tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/ralph-goodale-47375/articlesRalph Goodale – The Conversation2019-10-27T12:05:19Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1246792019-10-27T12:05:19Z2019-10-27T12:05:19ZThe end of solitary confinement in Canada? Not exactly<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/298541/original/file-20191024-170484-149z5wg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=11%2C0%2C3799%2C2160&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The federal government says it's doing away with solitary confinement. But is it just an exercise in rebranding?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>As of Dec. 1, inmates in Canada’s federal prisons can no longer be legally held in solitary confinement. Sort of.</p>
<p>Bill C-83, <a href="https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/AnnualStatutes/2014_36/">an amendment to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act</a>, received royal assent in June and will be fully enforced by Nov. 30. </p>
<p>The act eliminates administrative and disciplinary segregation, also known as solitary confinement. According to Ralph Goodale, the former minister of public safety who lost his seat in the recent election, this amounts to a “<a href="https://sencanada.ca/en/content/sen/Committee/421/soci/59ev-54763-e">fundamental</a>” change in the way prisons deal with inmates who are considered a risk to others or themselves. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/298544/original/file-20191024-170493-cpls1c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/298544/original/file-20191024-170493-cpls1c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/298544/original/file-20191024-170493-cpls1c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=415&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/298544/original/file-20191024-170493-cpls1c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=415&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/298544/original/file-20191024-170493-cpls1c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=415&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/298544/original/file-20191024-170493-cpls1c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=522&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/298544/original/file-20191024-170493-cpls1c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=522&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/298544/original/file-20191024-170493-cpls1c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=522&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Pate is seen in October 2013, when she was executive director of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Colin Perkel</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>According to Independent Sen. Kim Pate, however, it’s simply an exercise in “<a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-solitary-by-another-name-is-just-as-cruel/">rebranding</a>.”</p>
<h2>Why rebranding?</h2>
<p>Segregation units are being replaced by “structured intervention units” (SIUs) that even Goodale <a href="https://sencanada.ca/en/content/sen/Committee/421/soci/59ev-54763-e">admitted look essentially the same as segregation cells</a> (10-by-six-foot rooms with concrete walls and solid metal doors). </p>
<p>However, Goodale pointed out that SIUs will offer inmates four hours outside of their cells, opportunities for “meaningful human contact,” more programming and more health-care interventions</p>
<p>Critics question the value of the proposed changes, which the <a href="https://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/en/blog/news/Bill_C-83">Parliamentary Budget Office estimates will have an annual operating cost of $58 million</a>. Will the new SIU model go far enough to address the harms associated with solitary confinement? How different will it be if inmates are still isolated for 20 hours a day in much the same environment?</p>
<h2>‘Onerous and depriving’</h2>
<p>The practice of solitary confinement is described by <a href="https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2018/02/04/the-return-of-prison-farms-and-tattoos-why-this-new-watchdog-wont-slam-the-door-on-canadas-inmates.html">Ivan Zinger</a>, the Correctional Investigator of Canada, as “<a href="https://sencanada.ca/en/Content/Sen/Committee/421/RIDR/54518-e%5D">the most onerous and depriving experience that the state can legitimately administer in Canada</a>.” </p>
<p>Indeed, segregation has long been criticized by advocates of prisoners’ rights, who insist it causes severe <a href="https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/july-2018/time-end-solitary-confinement/">mental distress, including paranoia and psychosis</a>. It also increases risks of self-harm and suicide. </p>
<p>In 2010, 24-year-old Edward Snowshoe committed suicide after <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/edward-snowshoe-spent-162-days-in-segregation-before-suicide-1.2703542">spending 162 days in segregation</a>. </p>
<p>In 2007, 19-year-old Ashley Smith strangled herself in her segregation cell. <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2019/05/05/trudeau-pate-solitary-confinement-bill_a_23721926/">She had been held in segregation units for more than 1,000 days</a>. </p>
<p>An inquest into her death said prisoners should not be segregated, and those with mental health issues should be in community-based mental-health facilities, not prison. </p>
