There is a real risk these provisions will overwhelm Bill C-63 and become a primary area of focus despite not being central to the law’s core objective of mitigating harms on Internet platforms.
Just for fun, I uploaded the full content of the C-63 document to ChatGPT to find out what it thought.
[Question 1:] "Is there anything in this proposed law that would prevent a government (or an individual government official) from designating the reasonable and legal arguments of a political opponent as 'hateful' speech and prosecuting him?"
[Answer:] The search within the proposed law's text for specific provisions related to "hateful speech" and safeguards against misuse by government or officials, such as the wrongful designation and prosecution of political opponents' arguments as "hateful," did not yield any directly relevant elements. This indicates that there might not be explicit sections within the accessible portions of the document that directly address your concern or the terms used for the search did not match the document's specific language on these issues.
[Question 2:] Is it reasonable to worry that a phrase like "hateful speech" is too subjective to be safely encoded in law?
[Answer:] "...Given these considerations, it is reasonable to have concerns about the subjectivity of terms like "hateful speech" in legal contexts. Ensuring that laws are clear, provide adequate safeguards, and respect fundamental freedoms while addressing the harms of hate speech is a complex but essential task. Public debate, legal scholarship, and careful legislative drafting play crucial roles in addressing these challenges."
I'll bet the liberals can't wait to jail and bankrupt us for hating on them and their policies.
Just for fun, I uploaded the full content of the C-63 document to ChatGPT to find out what it thought.
[Question 1:] "Is there anything in this proposed law that would prevent a government (or an individual government official) from designating the reasonable and legal arguments of a political opponent as 'hateful' speech and prosecuting him?"
[Answer:] The search within the proposed law's text for specific provisions related to "hateful speech" and safeguards against misuse by government or officials, such as the wrongful designation and prosecution of political opponents' arguments as "hateful," did not yield any directly relevant elements. This indicates that there might not be explicit sections within the accessible portions of the document that directly address your concern or the terms used for the search did not match the document's specific language on these issues.
[Question 2:] Is it reasonable to worry that a phrase like "hateful speech" is too subjective to be safely encoded in law?
[Answer:] "...Given these considerations, it is reasonable to have concerns about the subjectivity of terms like "hateful speech" in legal contexts. Ensuring that laws are clear, provide adequate safeguards, and respect fundamental freedoms while addressing the harms of hate speech is a complex but essential task. Public debate, legal scholarship, and careful legislative drafting play crucial roles in addressing these challenges."