China’s naval expansion—marked by the December 2019 commissioning of its second carrier, Shandong, and a third under construction—threatens Taiwan and Japan with distant battle groups, despite controversies like the Liaoning’s acquisition from Russia. Meanwhile, Justin Trudeau’s mandate letter demands 24-hour takedowns of "illegal" content on social media, risking free speech without due process, though USMCA’s Article 1917 could shield platforms like Gab if they resist. Canada’s proposed rules bypass legal safeguards, mirroring China’s aggressive tactics in contested waters while tech firms face potential liability traps. The episode warns of unchecked state power in both military and digital spheres, exposing fragility in democratic norms under pressure. [Automatically generated summary]
Video version helps us keep the float, the boat afloat.
Our little tugboat, not a mighty aircraft carrier.
Here's today's podcast.
Tonight, China's Navy launches its second aircraft carrier and has a third under construction.
What do you think they want to do with it?
It's December 17th, and this is the Ezra Levant show.
Why should others go to jail when you're a biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say to the government about why I publish it is because it's my bloody right to do so.
China has launched its second aircraft carrier called Shandong.
It's been in the works for almost five years.
It's not a secret.
Hard to keep something so big a secret.
It was officially commissioned today by China's president, Xi Jinping.
It's now in sea trials.
That's another way of saying, making sure everything actually works on it.
The Shandong is the first aircraft carrier built from scratch in China, but the one I'm showing you on the screen right now, that's called the Liaoning.
It's already in service.
It's combat ready, but it's primarily being used for training and learning how to do aircraft carriers.
That's a specialized skill set.
There's a third Chinese aircraft carrier under construction.
They have big plans and they've had them for a long time.
The Liaoning, the one you were looking at there, that was bought from Russia by China more than 20 years ago.
It was half finished.
Now, China lied to get it.
They said, well, what they actually did is they had a Macau-based shell company that claimed they were going to buy it and tow it to Macau and use it as a floating casino.
Could you imagine anyone other than our stupid media party actually believing that?
Yeah, they want that aircraft carrier for a casino.
Well, of course, it's an aircraft carrier now.
Hey, at least they bought it, unlike many things that China just outright steals.
You'll notice those fighter jets on the Liaoning, pretty cool.
They're called J-15s.
They're Chinese-made jets, but they look remarkably similar to a Russian jet called a Sukhoi Su-33.
See, what happened is China bought one of those from Ukraine and just reverse engineer it, just copied it.
That's a fancy way of saying they just stole the plans.
Hey, fair enough, Russia steals most of its high-tech military designs from America.
It's funny to see Russia chirping about it.
But there's not a lot that's funny here at all, is there?
Why does China need an aircraft carrier?
China has no particularly aggressive neighbors that are of any threat to it.
Japan and China have an intense rivalry, but Japan has a completely defensive military.
Its constitution is designed that way.
Russia, India, Pakistan are all nearby, but none of them would have any designs on China.
And if they did, China has plenty of military bases in China from which to fight back.
An aircraft carrier is a different thing.
It's about projecting your country's force far, far away from home.
It's not a defensive military concept.
It's about dominating other places that you just show up to by almost surprise.
That's what China wants to do.
It's so expensive, it's so strategic, it's so long-term.
Like I say, China first acquired the hull for the Liaoning 20 years ago.
It just now commissioned the Shandong.
But where do you think it'll be 20 years from now?
And for what reason?
China is aggressively expanding its political and military power.
It's building a mighty sea base on the poetically named Mischief Reef.
It seeks to dominate sea lanes, the busiest sea lanes in the world, through which trillions of dollars worth of goods are shipped in and out of Asia, to control the flow of everything and to push back against anyone else in the region, including Vietnam or the Philippines.
Chinese Navy ships regularly harass Vietnamese and Filipino ships, both military ships and even just fishermen.
China's flexing their muscles right now.
Now imagine what they could do with an aircraft carrier battle group.
Of course, China has always claimed that the independent, free, democratic country of Taiwan is just a rogue breakaway province of China and that it properly belongs to China.
And for a while there, China-Taiwan ties were warming diplomatically and business ties and tourism.
But the past few years, that's turned very dark again.