<p>If solitary confinement is so bad for inmates, why is it used? Correctional Service Canada provides <a href="https://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/acts-and-regulations/709-1-gl-eng.shtml">three reasons</a> for which inmates can be placed in segregation: if they jeopardize the security of the institution and/or safety of other individuals; if it’s necessary for an investigation that could lead to a criminal or serious disciplinary charge; or, if the inmate’s own safety is at risk. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/298545/original/file-20191024-170467-hez661.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/298545/original/file-20191024-170467-hez661.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/298545/original/file-20191024-170467-hez661.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/298545/original/file-20191024-170467-hez661.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/298545/original/file-20191024-170467-hez661.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/298545/original/file-20191024-170467-hez661.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/298545/original/file-20191024-170467-hez661.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A cell in the segregation unit at the Fraser Valley Institution for Women is seen during a media tour in Abbotsford, B.C., in October 2017.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Darryl Dyck</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>However, given the serious harms associated with segregation, are these reasons sufficient? Are adequate safeguards in place to ensure that the application of rules relating to segregation complies with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?</p>
<h2>Prisoners have some Charter rights</h2>
<p>Although prisoners lose certain rights when they receive criminal convictions, such as freedom of mobility, they do not lot lose all their rights. </p>
<p><a href="https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html">Section 7 of the Charter</a> requires that an individual is only deprived of their right to life, liberty and security of person according to principles of fundamental justice. In recent legal battles, the courts had to determine if solitary confinement restricts people’s freedoms in a way that complies with such principles. </p>
<p>In December 2017, the Ontario Superior Court <a href="http://ccla.org/cclanewsite/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/C64841.rere_.pdf">ruled that Canada’s segregation laws violate Section 7</a> rights due to the increased risk of self-harm and suicide, and to the associated psychological and physical harms.</p>
<p>In January 2018, the <a href="https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/18/00/2018BCSC0062.htm">B.C. Supreme Court also ruled segregation is unconstitutional</a> because it discriminates against those who experience mental illness and disability and against Indigenous prisoners. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/broken-system-why-is-a-quarter-of-canadas-prison-population-indigenous-91562">Broken system: Why is a quarter of Canada's prison population Indigenous?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>It’s important to recognize that in these decisions, the courts did not rule that holding individuals in isolation cells is unconstitutional, but they focused instead on certain aspects of solitary confinement, such as lack of oversight and the use of segregation with specific populations. </p>
<h2>One year to change laws</h2>
<p>Nonetheless, given that aspects of the legislation were deemed unconstitutional, the federal government had one year to change the laws in order to bring them into compliance. </p>
<p>So in June 2018, the Liberal government tabled Bill C-83. Because this legislation ostensibly eliminates segregation, Goodale claimed that the B.C. and Ontario court findings, which were ruling on the “old system” of segregation, are not “<a href="https://sencanada.ca/en/content/sen/Committee/421/soci/59ev-54763-e">equally applicable</a>” to the new SIU system. </p>
<p>In other words, the constitutionality of the SIU model will be the subject of future debates, and possibly future legal challenges. </p>
<p>Practices such as solitary confinement, or the use of “structured intervention units,” raise questions about how to respond to those who have committed criminal offences. </p>
<p>The vast majority of people who are held in prison will eventually be released back to the community. It is in the best interest of public safety to ensure that during their incarceration, they receive adequate and meaningful opportunities to address the factors that led to their offences, such as substance abuse or their own experiences of trauma and violence. </p>
<p>The newly developed SIUs are intended to provide increased intervention and programming in order to address the specific risks and needs of individuals. If Correctional Service Canada is able to deliver this, Bill C-83 could indeed signal a fundamental change in how the most challenging inmates are dealt with. </p>
<p>But if adequate, rehabilitative programming is not put in place to support the new units, this will indeed be nothing more than a multi-million dollar exercise in rebranding a harmful, unconstitutional practice.</p>
