Aggressive, long-term, international expansion： China is building a third aircraft carrier
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
144.77698
Summary
China just commissioned its second aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, and they have a third one under construction. What do you think they're going to be used for? Well, I'll take you through some of the facts and our laughable reply. Plus, did you know that Australia actually did joint military exercises with China? Not against them? With them? Yeah, it's that crazy. That's all in today's podcast, where I also talk to a professor on tech law about Trudeau's proposal to censor the internet.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Hey folks, today I tell you about a new aircraft carrier that China just commissioned.
00:00:06.300
President Xi of China commissioned China's second aircraft carrier called the Shandong.
00:00:13.560
And they've got a third one under construction.
00:00:16.260
What do you think they're going to be used for?
00:00:19.540
Well, I'll take you through some of the facts and our laughable reply.
00:00:23.920
Hey, did you know that Australia actually did joint military exercises with China's Navy?
00:00:31.220
Not against them. With them. Yeah, it's that crazy.
00:00:36.500
I also talked to a professor on tech law about Trudeau's proposal to censor the Internet.
00:00:48.000
It's an interesting conversation. I'll let you make of it when you will.
00:00:51.540
Before I get out of the way, please consider becoming a premium subscriber.
00:00:56.400
It's eight bucks a month and it gives you the video version of the podcast.
00:01:00.200
And oh boy, you're going to want to see this Liaoning aircraft carrier.
00:01:04.640
So go to rebelnews.com. It's actually premium.rebelnews.com.
00:01:16.440
Our little tugboat, not a mighty aircraft carrier.
00:01:21.540
Tonight, China's Navy launches its second aircraft carrier and has a third under construction.
00:01:43.980
It's December 17th and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
00:01:49.260
Why should others go to jail when you're a biggest carbon consumer I know?
00:01:53.060
There's 8,500 customers here and you won't give them an answer.
00:01:57.160
The only thing I have to say to the government about why I'm publishing it is because it's my bloody right to do so.
00:02:02.980
China has launched its second aircraft carrier called Shandong.
00:02:16.280
It's not a secret. Hard to keep something so big a secret.
00:02:19.940
It was officially commissioned today by China's president, Xi Jinping.
00:02:25.380
That's another way of saying making sure everything actually works on it.
00:02:29.800
The Shandong is the first aircraft carrier built from scratch in China.
00:02:34.400
But the one I'm showing you on the screen right now, that's called the Liaoning.
00:02:42.560
It's combat ready, but it's primarily being used for training and learning how to do aircraft carriers.
00:02:54.340
There's a third Chinese aircraft carrier under construction.
00:02:58.760
They have big plans and they've had them for a long time.
00:03:02.500
The Liaoning, the one you were looking at there, that was bought from Russia by China more than 20 years ago.
00:03:14.960
They said, well, what they actually did is they had a Macau-based shell company
00:03:20.140
that claimed they were going to buy it and tow it to Macau and use it as a floating casino.
00:03:26.240
Could you imagine anyone other than our stupid media party actually believing that?
00:03:33.060
Yeah, they want that aircraft carrier for a casino.
00:03:38.040
Well, hey, at least they bought it, unlike many things that China just outright steals.
00:03:44.660
You'll notice those fighter jets on the Liaoning.
00:03:52.560
They're Chinese-made jets, but they look remarkably similar to a Russian jet called a Sukhoi Su-33.
00:04:02.000
See, what happened is China bought one of those from Ukraine and just reverse engineered it, just copied it.
00:04:10.820
That's a fancy way of saying they just stole the plans.
00:04:15.760
Russia steals most of its high-tech military designs from America.
00:04:20.780
It's funny to see Russia chirping about it, but there's not a lot that's funny here at all, is there?
00:04:31.200
China has no particularly aggressive neighbors that are of any threat to it.
00:04:37.720
Japan and China have an intense rivalry, but Japan has a completely defensive military.
00:04:46.940
Russia, India, Pakistan are all nearby, but none of them would have any designs on China.
00:04:53.560
And if they did, China has plenty of military bases in China from which to fight back.
00:05:00.960
It's about projecting your country's force far, far away from home.
00:05:10.380
It's about dominating other places that you just show up to by almost surprise.
00:05:23.720
Like I say, China first acquired the hull for the Liaoning 20 years ago.
00:05:32.640
But where do you think it'll be 20 years from now?
00:05:39.840
China is aggressively expanding its political and military power.
00:05:43.360
It's building a mighty sea base on the poetically named Mischief Reef.
00:05:50.220
It seeks to dominate sea lanes, the busiest sea lanes in the world,
00:05:54.860
through which trillions of dollars worth of goods are shipped in and out of Asia,
00:05:59.720
to control the flow of everything and to push back against anyone else in the region,
00:06:07.820
Chinese Navy ships regularly harass Vietnamese and Filipino ships,
00:06:19.100
Now imagine what they could do with an aircraft carrier battle group.
00:06:21.960
Of course, China has always claimed that the independent, free, democratic country of Taiwan
00:06:28.920
is just a rogue, breakaway province of China and that it properly belongs to China.
00:06:34.420
And for a while there, China-Taiwan ties were warming diplomatically and business ties and tourism.
00:06:41.040
But the past few years, that's turned very dark again.
00:06:43.860
And any Taiwanese who were thinking that there could be a happy reunion with China
00:06:47.480
were disabused of that fantasy just watching China brutalize Hong Kong these past months.
00:06:52.860
Taiwan has U.S. military equipment, but its greatest defense was always just the sea.
00:07:00.140
You can't just roll a bunch of tanks across the Straits of Formosa.
00:07:06.700
But a carrier battle group, that changes the math, doesn't it?
00:07:14.260
Two aircraft carriers for China now, with a third underway.
00:07:17.300
If that's how you measure it, this immediately makes China the second most powerful navy in the world.
00:07:25.920
America is completely dominant, of course, and there are a few other countries with aircraft carriers.
00:07:33.120
I'm talking about aircraft carriers that have fighter jets on it.
00:07:36.020
Some countries have helicopter carriers, but I'm talking about fighter jets.
00:07:44.740
U.S. built F-35s now fly off the British carriers.
00:07:49.380
In fact, just this last week, the U.K. launched its own F-35s.
00:07:55.560
First time ever F-35 taking off from the decks of the HMS Queen Elizabeth.
00:08:05.820
So the Royal Navy isn't quite willing to concede to the People's Liberation Army Navy.
00:08:19.540
Absolutely, with the F-35s and the Brits have ruled the seas for centuries in their own way.
00:08:24.080
But talk to me in 10 years, and I'm not so sure it'll be that way.
00:08:29.520
China will absolutely dominate the seas around itself within five years.
00:08:33.920
I'd say they already do in every meaningful way.
00:08:36.420
China just banned U.S. ships from docking in Hong Kong on courtesy calls, as American ships have done for decades.
00:08:48.700
And China routinely tails and buzzes and harasses U.S. and even Canadian ships in the region just to show that they can.
00:09:00.120
Canadian Navy ships buzzed by Chinese warplanes.
00:09:03.240
Navy helicopter was targeted by laser detected from nearby fishing boat, Canadian military confirms.
00:09:10.000
No injuries or damage reported, though revelations come amid heightened tensions between the two countries.
00:09:15.340
That's from Hong Kong's South China Morning Post.
00:09:18.960
Canadian warships shadowed by Chinese Navy in South China Sea.
00:09:25.040
They claim something that the world does not agree with.
00:09:27.980
They are very active these days, said the chief petty officer.
00:09:32.460
Now, during the Cold War, there was this perpetual game of cat-and-mouse
00:09:35.300
when long-range bombers flew over the Arctic trying to see how far they could get into Canadian airspace
00:09:44.920
or Alaska airspace or European airspace before being detected by NATO fighters and escorted away.
00:09:58.380
They were psychological in purpose to show the West that it was constantly being hunted
00:10:05.580
And, of course, Russia learned about America and NATO,
00:10:09.040
what they could do in their responses and their strategies and tactics.
00:10:13.380
Well, that's what China is starting to do to us.
00:10:24.320
Even three years ago, Trudeau had Canada's military welcome three Chinese warships to Victoria.
00:10:32.460
Let me read from the Canadian Navy's statement.
00:10:38.460
Members from Her Majesty's Canadian ship Winnipeg will host the sailors from visiting ships during their stay.
00:10:44.200
Canada and China have a defense relationship based on senior-level dialogue,
00:10:48.580
as well as discussions and cooperation on defense issues,
00:10:51.840
including humanitarian assistance and disaster response,
00:10:55.120
peace support operations, and military education.
00:11:03.780
How much spying do you think was done in that four-day exchange?
00:11:15.940
China engages in Australia's largest maritime drill for the first time.
00:11:21.920
China is participating for the first time in Australia's largest maritime exercise,
00:11:26.280
as more than 3,000 personnel from 27 countries engage in joint training off the strategic northern port of Darwin?
00:11:35.860
So they practiced together with China on their side?
00:11:41.300
So China wasn't just allowed to see Australia's naval defense plans.
00:11:45.140
They got to tag along and be part of it and interact with Australia when Australia did it?
00:11:53.000
Just who does Australia think its navy is designed to fight against if it ever goes to war?
00:12:02.980
Were they training against an attack from New Zealand?
00:12:05.780
Imagine letting China's navy train with your navy when you are enemies.
00:12:11.220
Well, if you think that's insane, how about this?
00:12:16.820
It's the 70th anniversary of the People's Liberation Army-Navy.
00:12:24.840
celebrating their glorious victories and their domination of their own people and domination still to come.
00:12:30.780
And let me read this story to you from a Russian media outlet called Sputnik.
00:12:36.420
Representatives from over 60 countries arrived in China for international naval parade.
00:12:43.980
And I note this was this year while China was holding two Canadian hostages, which is still...
00:12:51.000
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.
00:13:03.220
I'm worried about the Shandong and the Liaoning and whatever the next five aircraft carriers are going to be called.
00:13:14.500
It spends more than any country in the world on its military other than the U.S.
00:13:18.720
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.
00:13:28.500
If you doubt me, ask Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig.
00:13:33.240
Well, you can't, you see, because they're still in a Chinese prison.
00:13:52.140
Well, yesterday we went through some of the mandate letters that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has given to his cabinet ministers.
00:14:00.400
They're basically a plain language to-do list for legislation and policy and regulation.
00:14:08.280
It's the job description for cabinet ministers.
00:14:11.620
The job description for Canada's heritage minister has 23 action items.
00:14:17.600
And the second priority out of these 23 was to bring in a form of internet censorship.
00:14:27.540
This is a stark departure from the spirit of freedom of speech and, I suppose, personal or corporate responsibility
00:14:56.780
that has governed social media in most of the West, in the United States and Canada in particular.
00:15:02.800
This is more in line with the approach to government-directed censorship in authoritarian countries or the anomalous case of Germany.
00:15:13.040
But is it permitted under the new revised NAFTA treaty, also called the USMCA?
00:15:20.780
Let me quote briefly from Article 1917 of the USMCA, and then we'll bring in an American expert on the subject.
00:15:32.740
No party shall adopt or maintain measures that treat a supplier or user of an interactive computer service
00:15:39.960
as an information content provider in determining liability for harm.
00:15:47.560
In other words, you can't fine Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Snapchat, or any of the like
00:15:55.020
for something that someone else wrote on their platform.
00:16:01.700
Well, that's my reading of the plain language here.
00:16:05.360
But let's go to one of America's experts on the subject.
00:16:10.100
I'm delighted to say we're joined now via Skype by Professor Adam Kandube.
00:16:15.620
He's the Director of Intellectual Property, Information, and Communications Law at Michigan State University.
00:16:22.560
And importantly, he's a former attorney advisor to the US Federal Communications Commission, also known as the FCC.
00:16:30.860
Professor Kandube, what a pleasure to have you on the show.
00:16:35.920
Well, I'd like to get right into the mandate letter.
00:16:41.720
I read to you the portion that would hold Facebook, Twitter, etc., liable for significant penalties.
00:16:51.160
Is that something that you think contradicts the USMCA?
00:17:03.240
And I don't mean to disappoint your Canadian viewers,
00:17:06.420
but I think that the USMCA is not going to be helpful toward those people who are interested on freedom in the Internet.
00:17:14.800
What it does is give the Internet platforms even greater freedom from liability.
00:17:23.820
And at the same time, it protects their ability to censor content.
00:17:29.100
So I regret to say, Mr. Levant, that I was hoping to have some good news for you on that front,
00:17:36.860
but it looks like the provisions in Article 19 are just big tech turning the screws a little bit tighter.
00:17:46.080
Well, I'm surprised to hear that, but I want to know the truth.
00:17:53.060
And my reflex when I read this yesterday was that the tech companies could now excuse themselves from even more censorship
00:18:02.960
because they could say, oh, if we don't take this marginal case down immediately without even a fair hearing,
00:18:11.560
But another part of me thought, well, doesn't this, on the face of it, say to Canada,
00:18:18.820
you can't fine us for content someone else makes?
00:18:24.600
Because my own layman's reading suggests there's a contradiction.
00:18:28.600
Well, your own layman's reading is actually very correct,
00:18:32.060
but there's a little bit of a curlicue that you have to go through as well.
00:18:36.120
Your layman's intuition was the original purpose of Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act
00:18:47.120
And the idea was that YouTube or Google or any platform, any website,
00:18:53.820
is not liable for the content of third parties.
00:18:56.840
And that allows YouTube to post a gazillion number of videos
00:19:04.200
and not be charged for any libel or any other illegal content therein.
00:19:16.700
that gives the tech companies immunity for censoring any content that they provide,
00:19:26.840
So it, in fact, shields their decisions to make safe platforms
00:19:32.120
and gives them even extra liability to do that.
00:19:39.380
Yes, this is good for the platforms in the sense that it reduces their liability
00:19:43.440
and does not make them responsible for third-party speech.
00:19:46.820
So you would think, aha, they would have a defense against the directive
00:19:54.880
But, in fact, there is another provision that gives them immunity
00:19:58.880
whenever they censor content they believe to be objectionable.
00:20:02.520
And so, therefore, that's like an invitation saying, you know,
00:20:21.000
So look at Article 19, Section 17, Interactive Computer Services,
00:20:30.740
No party shall impose liability on no party, meaning a country,
00:20:35.140
that would be United States, Canada, or Mexico,
00:20:37.980
shall impose liability on a supplier or user of an interactive computer services
00:20:42.380
on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith by the supplier or user
00:20:48.500
to restrict access to or availability of material that is accessible or available
00:20:53.120
through its supply or use of the interactive computer services,
00:20:56.060
and the supplier or user considers to be harmful or objectionable.
00:21:01.880
And that actually goes further than the United States law,
00:21:05.540
because the United States law only gives that special immunity
00:21:08.200
when the platforms are trying to censor, you know, essentially dirty speech,
00:21:14.380
But this is sort of anything that's objectionable, including hate speech.
00:21:20.520
We're very upset about it as we're quite upset about it
00:21:23.100
because we see it as an invitation by government to censor unpopular views.
00:21:29.640
Now, help me out here because, listen, I am in no position to disagree with you,
00:21:39.420
What I think you've just read there gives companies the rights
00:21:47.460
Does it also give governments the power to order companies to do that?
00:21:53.900
I can understand if a company chose to censor a government,
00:22:01.760
but does this let the government sit in the driver's seat
00:22:07.800
No, it doesn't, but it would protect any efforts
00:22:16.140
So, for instance, if YouTube, pursuant to implementing this directive
00:22:23.520
were to impose a really very broad or draconian takedown regime
00:22:30.080
that would, in fact, violate its terms of use of the services.
00:22:33.520
So, for instance, it decided that, you know, anyone that, you know,
00:22:38.880
and might express views that could be objectionable on that grounds,
00:22:43.260
if they're acting in good faith, then they can do that
00:22:49.320
I think I might be zeroing in on the key point in our conversation,
00:22:57.720
If you assume that Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter
00:23:04.920
then this is all the paper that's needed to paper the deal, so to speak.
00:23:12.700
If you assume Facebook, YouTube, Twitter want to censor
00:23:16.860
and are in harmony with Trudeau's political plans,
00:23:25.300
would be that Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Google would say,
00:23:29.480
we will come up with our own rules, thank you very much.
00:23:33.600
We are uninterested in your directives, therefore we shall resist.
00:23:39.340
We'll listen to you, but we're not going to take orders from you.
00:23:46.220
that these companies would resist political pressure.
00:23:52.280
Give me that hypothetical fantasy for a second.
00:23:54.880
Under the various articles we've just gone through,
00:24:02.460
thanks, Prime Minister, we've looked at your complaints,
00:24:06.000
but we don't agree with them, we won't take down this post,
00:24:16.660
from these substantial fines that Trudeau's contemplating?
00:24:23.800
Now, why doesn't it, and I'm just trying to learn here
00:24:28.820
because I assume this would protect the tech companies
00:24:34.080
if they wanted to go along with the censorship.
00:24:38.040
if they're pushing back against the proposed censorship?
00:24:43.480
Right, because, okay, so you look at paragraph number three,
00:24:51.180
and all it says is it frees YouTube or Google from liability
00:24:59.360
So it says nothing about the rights or abilities of governments
00:25:14.840
which had spoken about relieving liability from the postings of third parties,
00:25:22.020
again, that wouldn't come in because I'm sure the Canadian government would say,
00:25:28.040
we're not holding you liable for the statements of these third parties.
00:25:32.060
We're holding you liable for creating a platform by which these statements are made.
00:25:38.400
And under existing Canada law, Canadian law, as I understand it,
00:25:42.920
platforms aren't liable if they have knowledge or if they have knowledge of legal content
00:25:49.700
on their websites, which is different from American law.