And any Taiwanese who were thinking that there can be a happy reunion with China were disabused of that fantasy just watching China brutalize Hong Kong these past months.
Taiwan has U.S. military equipment, but its greatest defense was always just the sea.
You can't just roll a bunch of tanks across the Straits of Formosa.
But a carrier battle group, that changes the math, doesn't it?
Even Japan would be challenged by this.
Two aircraft carriers for China now, with a third underway.
If that's how you measure it, this immediately makes China the second most powerful navy in the world.
America is completely dominant, of course, and there are a few other countries with aircraft carriers.
Russia has won.
India has won.
I'm talking about aircraft carriers that have fighter jets on it.
Some countries have helicopter carriers, so I'm talking about fighter jets.
France has one.
The UK has two, and they're beefing them up.
They're getting more modern.
U.S.-built F-35s now fly off the British carriers.
In fact, just this last week, the UK launched its own F-35s.
There it is.
First time ever, F-35 taking off from the decks of the HMS Queen Elizabeth.
Pretty awesome.
Look at that.
So the Royal Navy isn't quite willing to concede to the People's Liberation Army Navy.
That's the actual name, People's Liberation Army Navy.
But I'd still bet on the Brits.
Absolutely, with the F-35s and the Brits have ruled the seas for centuries in their own way.
But talk to me in 10 years and I'm not so sure it'll be that way.
China will absolutely dominate the seas around itself within five years.
I'd say they already do in every meaningful way.
China just banned U.S. ships from docking in Hong Kong on courtesy calls, as American ships have done for decades, actually for more than a century, really.
And China routinely tails and buzzes and harasses U.S. and even Canadian ships in the region just to show that they can.
Here's a story from just a few months ago.
Canadian Navy ships buzzed by Chinese warplanes.
Navy helicopter was targeted by laser detected from nearby fishing boat, Canadian military confirms.
No injuries or damage reported, though, revelations come amid heightened tensions between the two countries.
That's from Hong Kong's South China Morning Post.
And here's the national post.
Canadian warships shadowed by Chinese Navy in South China Sea.
It was a bit of a cat-and-mouse game.
They claim something that the world does not agree with.
They are very active these days, said the chief petty officer.
Now, during the Cold War, there was this perpetual game of cat-and-mouse when long-range bombers flew over the Arctic trying to see how far they could get into Canadian airspace or Alaska airspace or European airspace before being detected by NATO fighters and escorted away.
Those never turned into shooting incidents.
They were tests.
They were psychological in purpose to show the West that it was constantly being hunted to show what Russia could do.
And of course, Russia learned about America and NATO, what they could do in their responses and their strategies and tactics.
Well, that's what China is starting to do to us.
And they have for years.
And now it's getting serious.
But we're acting like it's nothing.
We're acting like China is an ally.
Even three years ago, Trudeau had Canada's military welcome three Chinese warships to Victoria.
Let me read from the Canadian Navy's statement.
They were so excited.
This is what was published.
Members from Her Majesty's Canadian ship Winnipeg will host the sailors from visiting ships during their stay.
Canada and China have a defense relationship based on senior level dialogue, as well as discussions and cooperation on defense issues, including humanitarian assistance and disaster response, peace support operations, and military education.
Oh, really?
So we're educating China on military things?
Is that what's going on?
How much spying do you think was done in that four-day exchange?
If you think that's bad, Australia actually let China train with them.
China engages in Australia's largest maritime drill for the first time.
This is from last year.
China is participating for the first time in Australia's largest maritime exercise as more than 3,000 personnel from 27 countries engage in joint training off the strategic northern port of Darwin.
Hang on.
So they practice together with China on their side?
So China wasn't just allowed to see Australia's naval defense plans.
They got to tag along and be part of it and interact with Australia when Australia did it.
Just who does Australia think its Navy is designed to fight against if it ever goes to war?
Who's the great enemy they're facing off?
Is it Fiji?
Were they training against an attack from New Zealand?
Imagine letting China's Navy train with your Navy when you are enemies.
Well, if you think that's insane, how about this?
Hey, congratulations, everybody.
Happy birthday.
It's the 70th anniversary of the People's Liberation Army-Navy.
