Rules for digital highways

Remember when enthusiastic talk about the internet promised an Information Superhighway? The mood at the introduction of the Online Harms Bill last week felt more like a multi-vehicle crash site. Cyber-bullying, revenge porn, inciting violence and suicide, radicalization and terrorism, disinformation and hate-motivated crimes: these are a few of the online harms that injure real people.

Imposing rules of the road on digital highways will be difficult, especially since powerful global companies control most of the on-and-off ramps. Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, uses protection of children to justify proposed regulations for social media. Critics fly the flag of freedom to arouse fears of big brother state intrusion. Must we treat rights and responsibilities as conflicting goods and go to bat for one side, either child protection or free speech? Can we integrate them through respect for the dignity of all persons of all ages who use the internet’s information highway? Freedom from exploitation is also important for adults: think of grandparent scams and deep fake photos.

No rights, including freedom of speech and religion, are absolute for adults or children. I think online platforms designed to be safe and useful for young people might also serve adults very well. That seems Biblical to me. Bill C-63 moves in this direction.

‘Duty to Act Responsibly’

The details of Bill C-63 will determine how effective it will be. The first principle, “the duty to act responsibly,” will require companies who provide online platforms to have public digital safety plans, including mandatory removal and reporting of child pornography and abuse. These will be monitored by a new Digital Safety Commission, along with a mandate for public education, which has been helpful in the UK. The Commission and an Ombudsman will act on complaints from individuals. I am pleased that the bill includes what children’s advocates call “the right to be forgotten.” When a young person wants an intimate or demeaning image taken down, it must come down. This approach gives agency to those who are affected by revenge porn and cyberbullying and empowers young people to be responsible citizens in a digital world.

Children’s rights respect the evolving capacity of children. As young people demonstrate growing capability to make good decisions, they should be given more responsibility. That’s good sense in parenting. But, out of fear, there is a tendency to push for public policies that over-protect children until age 18 and then release them into a rules-free Wild West. In parenting circles it’s called “failure to launch,” our failure to allow children to take reasonable risks and develop their own capabilities. This is true for both online safety and real-world safety.

Vilification

The proposed measures to control hate speech include stronger criminal code provisions for the most serious offenses and new tools to make complaints about hate speech to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal for resolution through mediation or penalties. Hate speech is defined as “likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group on the basis of prohibited grounds of discrimination” (of race, gender, age, etc.). The controversial provision for a restraining order to prevent suspected posting of hate speech will become a target for those who oppose any rules for the online world.

I hope all parties will refrain from using this debate to fight about who is better at protecting children and work together on the details, which will determine its effectiveness. The worst and likely outcome is no legislation gets passed and we continue with no rules of the road for the digital highway.