00:25:53.840
So all it says is that in general, you know, you're not liable for the content of third parties,
00:26:03.480
but if under Canadian law the platform becomes liable
00:26:07.340
or loses its platform identity once it has knowledge of these offending content,
00:26:14.880
then this section would do nothing to help them.
00:26:21.620
I mean, listen, I'm certainly not going to disagree with you and your expertise.
00:26:28.000
That seems to be the opposite of the plainest meaning of these words to me.
00:26:39.480
I mean, I think one of the most difficult things in this area
00:26:42.880
is to see the way that courts have twisted this language.
00:26:46.420
So read the language again and we'll go through it.
00:26:48.660
And I think it's important for your viewers to sort of see how this law
00:26:52.440
that was really had the intention of creating platforms as free and open
00:26:57.260
has been sort of twisted by the courts into something very different.
00:27:07.680
Go ahead and, and, and did you want to go through it?
00:27:27.580
Well, I have on the screen, the simple words, uh, no, no party shall adopt or maintain measures
00:27:35.780
that treat a supplier or user of an interactive computer service as an information content provider
00:27:43.920
in determining liability for harms related to information stored, processed, transmitted, distributed,
00:27:51.520
or made available by the service, except to the extent the supplier or user has in whole
00:27:58.380
or in part created or developed the information.
00:28:00.740
So I took that to mean that Google, YouTube, Facebook would not be on the hook for any liability
00:28:08.840
for what they simply processed or transmitted or distributed unless they themselves wrote
00:28:19.080
I, I mean, I, so, so to hear you say that, no, this in fact does not, uh, get them off the
00:28:26.660
hook and it does not protect them from Canadian censorship.
00:28:29.940
I, I guess this just shows the, the depth of the labyrinthine thinking that the courts
00:28:38.880
No, I mean, and it, well, it really shows how, um, I think the power of tech to sort of shape
00:28:45.680
So you understood that provision precisely as it was intended.
00:28:50.480
It was, it was written or rather the precursors was written in the 1990s, um, when there was
00:28:55.760
prodigy and AOL and they had all of these huge bulletin boards and, um, Congress was, and
00:29:03.440
there was a, well, there was a, um, uh, a court ruling that said, I can remember it was
00:29:08.540
AOL or prodigy was legally responsible for all of the statements made by third parties on
00:29:16.100
And of course that potential liability would be crushing.
00:29:19.820
So Congress passed a law similar to article, um, 1917 to say, look, these platforms, they're
00:29:29.740
Uh, they are, they're not liable for third party statements.
00:29:32.420
And that would seem to think, and, and thus you would be correct to assume that Trudeau's,
00:29:38.260
uh, new directive would violate that because it would make the platforms liable for, um,
00:29:53.140
That, that, that, that would seem to be the straightforward interpretation.
00:29:57.300
However, um, what courts have also decided is, um, well, there is another provision that,
00:30:06.140
you know, the, the, the, the, the, the article three that says, look, if a platform decides
00:30:16.760
Um, also under Canadian law, uh, when a platform is given knowledge of offending content, the
00:30:28.340
platform themselves sort of becomes in a way the creator or developer of that information
00:30:36.980
And so under, it's different than American law, but under, under Canadian law, um, you
00:30:42.720
know, if you go up to Google and say, Hey, there's this illegal content there.
00:30:47.940
If Google does nothing and just lets it sit there, then it loses its status as a conduit
00:30:54.320
and becomes more of an author or creator of information.
00:30:58.040
So under Canadian law, I imagine my guess would be that a court would say too bad.
00:31:04.280
Um, you may not be liable to Google the first time someone posts it, but if you're made aware
00:31:13.180
Now this specifically talks about a 24 hour turnaround.
00:31:16.440
And I was thinking, well, let's say on a Saturday night, someone read a mean tweet and
00:31:22.040
sent an email to Twitter, you know, from the bar it's at 11 PM on Saturday night.
00:31:29.620
Well, no one is working in Twitter or maybe they would hire a special midnight weekend censor.
00:31:35.340
Um, so now Sunday morning, some intern reads, sifts through the complaints, checks it out.
00:31:41.060
How could they possibly have a meaningful review?
00:31:44.600
And by the way, 24 hours expires at 11 PM Sunday night.
00:31:55.980
There is no fair trial of anything in 24 hours.
00:32:01.500
So how could, like, surely that's got to violate some, some norms of justice and fair procedure.
00:32:10.580
So let's say we have a good civil libertarian, um, uh, platform, like the one that you envision.