So they had a huge party in Communist China, celebrating their glorious victories and their domination of their own people and domination still to come.
And let me read this story to you from a Russian media outlet called Sputnik.
Representatives from over 60 countries arrived in China for international naval parade.
Really?
60 countries?
Who was there?
And I note this was this year while China was holding two Canadian hostages, which is still, who's there?
Let me read.
High-ranking representatives from Canada, Germany, India, Mexico, Japan, South Korea, the United States, and the United Kingdom are also in attendance at the events.
Really?
We're celebrating their Navy.
I'm worried about the Shandong and the Laonying and whatever the next five aircraft carriers are going to be called.
China isn't a military backwater anymore.
It's catching up quickly.
It spends more than any country in the world on its military other than the U.S.
The irony is we're so stupid and self-destructive and naive and gullible.
In the end, we'll probably just capitulate without a fight.
If you doubt me, ask Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig.
Well, you can't, you see, because they're still in a Chinese prison.
Stay with us for more.
Welcome back.
Well, yesterday, we went through some of the mandate letters that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has given to his cabinet ministers.
Tech Companies' New Censorship Powers00:12:17
They're basically a plain language to-do list for legislation and policy and regulation.
It's the job description for cabinet ministers.
The job description for Canada's Heritage Minister has 23 action items.
And the second priority out of these 23 was to bring in a form of internet censorship.
Let me read the critical sentence.
It's this.
Create new regulations for social media platforms, starting with a requirement that all platforms remove illegal content, including hate speech, within 24 hours or face significant penalties.
This is a stark departure from the spirit of freedom of speech and, I suppose, personal or corporate responsibility that has governed social media in most of the West, in the United States and Canada in particular.
This is more in line with the approach to government-directed censorship in authoritarian countries or the anomalous case of Germany.
But is it permitted under the new revised NAFTA treaty, also called the USMCA?
Let me quote briefly from Article 1917 of the USMCA, and then we'll bring in an American expert on the subject.
No party shall adopt or maintain measures that treat a supplier or user of an interactive computer service as an information content provider in determining liability for harms.
In other words, you can't find Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Snapchat, or any of the like for something that someone else wrote on their platform.
To do so is a violation of the treaty.
Well, that's my reading of the plain language here, but let's go to one of America's experts on the subject.
I'm delighted to say we're joined now via Skype by Professor Adam Kandube.
He's the Director of Intellectual Property, Information, and Communications Law at Michigan State University.
And importantly, he's a former attorney advisor to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, also known as the FCC.
Professor Kandube, what a pleasure to have you on the show.
It's really great to be here.
Thank you, Ezra.
Well, I'd like to get right into the mandate letter.
I read to you the portion that would hold Facebook, Twitter, et cetera, liable for significant penalties.
Is that something that you think contradicts the USMCA?
No, unfortunately not.
And I don't mean to disappoint your Canadian viewers, but I think that the USMCA is not going to be helpful toward those people who are interested on freedom in the internet.
What it does is give the internet platforms even greater freedom from liability.
And at the same time, it protects their ability to censor content.
So I regret to say, Mr. Levant, that I was hoping to have some good news for you on that front, but it looks like the provisions on Article 19 are just big tech turning the screws a little bit tighter.
Well, I'm surprised to hear that, but I want to know the truth.
We have to know the situation we're in.
My reflex when I read this yesterday was that the tech companies could now excuse themselves from even more censorship because they could say, oh, if we don't take this marginal case down immediately without even a fair hearing, we could be fined a lot.
But another part of me thought, well, doesn't this, on the face of it, say to Canada, you can't fine us for content someone else makes?
How do you square the two, Professor?
Because my own layman's reading suggests there's a contradiction.
Well, your own layman reading is actually very correct, but there's a little bit of a curly cue that you have to go through as well.
Your layman's intuition was the original purpose of Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act on which this USMCA provision is based.
And the idea was that YouTube or Google or any platform, any website, is not liable for the content of third parties.
And that allows YouTube to post a gazillion number of videos and not be charged for any libel or any other illegal content therein.
But there is another provision in the USMCA that gives the tech companies immunity for censoring any content that they provide that they consider objectionable.
So it effect shields their decisions to make safe platforms and gives them even extra liability to do that.