<p>[ <em>Deep knowledge, daily.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/ca/newsletters?utm_source=TCCA&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=deepknowledge">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter</a>. ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/124679/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anita Grace is a volunteer member with the Ottawa Parole Office Citizen Advisory Committee.</span></em></p>As of Dec. 1, inmates in Canada’s federal prisons can no longer be legally held in solitary confinement. But is it truly just an exercise in rebranding?Anita Grace, PhD Candidate, Department of Law and Legal Studies, Carleton UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1152122019-04-10T22:50:41Z2019-04-10T22:50:41ZU.K. and Australia move to regulate online hate speech, but Canada lags behind<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/268477/original/file-20190409-2931-143uzed.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Anti-Muslim supporters with signs saying "truth is the new hate speech" during a pro- and anti-Muslim gathering in March 2017 in Toronto.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In response to the March attacks on two mosques in New Zealand, Ralph Goodale, Canada’s public safety minister, <a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/public-safety-canada/news/2019/04/statement-from-minister-goodale-following-the-g7-interior-ministers-meeting.html">recently released a statement</a> following a G7 meeting in Paris. </p>
<p>Goodale urged social media platforms “to redouble their efforts to combat the social harms” relating to violent extremist content. While the Australian government rapidly introduced (<a href="https://theconversation.com/livestreaming-terror-is-abhorrent-but-is-more-rushed-legislation-the-answer-114620">deeply flawed</a>) <a href="https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bills/s1201_aspassed/toc_pdf/1908121.pdf;fileType=application/pdf">legislation</a> to address the online distribution of violent content, the Canadian government issued only a weak plea for industry to “redouble” its efforts.</p>
<p>Alongside this plea, Goodale’s statement also warned that social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube “should expect public regulation if they fail to protect the public interest.” After the attacks in Christchurch, the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-its-a-mistake-to-celebrate-the-crackdown-on-hate-websites-82810">violent march</a> of white supremacists in Charlottesville, Va. in 2017 and the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/27/pittsburgh-synagogue-shooting">synagogue shooting</a> in Pittsburgh in 2018, the Canadian government still apparently believes social media platforms can be trusted to protect the public interest.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/268496/original/file-20190410-2924-5kvjnj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/268496/original/file-20190410-2924-5kvjnj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/268496/original/file-20190410-2924-5kvjnj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/268496/original/file-20190410-2924-5kvjnj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/268496/original/file-20190410-2924-5kvjnj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/268496/original/file-20190410-2924-5kvjnj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/268496/original/file-20190410-2924-5kvjnj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/268496/original/file-20190410-2924-5kvjnj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Goodale, left, gestures as he is welcomed by French Interior Minister Christophe Castaner for a G7 meeting in Paris on April 4, 2019.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Michel Euler/AP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As my co-author Blayne Haggart and I have noted elsewhere, pressuring platforms to respond rapidly but without accountability to social problems, while also allowing platforms to interpret the rules themselves, is a “worst of both worlds” approach to social media regulation.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/stop-outsourcing-the-regulation-of-hate-speech-to-social-media-114276">Stop outsourcing the regulation of hate speech to social media</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Outsourcing regulation</h2>
<p>That governments are continuing to outsource regulation to commercial platforms, is, sadly, <a href="https://www.wired.com/2010/12/wikileaks-congress-pressure/">nothing new</a>. As I detail in <a href="https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520291225/chokepoints">my book</a> <em>Chokepoints: Global Private Regulation on the Internet</em>, governmental reliance on platforms to act as regulators is not confined to social media. Here, “chokepoints” refers to the regulatory capacity of large platforms that can act as gatekeepers controlling online flows of information and monitoring users’ behaviour. </p>
<p>For instance, the dominant online payment providers — particularly Visa, MasterCard and PayPal — act as a financial chokepoint, determining (with little oversight or transparency) who gets access to financial services. Given the concentration in the online payment industry, once an organization loses access to major payment providers, it can be difficult to secure a viable commercial alternative.</p>
<p>After the Pittsburgh shooting, for example, PayPal removed its services from the right-wing social media platform Gab, on which the man charged in the shooting had posted <a href="https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/11/01/pennsylvania-man-robert-bowers-charged-federal-hate-crimes-murder-shooting-pittsburgh">anti-Semitic messages</a> just prior to the attack. Gab has become the “alt-right” platform of choice for white supremacists that allows <a href="https://slate.com/technology/2018/10/synagogue-shooter-gab-social-media-hate-speech.html">hateful and extremist speech</a> that is typically banned from mainstream social media platforms.</p>
