<
div class=”field field–name-body field–type-text-with-summary field–label-hidden”>
<
div class=”field__items”>
<
div class=”field__item even”>
Canadian lawmakers are considering a bill, S-210, that’s meant to benefit children, but would sacrifice the security, privacy, and free speech of all internet users.
First introduced in 2023, S-210 seeks to prevent young people from encountering sexually explicit material by requiring all commercial internet services that “make available” explicit content to adopt age verification services. Typically, these services will require people to show government-issued ID to get on the internet. According to bill authors, this is needed to prevent harms like the “development of pornography addiction” and “the reinforcement of gender stereotypes and the development of attitudes favorable to harassment and violence…particularly against women.”
The motivation is laudable, but requiring people of all ages to show ID to get online won’t help women or young people. If S-210 isn’t stopped before it reaches the third reading and final vote in the House of Commons, Canadians will be forced to a repressive and unworkable age verification regulation.
Flawed Definitions Would Encompass Nearly the Entire Internet
The bill’s scope is vast. S-210 creates legal risk not just for those who sell or intentionally distribute sexually explicit materials, but also for those who just transmit it–knowingly or not.
Internet infrastructure intermediaries, which often do not know the type of content they are transmitting, would also be liable, as would all services from social media sites to search engines and messaging platforms. Each would be required to prevent access by any user whose age is not verified, unless they can claim the material is for a “legitimate purpose related to science, medicine, education or the arts,” or by implementing age verification.
Basic internet infrastructure shouldn’t be
[…]
Content was cut in order to protect the source.Please visit the source for the rest of the article.
Read the original article: