Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

21 - 40 of 80 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,054 Posts
If that were the intended meaning then it would be it's own subsection...

(d) any false or misleading news
(e) any news that endangers or is likely to endanger the lives, health or safety of the public.

Maybe they are clearing the way for a 24 hour Daily Show/Colbert Report fake news channel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
815 Posts
I'd just as soon the government not be in the business of deciding what is "misleading".

With the many sources of information available on TV and on the internet, any outright lies are likely to be caught eventually and few news organizations are going to want to risk their credibility.
 

·
Member #1
Joined
·
47,683 Posts
I believe there is a perfectly innocent and rational reason for this.

If you think sinister then think government abuse. The Government could use this type of thing to stamp out news stories on government corruption or scandal. Governments around the world are imprisoning and shutting down newspapers on the flimsy excuse that they "endanger public safety"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
543 Posts
No, read it again...

knows is false or misleading and that endangers
Both yourself and NielN are wrong.

"And" is the inclusive, but not requiring word in this sentence. So, information that is known to be false, is illegal, as is information that is true yet harmful, OR information that is both known to be false and harmful.

You completely misunderstood the grammar, and if any news company sees that as a loophole and tries to abuse it, they'll be quickly reprimanded.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
379 Posts
Well since we can't seem to agree on the interpretation of this change, I suggest the next logical step is for the original poster to contact the CRTC personally and ask for clarification. He (or she) can then advise us of the facts as presented by them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,310 Posts
Discussion Starter #29
As the original poster I think I'll decline your suggestion unless you are equally as qualified as Professor Geist with respect to interpreting regulations.

Fry1989's interpretation would probably be written as:
(d) any news that the licensee knows is false or misleading or that endangers or is likely to endanger the lives, health or safety of the public.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
543 Posts
Fry1989's interpretation would probably be written as:
(d) any news that the licensee knows is false or misleading or that endangers or is likely to endanger the lives, health or safety of the public.
The way it's written now is quite clear, except to those who don't think it through first. The "or" is not necessary in this form. Everybody who is in the business will know exactly what this addition to the sentence means.

On a side-note, if you seriously think they would vote for what you're claiming, you're in dreamland. What you really should be concerned with about this sentence (if you wanna go the conspiracy route) and that everyone has missed, is that saying that broadcasters can't report on things that harm the public opens up the possibility of the government or CRTC to reprimand them for reporting stories that they personally deem harmful or inconvenient(censorship). Now of course, I'm not saying that will happen, but anything is possible under Harper.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,131 Posts
The big problem here is that the CRTC's provision is poorly worded and open to interpretation. It may have a precise meaning in today's legal terms. OTOH, it may have a different meaning to laymen or future legal professionals. The CRTC should clarify their position in writing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
738 Posts
Last time I checked, the prosecutors and judges work for the government.
So do the guys who pick up the recycling but it doesn't make them part of the 'government' in the political context of this discussion. I believed that you were using the term 'government' to refer to those public functions under the control of legislative bodies comprised of elected representatives - politicians in other words. Interpretation of law is under the control of the independent judiciary which at the highest level is the Supreme Court of Canada. Once a judge is appointed to any court he or she remains on the bench until retirement, resignation, incapacity or death. Judges who fail in their duties are removed by other judges not by our elected representatives.

Laws enacted by Parliament can and are struck down by the Supreme Court if they conflict with the Constitution. The elected government can only make laws and prevent them from being quashed by the Supreme Court if they invoke the 'not withstanding' clause in the Constitution.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
738 Posts
The big problem here is that the CRTC's provision is poorly worded and open to interpretation. It may have a precise meaning in today's legal terms. OTOH, it may have a different meaning to laymen or future legal professionals. The CRTC should clarify their position in writing.
I agree. Individuals should not have to consult with a legal specialist to understand laws and regulations. The language could be drafted more clearly. If government is to be more 'transparent' then it must write laws and regulations that normally literate Canadians can understand for themselves.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,009 Posts
(d) any news that the licensee knows ...

So now, for any enforcement or fine or penalty ... you'd have to PROVE the "licensee" themselves knew it was false or misleading.

I think that would be quite difficult to actually prove.

Open license.

As always ... viewer beware ... what you believe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,778 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
543 Posts
Looks like that wasn't enough. ;) The CRTC should have left the wording alone and then we could see exactly who would raise the Charter challenge.
It's all about interpretation. I've stated mine, based on the rules of grammar, and stand by it. Obviously, others are choosing to interpret it otherwise.

If you really wanna get technical though, you could say that the law isn't changed at all, or infact is broadened by this, because it can easily be argued that reporting wrong stuff or lying about stories is in itself harmful to the public, because it misinforms, and can greatly affect their opinions about issues.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,310 Posts
Discussion Starter #40
Uh, ok. Did you read the article?

A CRTC official explained that the proposed change is in response to concerns raised several years ago by a joint parliamentary committee on scrutiny of regulations.

The committee feared the sweeping ban on false and misleading news was too broad and vague and wouldn't withstand a challenge under the Charter of Rights. Its concerns were based on a number of court rulings at the time involving freedom of speech.
You're arguing that the people who wrote the modification are now interpreting it incorrectly?
 
21 - 40 of 80 Posts
Top