Online Harms Act Threatens Dialogue and Free Speech, Rather than Promoting It
Commentary
I acknowledge the need for limits on freedom of speech. Context plays a crucial role in determining what can be said and how it is said. Inciting violence through speech, like urging a crowd to engage in destructive acts, crosses a line that threatens the fabric of our society. However, restrictions on speech must be minimal to maintain our freedom as a democratic society. People should be able to express dissenting opinions without fear of persecution.
Hannah Arendt emphasized the importance of free speech in understanding the world. Drawing from her experiences in Nazi Germany, she highlighted the dangers of totalitarianism. Arendt stressed the necessity of engaging in dialogue with diverse perspectives to grasp the objective reality of the world.
To truly understand the world, one must be open to different viewpoints. Remaining isolated in one’s own perspective renders a person “idiot” – a private and unengaged individual. Arendt underscores the significance of dialogue in enabling us to perceive the world objectively.
However, our current communication landscape, dominated by social media, hinders meaningful dialogue. The pursuit of fame and profit fuels content creation, sacrificing genuine conversations. Technology companies manipulate algorithms for their gain, further stifling open discourse.
Arendt emphasized the necessity of speech and action in a lively, engaged society. While the government claims that Bill C-63, or the Online Harms Act, promotes a safer online environment for Canadians, its vague provisions regarding ‘hate speech’ may deter open dialogue. Subjectivity in interpreting what constitutes incitement to violence or extremism poses a significant challenge.
The spate of church burnings in 2021 amid indigenous rights protests exemplifies the complexity of such issues. Differing opinions on the motivations behind the actions highlight the need for nuanced discussions and understanding. The lack of a comprehensive mechanism for dialogue in the Online Harms Act raises concerns about its potential impact on free speech.
The uncertainty surrounding the Act’s implementation underscores the importance of halting its passage. Government intervention without fostering dialogue risks stifling diverse perspectives and limiting freedom of expression.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
