoes, Q&A sites like Yahoo! Even normal company websites that include some kind of public comment section could be affected simply because of some troll leaving an explicit comment. The idea that any amount of these sites could be outright blocked in Canada is frightening to say the least, and would clearly not go towards solving the main goal of this Bill.
Conclusion
The overbreadth of Bill S-210 coupled with the power it has to completely shutdown entire sites is unbelievable. It is quite clear that it has overshot its original goal and would not be any benefit to society, but rather a hamper to rights and freedoms already established in the Constitution. Perhaps with several amendments it could do some good in preventing young persons from being exposed to sexually explicit content, but as of right now it is clearly unsuitable for such a purpose.
References
- (Most relevant) https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2022/02/age-verification-requirements-for-twitter-or-website-blocking-for-reddit-my-appearance-on-bill-s-210-at-the-senate-standing-committee-on-legal-and-constitutional-affairs/
- https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/S-210/first-reading
- https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2022/02/bill-c-11s-foundational-faults-part-one-the-nearly-unlimited-global-reach-of-crtc-jurisdiction-over-internet-audio-visual-services/
- https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-11/first-reading
Great post, Jesse! I agree with you; this bill demonstrates egregious overreach by the Senate. Attempting to limit exposure to sexually explicit content, in theory, is a noble cause. Limiting and in some cases, outright preventing exposure to suggestive content would only serve to protect youth, which is at its very core, the concern of every parent and society as a whole. The fundamental limitation of this bill is the inevitable “over-blocking” of legitimate websites it will no doubt lead to. This can lead to serious concerns regarding freedom of expression. For example, in 2005 in Canada, Telus attempted to block access to a single site supporting a union action, which would have resulted in blocking hundreds of sites in the process. This is simply unrealistic, and will no doubt result in an uproar from the community. Another issue that can stem from over-blocking caused by this bill, is the restriction to sites that primarily serve to educate, inform, and bring people together. Take Reddit, for example, Yes, Reddit does host some sexually explicit material, but it hosts a diverse range of content, for all age-groups, communities, interests, and passions. If Reddit is blocked solely for the comparatively small number of sexually explicit material it houses, imagine how much else would be lost in the process.
Definitely limiting accessing sexual content by younger audiences is an important thing to consider. However, it has to be done in a way where you can somehow selectively have age restrictions on that particular like content which in some cases, like twitter, is quite impossible to do. Some apps like YouTube do a good job of having a age verification because it seems to be easier for them to gauge whether or not a video is age appropriate or not. The issue involved is the potential limiting of freedom of expression because that is a right and trying to impose too many restrictions on social media can infringe on these rights. There will be a lot of backlash if some apps are banned for some period of time because they are having trouble preventing younger audiences from viewing explicit content.
Sexual content should definitely be limited to younger audiences. Sometimes various websites ask for age but there is no kind of verification done. Proper amendments and implementation of the bill can make a good impact as an original plan.
While I agree, the nature of where sexual content is found makes this prove to be very difficult to accomplish. As a person who regularly scrolls through reddit, I can say there are not only people who mark things that are fine for everyone as “nsfw” (not safe for work), but also people who post content that I find certainly disturbing or sexual, but they don’t mark their post as nsfw. Not to mention, it isn’t always readily obvious if content is sexual or not, for example some people cosplay or draw fanarts in a way that reveals a lot of skin or is generally provocative. And these cosplays or fan-arts come in a range of greys, where its not exactly clear whether a certain image would be considered sexual content or not. On top of that, there are also sexual comments and other ways people can throw inappropriate content all over the internet, such as with google images, which can in fact be manipulated. And we can’t simply moderate all of reddit, twitter or other social media, as content is constantly being pushed out at such an incredible rate, that it would cost too much to pay a moderation team large enough to moderate such content.
