Canada's New Clean Internet Act

April 21, 2007

Some may recall a case known as the Regina vs. Sharpe case. The case involved someone by the name of Mr. Sharpe who was charged for possession of child pornography for the purpose of distribution. While some suggested that it was an open and shut case, eventually, Mr. Sharpe was found not guilty for violating any laws, citing section 2(b) in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom which states, "Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms [...] freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication" (case source.)

Under the new law (if passed) such a defense would have a more difficult time standing.

Though while proponents would say that this merely is about eliminating child pornography sourced from the internet, critics point out that there is other language embedded in the bill that may be less desirable.

While citing that the criminal code already covers the prohibition of child pornography - even on the internet - one argument against the bill can be sourced at the following language:

"(2)The Commission [CRTC - Canadian Radio Television Commission] shall grant a licence to operate as an Internet service provider to any applicant that meets the prescribed requirements and that has submitted to the Commission

(a) an application in the prescribed form and manner; and

(b) a written undertaking to report the prescribed information in accordance with the regulations.

(3) The Commission may cancel a licence granted under subsection (1) if the licensee or, where the licensee is a corporation, a director or officer of the corporation is convicted of

(a) an offence under this Act;

(b) an offence under the Criminal Code in the commission of which a woman is the victim of physical violence;

(c) an offence under section 319 of the Criminal Code (public incitement of hatred);

(d) an offence under section 163.1 of the Criminal Code (child pornography); or

(e) a designated offence involving a child."

Michael Geist argues that the bill would force "an ISP licensing system to be administered by the CRTC that is defined so broadly that it would seemingly capture anyone offering a wifi connection"

Russell McOrmond says, "These bills suggest that ISPs should be "licensed" like legacy broadcast media, demonstrating a total lack of understanding of the differences between new media and old media. While publishers should have some responsibility for material which they authorize to be published, with special consideration for the differences between amateur and corporate publishers, an ISP should only be held liable for any publication in the very narrow cases where they are also the publisher and not just an innocent intermediary. ISPs should not need to be licensed any more than owners of photocopiers or computers should be licensed. In fact, we don't even require licenses of print media publishers, and most would think it offensive if the government tried to require licenses for print media or handing out pamphlets. It is sad to see how out-of-touch some politicians are about what the Internet is to even suggest that online publishers should be licensed, leave alone ISPs."

He also suggests that the bill really isn't about child pornography (despite its presence in the bill itself which Michael Geist already suggested that these laws are already in the criminal code) but much rather a means to control new media like the more centralized old media (such as television and FM radio)

Michael Geist says, "this bill would not look out-of-place in countries that aggressively censor the Internet and it makes the dangerous Jennings lawful access bill look positively harmless by comparison."