The question of the state’s proper role in suppressing speech of any kind - even the biliously hateful content at issue in this case - will not be settled here. But I have always been profoundly troubled by any opportunity on the state’s part to insert itself between citizen and idea. And I have no faith in the ability of the CRTC, or any other state entity short of an appellate court, to make sensible judgments about the proper scope of state intervention in these matters.
This case is an important precedent because it speaks to the sovereignty of Canada and its ability to protect its citizens and defend its own criminal code.
Thanks a lot for helping to protect my decentness from such nastiness. I am very happy that someone is looking out for my mental health and open mind, by having my government prevent me from reading something that might compromise me.
Il est interdit à l’entreprise canadienne, sauf avec l’approbation du Conseil, de régir le contenu ou d’influencer le sens ou l’objet des télécommunications qu’elle achemine pour le public.
the Application was filed on an ex parte basis – without specific notice to Canadian carriers and other interested parties and without affording an opportunity for all such persons to be heard. (...) The Commission therefore considers that all interested parties should be afforded an opportunity to provide their views on these important issues. In addition, the Commission notes that it would normally expect that an application seeking approval for a Canadian carrier to block certain websites pursuant to section 36 of the Act would be filed by the carrier(s) in question. The Commission considers that Canadian carriers should at least be provided notice that an application has been filed by another person for approval pursuant to section 36 of the Act and an opportunity to be heard. In the Commission's view, given the unprecedented nature of the relief sought in the Application and the serious and fundamental issues it raises, as well as the fact that the specific approval is being sought in favour of Canadian carriers without notice to such carriers, it would be inappropriate to consider granting the interim relief sought in the Application on an ex parte basis, and in particular without affording Canadian carriers and all other interested parties the opportunity to comment. Such a public process would allow for consideration of the broader policy and legal issues regarding the scope, and appropriate use, of the Commission's powers pursuant to section 36 of the Act. (nos soulignements)