00:32:18.720
Um, yes, such an, as such a, a, a firm could, could, could, as you pointed out, um, look to the USMCA and say, look, we can't do this.
00:32:29.740
Um, if we, you know, so therefore we refuse to do it.
00:32:33.560
And they could take some solace in that provision.
00:32:37.100
Um, and it would seem to me that, um, that, uh, that it would offer protection under that instance.
00:32:46.420
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.
00:32:54.380
Um, and I suppose it will be an interesting test.
00:32:58.520
Um, if you have some, uh, interactive, uh, computer, um, services, um, who, you know, don't take it down, they perhaps could look to this provision as some sort of, uh, help.
00:33:13.860
Um, and we, you know, we will see, um, that will be an interesting, um, that will be an interesting, um, evolution of it.
00:33:22.340
On the other hand, um, you know, the footnotes and, and the, um, uh, to, the footnotes to the article do give the implementing countries significant leeway.
00:33:38.860
So if you look at footnote seven, do you have footnote seven on your, on your version?
00:33:45.000
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.
00:33:58.680
Um, but it does sort of suggest that, you know, the Canadian more restrictive approach, um, could be applied.
00:34:05.780
Let me ask you one more thing, and I, and I hope I'm not, uh, beating a dead horse here.
00:34:12.220
No, I mean, I, I, yesterday I thought I had got a real tiger by the tail.
00:34:17.280
I thought I said, uh-huh, Trudeau is violating the USMCA.
00:34:22.000
Of course he is, because, of course, he's never read it.
00:34:24.720
And thank God for American-style First Amendment that'll protect us by sloshing over into Canada through the USMCA.
00:34:32.240
Hey, aren't we lucky to have an American, a foreign treaty to protect us where our own constitution doesn't?
00:34:37.820
That's what, that's what I thought I had yesterday.
00:34:40.520
Well, you know, Ezra, you're just too optimistic.
00:34:45.140
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.
00:35:02.420
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.
00:35:13.060
But I guess I was thinking, there might be someone in one of the tech companies who says,
00:35:21.280
we don't want to set the precedent where any angry phone call from a cabinet minister on a Saturday night
00:35:29.360
can get us knocking down content within 24 hours with no review or process.
00:35:40.960
So I sort of had this flicker of hope that one of the companies would say no.
00:35:53.320
I thought if a company was resistant, does the USMCA give them strength?
00:36:01.080
So the reason I thought this was a slam dunk is because I naively thought the tech companies would resist it.
00:36:06.300
If there was a hypothetical unicorn of a freedom-loving social media platform,
00:36:11.540
does the USMCA give them any strength to resist this?
00:36:17.860
I think there would be an issue as to whether or not existing Canadian law,
00:36:23.520
which has that sort of notice approach where if a platform is made aware of unlawful content,
00:36:33.640
it sort of becomes liable for that, that would be a tension with article, I guess, paragraph two of article 1917.
00:36:44.520
So that would be a tension, and I suspect that there would have to be some sort of court ruling
00:36:49.260
if there was sort of a noble free expression platform out there.
00:36:55.840
Right now, I mean, it does just sort of provide a fig leaf for, you know, the Googles and the Twitters hateful speech policies.
00:37:07.840
If you can find some Canadian platform who wants to work for freedom, you know,
00:37:16.480
And, you know, if they have any legal trouble, please give them my number.
00:37:19.020
Well, I know we'll be in trouble for sure under this law.
00:37:27.500
I mean, I know a little bit about Canadian censorship law because I've been the target of some of it.
00:37:33.160
There are things we called human rights commissions.
00:37:36.040
For example, a dozen years ago, I published the Danish cartoons of Mohammed.
00:37:42.060
There's a criminal law process where we have hate propaganda against the law.
00:37:47.400
But those have lengthy processes and there's an accusation or a complaint.
00:37:54.700
But it's, you know, we still do have innocent till proven guilty as our rule of thumb here, too.
00:38:01.340
I guess what I wonder is how could that mandate letter from Justin Trudeau to his heritage minister
00:38:07.800
saying if illegal content is brought to a provider's attention, they got 24 hours to take it down.
00:38:13.820
But it's, but we don't know if it's illegal just based on an accusation.
00:38:18.760
We only know it's illegal if it's a crime, if there's a conviction because there's defenses.
00:38:25.180
I guess, I mean, I wonder if this is, I'm just worried that we're through this order to social media companies,
00:38:34.460
we're losing the entire process that determines whether or not something is illegal.