<p>We may applaud PayPal and other platforms for terminating their services to hate groups, and support companies’ efforts to throttle hate groups’ fundraising and recruitment efforts. However, it is deeply problematic to rely on commercial entities to arbitrate behaviour and content considered “acceptable,” or to address problems as serious as violent white supremacy.</p>
<h2>Regulation by platforms</h2>
<p>In a recent <a href="https://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/surveillance-and-society/article/view/12908">academic article</a>, I argue that public calls for PayPal to remove its services from hate groups reveals serious problems about ceding broad regulatory authority to commercial platforms.</p>
<p>First, payment providers’ efforts against violent hate groups are troublingly reactive in response to public pressure and negative media coverage. Following the violence in Charlottesville, <a href="https://www.paypal.com/stories/us/paypals-aup-remaining-vigilant-on-hate-violence-intolerance">PayPal explained</a> that it employs “proactive monitoring, screening and scrutiny” to identify hate groups and take action. But the social network Gab openly promoted <a href="https://slate.com/technology/2018/10/synagogue-shooter-gab-social-media-hate-speech.html">violently racist, anti-Semitic and discriminatory speech</a> since its creation in 2016. It was only after the shooting in Pittsburgh that PayPal terminated its services to Gab.</p>
<p>Second, platforms may act in response to negative media coverage to protect their corporate reputations, but also fear angering users who interpret such actions as censorship. For instance, some conservatives argue that social media platforms <a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/cybersecurity/397047-big-techs-censorship-of-conservative-users-is-alive-and-well">stifle right-wing speech</a>, while those on the left criticize the platforms for refusing to <a href="https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/mbzzzx/youtube-decides-to-leave-neo-nazi-propaganda-online">remove neo-Nazi propaganda</a>.</p>
<p>Third, and arguably most importantly, designating platforms as regulators generally neglects the role of government in online regulation. The process of how we decide to tackle regulation issues matters.</p>
<p>Rules governing platforms can (and should) vary by country, reflecting each country’s distinctive legal and political frameworks, domestic priorities and values. American-based platforms typically express a strong ideological support for free speech that reflects U.S. constitutional values. Other countries, like Canada, may decide on a different balance between free expression and regulated speech.</p>
<h2>Beginning with public discussion</h2>
<p>Regulating the internet is complex, and we must avoid knee-jerk responses to horrific events like Christchurch. A good first step is a serious public discussion of the possible ways to address violent hate speech and other problematic content online. The British government has invited public comments on its newly released <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/793360/Online_Harms_White_Paper.pdf">white paper</a> outlining possible government-led responses to online harm. While this white paper is being <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/apr/08/online-laws-threaten-freedom-of-speech-of-millions-of-britons">fiercely debated</a>, the U.K. government should be applauded for at least fostering a public debate.</p>
<p>All options should be on the table. This means critically examining whether big platforms should be broken up to address anti-competitive behaviour, as U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren <a href="https://medium.com/@teamwarren/heres-how-we-can-break-up-big-tech-9ad9e0da324c">has proposed</a> in regard to Facebook and others.</p>
<p>We also need to consider sharply restricting platforms’ latitude in collecting and data-mining their users’ personal data, as well as limiting advertising-based business models. Platforms’ reliance on advertising means that toxic content or harmful conspiracy theories can be highly profitable, thereby giving platforms little economic incentive to regulate harmful content. </p>
<p>Further, as the Cambridge Analytica scandal shows, platforms’ caches of users’ personal data are being misused, and also entrenching large platforms’ <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/facebook-zuckerberg-regulation-1.5084963">market power</a>.</p>
<p>Publicly set rules should replace the current shadowy practice of behind-the-scenes government pressure and platforms’ unaccountable rule-making. An independent regulator, funded by the government, not industry, should monitor platforms’ compliance and impose penalties as necessary.</p>
<p>Canada must begin the debate that the U.K. and Australia are having on regulating harmful online content. When it comes to “redoubling” their efforts to deal with these issues, our government should take the lead, not Facebook.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/115212/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Natasha Tusikov receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. </span></em></p>Expecting internet platforms to regulate hate speech is a “worst of both worlds” approach to social media regulation.Natasha Tusikov, Assistant Professor, Criminology, Department of Social Science, York University, CanadaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/886832017-12-07T23:29:58Z2017-12-07T23:29:58ZWhy governments must not block social media criticism<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/198135/original/file-20171207-5020-15x9asi.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The apparently growing practIce of governments and government officials blocking critics on social media has serious implications for freedom of expression.