Great post, almost a little mad you beat me to the topic (haha). One thing I would add is that the UK tried to introduce a similar law, this one aimed specifically at porn websites. It fell apart before coming into force, probably because they found it impossible to enforce. Some of the potential enforcement mechanisms were discussed well by wired (https://www.wired.co.uk/article/uk-porn-age-verification), and other publications such as the guardian showed that they were easily able to get around the verification measures with things such as non-existent credit card numbers.
we should definitely try to prevent younger audiences from seeing sexual content online I feel like it would create a standard amongst the society and they would feel like they would need to live up to it and might alter their thinking skills and prevent them from learning educational stuff and making them focus on stuff which is unnecessary at a young age.
we should definitely try to prevent younger audiences from seeing sexual content online I feel like it would create a standard amongst the society and they would feel like they would need to live up to it and might alter their thinking skills and prevent them from learning educational stuff and making them focus on stuff which is unnecessary at a young age.
we should definitely try to prevent younger audiences from seeing sexual content online I feel like it would create a standard amongst the society and they would feel like they would need to live up to it and might alter their thinking skills and prevent them from learning educational stuff and making them focus on stuff which is unnecessary at a young age.
we should definitely try to prevent younger audiences from seeing sexual content online I feel like it would create a standard amongst the society and they would feel like they would need to live up to it and might alter their thinking skills and prevent them from learning educational stuff and making them focus on stuff which is unnecessary at a young age.
we should definitely try to prevent younger audiences from seeing sexual content online I feel like it would create a standard amongst the society and they would feel like they would need to live up to it and might alter their thinking skills and prevent them from learning educational stuff and making them focus on stuff which is unnecessary at a young age.
Since the bill is still being debated and has yet to gain royal assent, there is time for the bill to be modified. Because of how prominent these websites are in our everyday life, I doubt they will be blocked from Canada’s internet domain. Perhaps the organization will require the users that provide this explicit content to have more restrictions in Canada at least. Also, I am wondering how will the bill enforce this? With VPNs widely used, wouldn’t users switch their domain to another country that does not have this law enacted?
Dear god. One thing that I wonder about right away is how “sexually explicit” is defined. It has been mentioned in earlier comments that what different individuals consider to be sexually explicit varies considerably. The overblocking threat is significant. I also wonder (perhaps I’m being paranoid) that the vagueness of “sexually explicit” will lead to biased decisions about what content to block for being “sexually explicit.” Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are hardly straightforward in their content moderation strategies. Why would the public sector do any better? There is a notable bias on the part of Canadian regulators and organizations such as the CRTC in favour of Canadian content and against foreign content. As I believe Michael Geist wrote a few years ago, there was an attempt in Canada to abolish net neutrality and favour Canadian websites over foreign websites. Additionally, there are strict Canadian content requirements on TV and the radio. I wonder if banning vague things like “sexually explicit content” will just allow the organizations responsible for determining what is sexually explicit (in this case, as I understand it, the CRTC) will just allow those organizations to do other things that they did not have enough support to openly do. In order to prevent biases of these kind, they must be exposed. Content moderation of any kind should come with considerable transparency. If a regulator blocks a website, it owes a justification.
Good Post! I wholeheartedly agree that in its current form this bill is overtly powerful and broad in its reach. (as you’ve mentioned) a vast majority of all websites on the internet can/do contain some form of sexually explicit content on *some* part of their site, however small that part is. The idea of blocking an entire site to prevent access to one small part is akin to jailing an entire crowd of people simply because you know that a criminal is somewhere within the crowd. The idea is absurd, but I agree that with some much-needed amendments this bill can do some good in preventing young people from being able to view sexually explicit content.
Interesting post. In your opinion, do you think that age blocking sites where the only requirement is putting in a date of birth without any verification would be sufficient to fulfill the age verification defenses provisions of the bill? I’m not sure about the jurisprudence in the area, but I don’t imagine that excuse would hold up super well in court.
Furthermore section 6(2) outlines a number of “legitimate” uses of explicit material. I wonder if those definitions themselves are open to abuse. They aren’t really indicated in the interpretation section of the bill