WHY SOCIAL MEDIA’S VILE CONTENT MUST BE REINED IN.
in mid-january, a British Columbia judge handed down a decision that begins to rein in America’s irresponsible social media companies that publish hate and libellous content. And it’s about time.
On Jan. 14, B.C. billionaire and philanthropist Frank Giustra won the right to sue Twitter for defamation following a vile attack beginning in 2015 by a group affiliated with the dangerous Qanon movement.
He became a target because of his affiliation with Bill and Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. Tweets claimed he was caught up in the so-called “pizzagate” child sex-trafficking conspiracy craziness. Giustra argued that the tweets also left the impression that he was corrupt, a “murderous thief,” and a criminal.
Twitter argued that the B.C. court lacked jurisdiction, and because the platform is headquartered in the united States, that is where the case should be adjudicated. But America has granted social media companies immunity from liability for content they host and the judge cited that as a reason why Giustra deserved his day in court here. He said, in essence, that he would not get justice in the united States.
The judge did not rule on the merits of the allegations, only on the jurisdictional issue, but said that Giustra had demonstrated damage to his reputation here in Canada as well as around the world. The judge, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Elliott Myers, noted that the case illustrated the jurisdictional difficulties with internet defamation because the publication of defamatory comments takes place in multiple countries where the plaintiff has a reputation to protect.
This marks the first time in Canada — awash with American social media junk posts and tweets — that a private individual has convinced a court to rule against Big Tech’s jurisdictional dodge. The case should convince others, in similar jurisdictions, to take social media to task for damages to them in their countries and may lead to a flood of lawsuits.
Canada has lagged other countries that are finally legislating against these transgressions. Germany, destroyed by false narratives and hate-mongering Neo-nazis, has enacted laws stipulating that online sites must remove hate posts immediately or face bankruptcy through fines of up to €50 million or $77.6 million Cdn. per incident.
In July, France joined Germany and passed laws that give social media platforms one hour to delete vile and illegal content or face fines of up to €1.25 million or up to four per cent of their global revenue for repeat offenders. Content involving child abuse or terrorism must be removed in 60 minutes, and companies have 24 hours to remove hate speech or other harmful content.
And Britain, damaged by skulduggery on Facebook during its Brexit referendum, finally announced that a media regulator will police internet content.
America’s immunity toward Big Tech is in stark contrast to the legal and ethical rules imposed on traditional media. Newspapers and broadcasters curate content because they are legally on the hook for damages caused by that content.
Immunity for Silicon Valley social media has led to the proliferation of vile content across all platforms which, among other crimes, fomented the riot against the Capitol Building in Washington. Following that catastrophe, Twitter and Facebook censored donald Trump and began rooting out the online rot. Twitter removed 70,000 accounts affiliated with Qanon and Facebook admitted that 100,000 of its users had stoked homegrown terrorism that culminated in the rally and attack against Congress on Jan. 6.
Canada, like most developed democracies, has hate laws as well as slander and libel laws on its books. Why these have not been enforced when it comes to social media posts in Canada, is a mystery. But Frank Giustra is doing what Ottawa should have done years ago, as are the European countries that have imposed content regulations.