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In the digital era, politicians and government agencies frequently find themselves the target of criticism on social media. </p>
<p>There have been some <a href="http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/free-speech-debate-swirls-as-elected-officials-block-on-social-media-1.3539947">startling news stories this year</a> of public authorities blocking users or deleting unwelcome posts on social media sites, effectively silencing dissenting views in popular online forums. </p>
<p>The CBC <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/twitter-facebook-socialmedia-porn-1.4394127">recently reported</a> that Canadian government departments have blocked nearly 22,000 Facebook and Twitter users, and nearly 1,500 posts, including comments from readers, have been deleted over the past year. Global Affairs Canada reportedly accounts for most of the blocked accounts at nearly 20,000.</p>
<p>In the United States, Georgetown Law’s Institute for Constitutional advocacy and Protection (ICAP) <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-dictator-blocking-critics-twitter-law-scholars-latest-a8041321.html">recently filed a brief</a> on behalf of a group of legal scholars arguing that President Donald Trump’s practice of blocking critics on Twitter violates the First Amendment.</p>
<p>Indeed, this troubling trend has serious implications for freedom of expression. </p>
<p>Citizens should be free to criticize government authorities on social media platforms. Government conduct that muzzles such criticism may well be unconstitutional.</p>
<p>The right to free expression is a foundational one in any liberal democracy. <a href="http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/">The Universal Declaration of Human Rights</a> affirms the universal right to freedom of opinion and expression, which “includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”</p>
<p>Closer to home, thanks to the protection of the <a href="http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html#h-39">Charter of Rights and Freedoms</a>, Canadians are free to peacefully express ideas and opinions that challenge government, subject only to such reasonable limits as may be justified in a free and democratic society.</p>
<h2>Free expression has long history</h2>
<p>Over the course of history, the public’s right to free expression has been exercised in many different media and forums, from the salons of Europe to print journalism, pamphlets, public protests, coffee-house gatherings and broadcast media.</p>
<p>Social media is just the latest platform where people can exchange ideas, debate pressing social and political issues and criticize the government. It is — or, at least, can be — a place for the exchange of ideas, a forum for debate on pressing social and political issues, and an outlet for political dissent and government criticism.</p>
<p>But unlike protest marches or pamphlets, political dissent on social media can be silenced in an instant. No need for riot police or bookstore raids. All you need is the click of a button by a website administrator or Twitter account holder.</p>
<p>This is the paradox of social media as a tool for political dissent: Exercising freedom of expression is easier than ever before, but so is censorship.</p>
<p>There have been several examples of such censorship recently. South of the border, previous lawsuits have already been filed <a href="http://fortune.com/2017/09/27/trump-twitter-lawsuit/">against Trump</a> and <a href="http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/2017/07/31/kentuckians-sue-gov-matt-bevin-blocking-them-twitter-and-facebook/519427001/">two Republican governors</a>, claiming they violated the First Amendment rights of the individuals they blocked from accessing their official social media accounts.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"881281755017355264"}"></div></p>
<p>Here in Canada, there is a growing list of informal complaints by individuals who have been blocked from seeing or communicating on <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/08/02/politicians-accused-of-violating-canadians-rights-by-blocking-t_a_23062157/">politicians’ official social media accounts</a> — including the official account of at least one federal cabinet minister, Public Security Minister Ralph Goodale.