5 years in prison or $50,000 seems like a pretty high price to pay for   
   slanderous postings about political types - if the statements are 'misleading'   
   or bullshit.  Maybe we ARE learning something from the political fiasco that   
   Trump has introduced to    
   America.   
      
   More than a few of you here should take note.   
   __________________________________   
   CBC News · Posted: Nov 03, 2019   
      
      
   Free speech advocates target 'draconian' new Section 91 of Canada Elections Act   
      
      
   Though few Canadians seem to be aware of this, the recent federal election   
   campaign was fought under a new law that imposes severe penalties for   
   publishing misleading statements on the internet during the writ period.   
      
   The new, amended Section 91 of the Canada Elections Act, which came into   
   effect on September 11, threatens prison terms of up to five years and fines   
   up to $50,000 for disseminating false information about "a candidate, a   
   prospective candidate, the    
   leader of a political party or a public figure associated with a political   
   party."   
      
   Though an earlier version of the law required that the person charged be aware   
   that the statement is false, the final version removed the word "knowingly"   
   — and allows a charge to be laid even in a case of someone sharing a   
   statement they believe to be    
   true.   
      
   Even a cursory search of Twitter quickly turns up countless examples of   
   Canadians who have posted statements that appear to violate the law.   
      
   Moreover, one of Canada's most mainstream political advocacy groups says it   
   has pulled back some of the messaging it normally sends out every election   
   cycle — out of a fear of potential punishment.   
      
      
   A response to a real problem   
      
   Section 91 is the main plank of the government's effort to prevent   
   disinformation campaigns from distorting the Canadian political process the   
   way Russian troll farms targeted the U.S. presidential election in 2016.   
      
   The law applies to both foreign and domestic actors, though critics have   
   argued it would be difficult to enforce against groups or individuals outside   
   Canada.   
      
   Joanna Baron, a lawyer and executive director of the Canadian Constitution   
   Foundation, has launched a constitutional challenge of Section 91, arguing   
   that it's an unreasonable restriction of free speech.   
      
   Baron said her group agrees with the aim of defeating efforts to sabotage the   
   democratic process.   
      
   "That's a goal that we share, but we think this is an ineffective and overly   
   draconian attempt to address it," she said. "Malevolent actors from Russia and   
   China will not be deterred by a Canadian domestic law."   
      
        [as if we don't have "malevolent actors right here in Canada, eh?}   
   [---]   
      
   Joanna Baron said the CCF was hoping to have its case heard before the law   
   came into effect.   
      
   "We brought the application forward on an urgent basis, arguing that it should   
   be heard before this election because it has such a direct effect on speech   
   during the election writ period. Not surprisingly, the attorney general   
   disagreed."   
      
   The Ontario Superior Court accepted the government's argument that it needed   
   more time. Baron said she hopes the case will progress now that the election   
   is over.   
      
   She said the campaign saw clear examples of statements by candidates and   
   parties that could have led to prosecution under the law — including   
   suggestions that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was under criminal   
   investigation over the SNC Lavalin affair.   
      
   The Conservative Party tweeted — then deleted — that claim on September 17.   
   _________________________________   
      
   The new law:   
      
   Elections Act, 91 (1) No person or entity shall, with the intention of   
   affecting the results of an election, make or publish, during the election   
   period,   
   (a) a false statement that a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of   
   a political party or a public figure associated with a political party has   
   committed an offence under an Act of Parliament or a regulation made under   
   such an Act — or under    
   an Act of the legislature of a province or a regulation made under such an Act   
   — or has been charged with or is under investigation for such an offence; or   
   (b) a false statement about the citizenship, place of birth, education,   
   professional qualifications or membership in a group or association of a   
   candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party or a   
   public figure associated with a    
   political party.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)