Line between acceptable and unacceptable speech is blurry

Can we talk?

Those three words became a catchphrase for the late comic, Joan Rivers. They were meant as an encouragement to speak honestly and openly, even if the truth hurt a little. Or even if the truth hurt a lot.

Sadly, in the decade since Rivers’ death, our ability to talk to one another has been in sharp decline. Take just the last 18 months, for example, when three people in our region were in court to answer for threats made against a politician.

One man sent a series of emails to Regional Chair Karen Redman, saying he “would send a killer to her doorstep” and launch a “military terrorist attack” on her house.

Another man emailed KitchenerConestoga MP Tim Louis, saying, “I would love to put a bullet in your ignorant face.”

And at a campaign stop in Cambridge for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, yet another man recorded a video saying, “I’m gonna hang the (expletive) for treason if I get a hold of him … Get off the (expletive) bus — I’ll punch your (expletive) face in.”

Heavily politicized, hyperpartisan, highly polarized times or not, we all recognize that such threats typed in an email, recorded on video or uttered aloud to another person are unacceptable. Full stop.

Yet, still, we’ve allowed ourselves to justify these attacks, as if somehow the public figures toward which they’re directed had it coming.

Why?

In what other arena would we place the onus for change on the victim, tell them to grow a thicker skin or do a better job, rather than demand better of the offender? So, can we talk?

Not civilly, it seems. Or without threat enough to warrant charges and engage security details.

Meanwhile, our federal government is hurrying ahead with Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act. The bill offers hope for social media regulation, demanding that platforms act responsibly, make certain content inaccessible, and protect children. But there’s also this murky area in which the legislation runs the risk of weaponizing speech complaints.

Under the act, a new digital safety commission will enforce the law. This commission will also issue rulings and hold hearings, some of which could be closed to the public.

Further, the new legislation expands rules within the Canadian Human Rights Act, making possible a flood of complaints for communicating hate speech.

With penalties as high as $20,000, there’s a legitimate risk of overloading the Human Rights Commission with grievances about what’s said online, especially for those incentivized by a handsome payout. While we can all understand speech that is truly vile or incites violence, the definition of what constitutes an online harm also seems overly broad, thereby throttling one’s freedom of expression.

This freedom of expression is something we once held dear, no matter how obnoxious.

So, can we talk?

Under the Online Harms Act, perhaps the answer is: Carefully, if at all.