00:38:39.680
Just because a cop or a complainant says something is illegal, it doesn't necessarily mean that's the case.
00:38:48.420
Once again, Ezra, you put your finger on a real problem that we have as our society shifts
00:38:54.640
to these private platforms as their primary mode of, as its primary mode of conversation.
00:38:59.460
Because what government can do is essentially allow private censors to do their dirty work,
00:39:08.000
give them the legal cover, which is what USMCA does, and then walk away.
00:39:17.380
Because now, if you are a typical company, you know, you're risk averse, you don't want litigation,
00:39:23.680
you want to get along with the regulators, what will you do?
00:39:26.680
You will go to paragraph three that gives you immunity for good faith censorship,
00:39:33.640
and just say, oh, I got a complaint, too bad, you're taken off.
00:39:37.760
Furthermore, you know, even if using social media as sort of government cops creates all sorts of weird problems.
00:39:50.080
So, you know, the Germans have been doing this for a long time.
00:39:53.940
And if you're on Twitter, I don't know if this happened to you,
00:39:57.340
but even if someone just issues a complaint against you in Germany,
00:40:01.160
you will get, and you're deemed, you know, good by the German hate speech police,
00:40:08.400
you still get a notice on your Twitter account saying, you know,
00:40:11.980
there has been a complaint about you, but we, the German government, have absolved you.
00:40:17.640
But what that means is that we're creating this world in which, you know,
00:40:21.280
there's instant negative feedback for speech that government doesn't like,
00:40:25.860
you know, facilitated by these private companies who want to keep their legal liability.
00:40:30.640
And that's, I think, a very troubling mechanism in today's media and communication networks.
00:40:39.940
Yeah, I've received those notices from Germany and from Pakistan repeatedly.
00:40:45.540
In fact, I received an order from Twitter that I had to delete,
00:40:51.680
I had to actually delete an old tweet before I could, because Pakistan said so.
00:40:59.760
I didn't know who complained, obviously, their government.
00:41:03.100
I didn't know what the charge was, what the defense was.
00:41:08.520
Here I am in Canada, and Pakistan is censoring me.
00:41:11.620
Let me ask one last question, and I know this is just a version of the last four questions I've asked you,
00:41:16.780
but let's say someone in one of these tech companies makes the decision that it's in their long-term interest
00:41:25.980
to reserve to themselves editorial control, business control,
00:41:32.940
and not simply let the government subcontract censorship to them.
00:41:39.660
If Google or Twitter simply said, we respect you, Prime Minister of Canada, we want to do business in Canada,
00:41:49.240
but we simply will not go along with this 24-hour sham trial, we say no.
00:41:56.960
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.
00:42:05.760
If someone at Google actually had the courage to say, with respect, no, sir,
00:42:12.440
would the USMCA give them any strength to push back?
00:42:18.020
Yes, and I wish I made that clear in the beginning of our conversation because, again, as you pointed out,
00:42:24.660
we're coming from totally different assumptions.
00:42:27.080
But, yes, they could say, look, we can't be liable for third-party content.
00:42:31.300
All we're doing is posting, and we have no editorial control over it.
00:42:38.400
So, in a way, it could, and that's pretty much what companies like Gab, which is the alternative Twitter in the United States, do.
00:42:50.740
They say, look, we have no control whatsoever over what anyone posts.
00:42:54.680
We're not in that business, and they don't have liability under Section 230.
00:42:59.500
It would be interesting if there were such a Canadian company what the legal consequences would be.
00:43:06.140
I think that it would be somewhat of a close call and probably end up in court.
00:43:12.060
But, yes, this would definitely be a leg for such a firm to stand on.
00:43:16.960
You're a professor with a career's worth of experience both in the private sector and in the FCC.
00:43:27.260
I have no experience other than as a punching bag for various censors.
00:43:31.360
But I think you did throw me for a loop with your first answer.
00:43:37.420
So, I want to ask you one more time, and please don't tailor your answer in any way.
00:43:41.280
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.
00:43:49.200
And your first answer, which was so categorical, that was based on the assumption that these tech companies wanted to be censors.
00:44:04.400
I assumed that you were talking about YouTube and Twitter and their various hateful speech policies.
00:44:14.700
And I thought that's what you were talking about, and I was saying, well, look, this does not help you.
00:44:18.620
This entrenches and strengthens those policies.
00:44:22.460
But if there is a free speech-loving platform out there, in America they're protected.
00:44:29.220
If there's a Canadian one, this does give them some hope.
00:44:34.700
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.