So your initial intuition was correct.
Yes, this is good for the platforms in the sense that it reduces their liability and does not make them responsible for third-party speech.
So you would think, aha, they would have a defense against the directive that your new, your prime minister has just set forth.
But in fact, there is another provision that gives them immunity whenever they censor content they believe to be objectionable.
And so therefore, that's like an invitation saying, you know, impose hate speech regulation.
Oh, Google, oh, YouTube, you have complete legal protection.
Okay, now, which section is that?
Because we'll show it to our viewers.
That's a subsection in Article 19.
Am I right?
Yeah, I said, look at Article 19, Section 17, Interactive Computer Services, and Article 3.
And it says, no party shall impose liability on, no party meaning a country, that would be United States, Canada, or Mexico, shall impose liability on a supplier or user of an interactive computer services on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith by the supplier or user to restrict access to or availability of material that is accessible or available through its supply or use of the interactive computer services and the supplier or user considers to be harmful or
objectionable.
And that actually goes further than the United States law because United States law only gives that special immunity when the platforms are trying to censor, you know, essentially dirty speech, lascivious sexual nudity stuff.
But this is sort of anything that's objectionable, including hate speech.
And so thus, you know, we're in the United States, we're very upset about it as we're quite upset about it because we see it as an invitation by government to censor unpopular views.
Now, help me out here because I am in no position to disagree with you, but I want to understand a little bit more.
What I think you've just read there gives companies the rights to remove what they consider objectionable.
Does it also give governments the power to order companies to do that?
I can understand if a company chose to censor a government, this might permit it under the law, but does this let the government sit in the driver's seat of determining what's objectionable?
No, it doesn't, but it would protect any efforts by the platforms to censor.
So for instance, if YouTube, pursuant to implementing this directive from the Canadian government, were to impose a really very broad or draconian takedown regime that would in fact violate its terms of use of the services.
So for instance, it decided that anyone that is a Republican and might express views that could be objectionable on that grounds, if they're acting in good faith, then they can do that and they would suffer no legal repercussions.
I think I might be zeroing in on the key point in our conversation, and it's this.
If you assume that Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter will happily go along with the censorship, then this is all the paper that's needed to paper the deal, so to speak.
If you assume Facebook, YouTube, Twitter want to censor and are in harmony with Trudeau's political plans.
I guess what I was perhaps foolishly thinking would be that Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Google would say, we will come up with our own rules.
Thank you very much.
We are uninterested in your directives.
Therefore, we shall resist.
We'll listen to you, but we're not going to take orders from you.
So I was perhaps foolishly thinking that these companies would resist political pressure.
Give me that hypothetical fantasy for a second.
Under the various articles we've just gone through, if Facebook, YouTube, Google, Twitter said, thanks, Prime Minister, we've looked at your complaints, but we don't agree with them.
We won't take down this post.
Does this USMCA provision protect them from these substantial fines that Trudeau's contemplating?
No.
Okay, that's a pretty clear answer.
Now, why doesn't it?
And I'm just trying to learn here because I assumed this would protect the tech companies if they wanted to go along with the censorship.
How does it not protect them if they're pushing back against the proposed censorship?
Right, because, okay, so you look at paragraph number three, and all it says is it frees you from, frees YouTube or Google from liability if they choose to impose censorship.
So it says nothing about the rights or abilities of governments to impose censorship regimes.
And then the part that you had read earlier, which had spoken about relieving liability from the postings of third parties, again, that wouldn't come in because I'm sure the Canadian government would say, we're not holding you liable for the statements of these third parties.
We're holding you liable for creating a platform by which these statements are made.
And under existing Canada law, Canadian law, as I understand it, platforms aren't liable if they have knowledge of legal content on their websites, which is different from American law.
So all it says is that in general, you know, you're not liable for the content of third parties.
But if under Canadian law, the platform becomes liable or loses its platform identity once it has knowledge of these offending content, then this section would do nothing to help them.
Courts Twist Platform Liability00:06:57
Does that make sense?
I mean, that point.
I'm surprised to hear that.
Listen, I'm certainly not going to disagree with you and your expertise.
That seems to be the opposite of the plainest meaning of these words to me.
I mean, I don't practice law.
No, I completely understand it.
I mean, I think one of the most difficult things in this area is to see the way that courts have twisted this language.
So read the language again, and we'll go through it.
And I think it's important for your viewers to sort of see how this law that was really had the intention of creating platforms as free and open has been sort of twisted by the courts into something very different.
So read the language again, Mr. Levant.
It's quite interesting.
Okay.
Sure.
We've got it up on the screen.
Go ahead and did you want to go through it?
Oh, I don't see it.
So what am I not seeing?
Okay.
Which paragraph are you referring to?
Okay.
I'm at 1917.
Which paragraph are you at?
Well, I have on the screen the simple words.
No party shall adopt or maintain measures that treat a supplier or user of an interactive computer service as an information content provider in determining liability for harms related to information stored, processed, transmitted, distributed, or made available by the service, except to the extent the supplier or user has, in whole or in part, created or developed the information.
So I took that to mean that Google, YouTube, Facebook would not be on the hook for any liability for what they simply processed or transmitted or distributed unless they themselves wrote the bad words.
I mean, so to hear you say that, no, this in fact does not get them off the hook and it does not protect them from Canadian censorship, I guess this just shows the depth of the labyrinthine thinking that the courts have taken this.
No, I mean, and it, well, really shows how I think the power of tech to sort of shape our law and policy.
So you understood that provision precisely as it was intended.
It was written, or rather the precursors was written in the 1990s when there was Prodigy and AOL and they had all of these huge bulletin boards and Congress was and there was a court ruling that said, I can't remember what was AROL or Prodigy, was legally responsible for all of the statements made by third parties on their bulletin board.
And of course, that potential liability would be crushing.
So Congress passed a law similar to Article 1917 to say, look, these platforms, they're really, they're just conduits.
They're not liable for third-party statements.
And that would seem to think, and thus you would be correct to assume that Trudeau's new directive would violate that because it would make the platforms liable for the hate speech of their users.
So we're all on board there, correct?
Yeah.
That would seem to be the straightforward interpretation.
However, what courts have also decided is, well, there is another provision that the Article 3 that says, look, if a platform decides to censor in good faith, it can do that.
Also, under Canadian law, when a platform is given knowledge of offending content, the platform themselves sort of becomes, in a way, the creator or developer of that information by tolerating it on its platform.
And so that's different than American law, but under Canadian law, if you go up to Google and say, hey, there's this illegal content there, if Google does nothing and just lets it sit there, then it loses its status as a conduit and becomes more of an author or creator of information.
So under Canadian law, I imagine my guess would be that a court would say, too bad.
You may not be liable Google the first time someone posts it, but if you're made aware of it, then you become liable.
Does that make sense?
Yeah, no, I suppose.
Now, this specifically talks about a 24-hour turnaround.
And I was thinking, well, let's say on a Saturday night, someone read a mean tweet and sent an email to Twitter, you know, from the bar at 11 p.m. on Saturday night.
Well, no one is working in Twitter.
Or maybe they would hire a special midnight weekend censor.
So now Sunday morning, some intern reads, sifts through the complaints, checks it out.
How could they possibly have a meaningful review?
And by the way, 24 hours expires at 11 p.m. Sunday night.
Who's the accuser?
What are the merits?
Is it fair comment?
Like, 24 hours, there is no fair trial of anything in 24 hours.
No.
How could surely that's got to violate some norms of justice and fair procedure?
No, I agree.
So let's say we have a good civil libertarian platform, like the one that you envisioned.
Yes, such a firm could, as you pointed out, look to the USMCA and say, look, we can't do this if we, you know, so therefore we refuse to do it.
And they could take some solace in that provision.
And it would seem to me that it would offer protection under that instance.
But again, I was coming from this scenario that this is really just a fig leaf to allow the tech companies to do this because they really want to.
And I suppose it will be an interesting test.
If you have some interactive computer services who don't take it down, they perhaps could look to this provision as some sort of help.
Tech Companies' Dilemma00:05:24
And we will see.
That will be an interesting evolution of it.
On the other hand, the footnotes and the footnotes to the article do give the implementing countries significant leeway.
So if you look at footnote 7, do you have footnote 7 on your version?
Yep.
It says, for greater certainty, a party may comply with this article through its laws, regulations, or application of existing legal doctrines as applied through judicial decisions.
Exactly what that means is not clear, but it does sort of suggest that the Canadian more restrictive approach could be applied.
All right.
Let me ask you one more thing.
And I hope I'm not beating a dead horse here.
No, I hope I'm not confusing anybody.
No, I mean, yesterday I thought I had got a real tiger by the tail.
I thought I said, uh-huh, Trudeau is violating the USMCA.
Of course he is, because of course he's never read it.
And thank God for American-style First Amendment that'll protect us by sloshing over into Canada through the USMCA.
Aren't we lucky to have a foreign treaty to protect us where our own Constitution doesn't?
That's what I thought I had yesterday.
Well, you know, Ezra, you're just too optimistic.
I hate to tell you this.
Well, it seems to me, though, that most of your comments are based on the premise that these social media companies would want to go along with this.
And so the USMCA gives them legal cover.
And I don't dispute that at all.
If a social media company wants to shut you down, they'll find five ways to justify it.
And really, who's going to intervene?
So the USMCA absolutely protects that.
But I guess I was thinking there might be someone in one of the tech companies who says, we don't want to set the precedent where any angry phone call from a cabinet minister on a Saturday night can get us knocking down content within 24 hours with no review or process.
We don't want to be bound by this.
So I sort of had this flicker of hope that one of the companies would say no.
And then I thought, well, if a company they have with China.
And I thought if a company was resistant, does the USMCA give them strength?
And that was my whole premise.
So the reason I thought this was a slam dunk is because I naively thought the tech companies would resist it.
If there was a hypothetical unicorn of a freedom-loving social media platform, does the USMCA give them any strength to resist this?
Yes, I think it does.
I think there would be an issue as to whether or not existing Canadian law, which has that sort of notice, that notice approach where if a platform is made aware of unlawful content, it sort of becomes liable for that.
That would be a tension with article, or I guess paragraph two of Article 1917.
So that would be a tension.
And I suspect that there would have to be some sort of court ruling if there was sort of a noble free expression platform out there.
Right now, I mean, it does just sort of provide a fig leaf for the Google's and the Twitter's hateful speech policies.
But yeah, if you can find someone who if you can find some Canadian platform who wants to work for freedom, that would be wonderful.
And if they have any legal trouble, please give them my number.
Well, I know we'll be in trouble for sure under this law.
Let me put something to you.
I mean, I know a little bit about Canadian censorship law because I've been the target of some of it.
There are things we called human rights commissions.
For example, a dozen years ago, I published the Danish cartoons of Mohammed.
I went through a whole process.
There's a criminal law process where we have hate propaganda against the law.
But those have lengthy processes.
And there's an accusation or a complaint, but it's, you know, we still do have innocent till proven guilty as our rule of thumb here, too.
I guess what I wonder is, how could that mandate letter from Justin Trudeau to his heritage minister saying if illegal content is brought to a provider's attention, they got 24 hours to take it down.
But we don't know if it's illegal just based on an accusation.
We only know it's illegal if it's a crime, if there's a conviction, because there's defenses.
I guess, I mean, I wonder if this is, I'm just worried that we're through this order to social media companies, we're losing the entire process that determines whether or not something is illegal.
Defenses And Censorship00:12:10
Just because a cop or a complainant says something is illegal, it doesn't necessarily mean that's the case.
No, once again, Ezra, you put your finger on a real problem that we have as our society shifts to these private platforms as their primary mode of as its primary mode of conversation, because what government can do is Essentially, allow private censors to do their dirty work, give them the legal cover, which is what USMCA does, and then walk away.
And I think that that is a tremendous danger because now, if you are a typical company, you know, you're risk-averse, you don't want litigation, you want to get along with the regulators, what will you do?
You will go to paragraph three that gives you immunity for good faith censorship and just say, oh, I got a complaint.
Too bad, you're taken off.
Furthermore, you know, even if using social media as sort of government cops creates all sorts of weird problems.
So, you know, the Germans have been doing this for a long time.
And if you're on Twitter, I don't know if this happened to you, but even if someone just issues a complaint against you in Germany, you will get, and you're deemed good by the German hate speech police.
You still get a notice on your Twitter account saying, you know, there has been a complaint about you, but we, the German government, have absolved you.
But what that means is that we're creating this world in which there's instant negative feedback for speech that the government doesn't like, facilitated by these private companies who want to keep their legal liability.
And that's, I think, a very troubling mechanism in today's media and communication networks.
Yeah, I've received those notices from Germany and from Pakistan repeatedly.
In fact, I received an order from Twitter that I had to delete, I had to actually delete an old tweet before I could, because Pakistan said so.
I didn't know who complained, obviously, their government.
I didn't know what the charge was, what the defense was.
Here I am in Canada, and Pakistan is censoring me.
Let me ask one last question.
And I know this is just a version of the last four questions I've asked you.
But let's say someone in one of these tech companies makes the decision that it's in their long-term interest to reserve to themselves editorial control, business control, and not simply let the government subcontract censorship to them.
If Google or Twitter simply said, We respect you, Prime Minister of Canada, we want to do business in Canada, but we simply will not go along with this 24-hour sham trial, we say no.
And maybe I've asked this four times, but I'm just trying to grapple with it because I find this very whole subject troubling.
If someone at Google actually had the courage to say, with respect, no, sir, would the USMCA give them any strength to push back?
Yes, and I wish I made that clear in the beginning of our conversation because, again, as you pointed out, we're coming from totally different assumptions.
But yes, they could say, look, we can't be liable for third-party content.
All we're doing is posting, and we have no editorial control over it.
We don't exercise editorial control.
So, in a way, it could, and that's pretty much what companies like Gab, you know, which is the alternative Twitter in the United States, do.
They say, look, we have no control whatsoever over what anyone posts.
We're not in that business, and they don't have liability under Section 230.
It would be interesting if there were such a Canadian company what the legal consequences would be.
I think that it would be somewhat of a close call and probably end up in court.
But this, yes, this would definitely be a leg for such a firm to stand on.
You're a professor with a career's worth of experience, both in the private sector and the FCC.
I am in no way trying to change your mind.
I have no experience other than as a punching bag for various censors.
But I think you did throw me for a loop with your first answer.
So I want to ask you one more time.
And please don't tailor your answer in any way.
I'm just trying to, like, you're really setting me on a trajectory here because I know this is going to be a battle for us for a long time.
Your first answer, which was so categorical, that was based on the assumption that these tech companies wanted to be censors.
Am I mistaken?
And you're saying.
No, that's exactly right.
I assumed that you were talking about YouTube and Twitter and their various hateful speech policies.
And I thought that's what you were talking about.
And I was saying, well, look, this does not help you.
This entrenches and strengthens those policies.
Right.
But if there is a free speech-loving platform out there, in America, they're protected.
If there's a Canadian one, this does give them some hope.
Okay.
Thank you.
Because, I mean, yeah, oh, I know that if there is a censor in a social media company, they could kill us with a flick of their tail.
I mean, and we've been suspended on various platforms for various fake activities.
We've survived them all so far.
So I guess what we've got to do is like I think it was, was it Noah?
We've got to find one or two good men, if I'm getting my Bible stories right.
We've got to find, in the whole world of social media, can we find one or two freedom fighters who would say thank you, Mr. Trudeau, but no, and we'll rely on the USMC.
Okay, so I'm leaving this interview slightly less depressed than I was at the beginning of it.
Before you go and pop the champagne corks, I think that that sort of absolute protection is found in the United States due to certain judicial decisions.
And Canada takes a different approach.
So I'm not saying it's a 100% because, as I said, there is this legal doctrine that if a platform is given knowledge of offending content, then that knowledge can be imputed to that platform, even despite provisions like Article 1917.
But, you know, that would be a great fight to fight.
And I think it's certainly worthwhile.
Well, Professor, I can guarantee you that we will be in the center of such a fight.
The next interview might be me behind bars making my one prison phone call to you.
I'm sure we'll talk again about this.
I thank you for holding my hand and walking me through it so laboriously.
I needed that tutorial because there's nothing more dangerous than a layman, which I would call myself on this subject, trying to grapple with very technical law.
As Alexander Pope says, you know, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Deep drinker, was it drink deep or drink not from the Pyrenean spring?
So there you go.
Well, thank you.
And what I'm taking away from this is it's a tough battle no matter what.
But if there is a tech company that doesn't want to be a subordinate to the prime minister, there might be a legal hope.
And who knows?
We may provide the test case for that.
Professor, you've been very generous with your time.
I hope we can talk to you again as this story unfolds.
My pleasure and best of luck.
Thank you very much.
Well, we've been talking with Professor Adam Kandube.
He's the professor of law and director of the Intellectual Property, Information and Communications Law Program at Michigan State University.
Stay with us.
More ahead on The Rebel.
Hey, welcome back.
Well, Professor Kandube, obviously, a great expert in internet law, used to work at the FCC.
I think he misunderstood my question for the first 10 or 15 minutes there.
I think he thought I was asking, can the USMCA protect me, Ezra, and the rebel, against YouTube?
Of course not.
And I wouldn't think so.
Why would it?
I'm not a party to the USMCA.
That's an international trade treaty.
What I meant to ask, and I think I got over that miscommunication about 15 minutes through, was if YouTube, Google, Facebook, Twitter, whatever said, hey, Justin Trudeau, we're not cool with this.
We are going to stand up to your censorship.
Could the USMCA help them?
And Professor Kandube said, yes, it could.
But I'm sorry that I wasn't crystal clear.
I think Professor was thinking that I thought this would somehow help me.
No, no, no.
We're dead.
We're dead.
If YouTube or Twitter flicks their tail at us, we're gone.
What I'm hoping is that one of these companies would say, you know what?
We'd like to censor, but it's on our own terms.
We're not going to censor because any cabinet minister in Justin Trudeau's parliament tells us to.
That's what I was trying to get at.
I hope that was clear by the time the interview was over.
Speaking of which, I've got some letters on this subject about Trudeau's plan to censor internet hate speech.
Here's the first letter here.
It's from Lou, who writes, Just days ago, I tweeted about a LifeSight News article and my account was locked.
It looks like Trudeau's war over internet hate speech has begun.
Lou, I'm going to disagree with you only technically in that that censorship was probably done by Twitter.
And I don't know what article you're referring to, but I'm going to guess it had something to do with trans.
Because if you misgender someone or use the wrong name, if you say Jonathan Yaniv instead of Jessica Yaneve, if you say him instead of her, they will literally lock down your account for that.
So I'm sure Justin Trudeau absolutely agrees with that, by the way, but that was probably done by Twitter on their own.
I don't think that was directed by Trudeau.
Terry writes, they're doing everything they can do to embed the concept of hate speech into law.
But hate speech, according to whom?
One man's hate speech is another man's critique.
Yeah, I'm against hate speech rules altogether.
And I went through Section 319 yesterday, and I showed that the criminal code has various defenses.
If you're speaking the truth, the truth can be hateful, I suppose.
If it's a bona fide religious debate, if it's a debate in the public interest.
So there's all these defenses built into the criminal code.
Now, I don't think it's enough.
I don't think we should prosecute people for hate speech.
Hate's just a feeling.
You know, why should we make a feeling a crime?
I think we should make crimes a crimes, not words or thoughts into crimes.
But in any event, there are real legal defenses there.
This by Trudeau will not have any of those.
On my interview with Barbara Kay, Doug writes, I'm so happy my kids go to a Catholic school in Ontario.
Truly Inoculated Places00:00:52
The public system is past-broken.
I'm not religious either, just doing what's best for my family.
Fair enough, and I'm sure the Catholic schools are slightly less crazy than the public schools, but not by much.
I think a lot of the teachers are pumped out by the exact same OISI, that's the Ontario Institute for Secondary Education.
Absolute Marxism.
Yeah, I don't think that there's, even private schools get some of that sloshed over.
The only truly inoculated place from this insanity is homeschooling.
But that's still too alternative for most people.
And you're paying government schools through your taxes.
Wouldn't it be something if you had sort of a voucher and you could either spend it on homeschooling or even a governess, as they used to be called.
Make the schools compete.
I bet you they'd lose a lot of their junk pretty quick.