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/198138/original/file-20171207-5030-v9udc9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/198138/original/file-20171207-5030-v9udc9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=414&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/198138/original/file-20171207-5030-v9udc9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=414&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/198138/original/file-20171207-5030-v9udc9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=414&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/198138/original/file-20171207-5030-v9udc9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=521&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/198138/original/file-20171207-5030-v9udc9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=521&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/198138/original/file-20171207-5030-v9udc9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=521&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Minister Ralph Goodale waits to appear before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in Ottawa in November 2017.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Canadian Transportation Agency <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/canadian-transportation-agency-facebook-post-gabor-lukacs-1.4235123">repeatedly removed a negative comment</a> posted on the agency’s Facebook page over the summer by an airline passenger rights activist. </p>
<p>The activist re-posted the comment more than 250 times, and each time it was removed. The agency defended the removals by calling the comments “repetitive or spam” that alleged “serious, unproven or inaccurate accusations against individuals or organizations.”</p>
<p>Online censorship of this nature may violate the right to free expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter guarantee of freedom of expression protects virtually all activity that conveys meaning.</p>
<p>Picketing, leafleting, obscene material, commercial and election advertising – these are just some examples of the broad range of activity that Canadian courts have said constitutes “expression” under the Charter, regardless of how distasteful the content.</p>
<p>Canadian law is equally clear that political expression – particularly on government property – lies at the heart of the right to free expression and is deserving of the utmost protection, not censorship.</p>
<h2>Governments cannot impose barriers</h2>
<p>As former Supreme Court of Canada Justice Claire L’Heureux-Dubé once wrote: “The liberty to comment on and criticize existing institutions and structures is an indispensible component of a ‘free and democratic society.’ It is imperative for such societies to benefit from a multiplicity of viewpoints which can find fertile sustenance through various media of communication.”</p>
<p>Government agencies that remove negative Facebook comments or parliamentarians who block critical Twitter followers on their official accounts are state actors interfering with the constitutionally protected right of constituents to voice opinions on social and political issues in the online equivalent of government property.</p>
<p>Under the conventional analysis that courts have developed to scrutinize government conduct for conformity with the right to free expression, it doesn’t matter that individuals might have other media through which to express themselves. </p>
<p>The government has no obligation to provide a particular platform for expression, but it cannot impose barriers to platforms of expression that already exist.</p>
<p>Of course, no right is absolute. The Charter accepts reasonable limits on the freedom of expression.</p>
<p>Before the digital era, such limits were recognized where necessary to maintain law and order, combat hate speech, preserve an individual’s reputation against defamation or for other pressing and substantial concerns.</p>
<p>These same concerns may be legitimate reasons for a government agency or politician to suppress criticism online. </p>
<p>Social media can certainly be a breeding ground for racism, harassment, defamation and other vile speech that does little to contribute to the marketplace of ideas. And so elected officials or government agencies might properly block such communications without breaching the Charter.</p>
<p>But let’s be clear: It is the Charter, and the framework developed by courts to interpret and apply the Charter must take precedence.</p>
<p>The internet is not a Charter-free zone where elected officials and government agencies are free to stifle critical or unpopular speech simply because they have readily available tools to do so.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>This is an updated version of a piece that was originally published in the Toronto Star.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/88683/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Citizens should be free to criticize government authorities on social media platforms, and muzzling such criticism may well be unconstitutional.Justin Safayeni, Adjunct Professor in Administrative Law, York University, CanadaAndrea Gonsalves, Adjunct Profession - administrative law, York University, CanadaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.