00:44:40.660
I mean, and we've been suspended on various platforms for various fake action.
00:44:48.640
So I guess what we've got to do is, like, I think it was Noah, we've got to find one or two good men, if I'm getting my Bible stories right.
00:45:03.780
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 USMCA.
00:45:14.300
Okay, so I'm leaving this interview slightly less depressed than I was at the beginning of it.
00:45:19.340
But 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.
00:45:29.860
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.
00:45:51.720
So, but, you know, that would be a great fight to fight, and I think it's certainly worthwhile.
00:45:57.380
Well, Professor, I can guarantee you that we will be in the center of such a fight.
00:46:02.780
The next interview might be me behind bars making my one prison phone call to you.
00:46:11.140
I thank you for holding my hand and walking me through it so laboriously.
00:46:16.500
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.
00:46:28.540
As Alexander Pope says, you know, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
00:46:32.740
Was it drink deep or drink not from the Purian spring?
00:46:37.220
And what I'm taking away from this is it's a tough battle no matter what.
00:46:43.160
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.
00:46:54.000
Professor, you've been very generous with your time.
00:46:55.720
I hope we can talk to you again as this story unfolds.
00:47:01.940
Well, we've been talking with Professor Adam Kandube.
00:47:04.300
He's the professor of law and director of the Intellectual Property Information and Communications Law Program at Michigan State University.
00:47:24.620
Well, Professor Kandube, obviously a great expert in Internet law, used to work at the FCC.
00:47:29.480
See, I think he misunderstood my question for the first 10 or 15 minutes there.
00:47:35.600
I think he thought I was asking, can the USMCA protect me, Ezra, and the rebel against you two?
00:47:53.780
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,
00:48:05.460
hey, Justin Trudeau, we're not cool with this, we are going to stand up to your censorship, could the USMCA help them?
00:48:21.300
I think Professor was thinking that I thought this would somehow help me.
00:48:28.900
If YouTube or Twitter flicks their tail at us, we're gone.
00:48:32.300
But what I'm hoping is that one of these companies would say, you know what, we like to censor, but it's on our own terms.
00:48:40.160
We're not going to censor because any cabinet minister in Justin Trudeau's parliament tells us to.
00:48:47.660
I hope that was clear by the time the interview was over.
00:48:51.880
Speaking of which, I've got some letters on this subject about Trudeau's plan to censor Internet hate speech.
00:49:02.300
Lou, I'm going to disagree with you only technically in that that censorship was probably done by Twitter.
00:49:19.480
And I don't know what article you're referring to, but I'm going to guess it had something to do with trans.
00:49:23.900
Because if you misgender someone or use the wrong name, if you say Jonathan Yaniv instead of Jessica Yaniv, if you say him instead of her, they will literally lock down your account for that.
00:49:37.320
So I'm sure Justin Trudeau absolutely agrees with that, by the way, but that was probably done by Twitter on their own.
00:49:49.640
Yes, they're doing everything they can do to embed the concept of hate speech into law.
00:49:58.540
One man's hate speech is another man's critique.
00:50:01.880
Yeah, I'm against hate speech rules altogether.
00:50:04.240
And I went through Section 319 yesterday, and I showed that the criminal code has various defenses.
00:50:10.760
If you're speaking the truth, the truth can be hateful, I suppose.
00:50:14.280
If it's a bona fide religious debate, if it's a debate in the public interest.
00:50:21.380
So there's all these defenses built into the criminal code.
00:50:25.340
I don't think we should prosecute people for hate speech.
00:50:30.120
You know, why should we make a feeling a crime?
00:50:32.420
I think we should make crimes a crime, not words or thoughts into crimes.
00:50:37.180
But in any event, there are real legal defenses there.
00:50:47.280
I'm so happy my kids go to a Catholic school in Ontario.
00:50:55.920
Fair enough, and I'm sure the Catholic schools are slightly less crazy.
00:51:02.060
I think a lot of the teachers are pumped out by the exact same OISE.
00:51:06.200
That's the Ontario Institute for Secondary Education.
00:51:11.960
Even private schools get some of that sloshed over.
00:51:14.560
The only truly inoculated place from this insanity is homeschooling.
00:51:20.320
But that's still too alternative for most people.
00:51:26.680
And you're paying government schools through your taxes.
00:51:29.520
Wouldn't it be something if you had sort of a voucher?
00:51:31.680
And you could even spend it on homeschooling or even a governess,
00:51:37.680
I bet you they'd lose a lot of their junk pretty quick.
00:51:42.600
Until tomorrow, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters,