Rebel News Podcast - Aggressive, long-term, international expansion： China is building a third aircraft carrier

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.

00:00:34.800 That's all in today's podcast.

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.

00:01:10.380 Premium.rebelnews.com. Eight bucks a month.

00:01:12.480 Video version helps us keep the boat afloat.

00:01:16.440 Our little tugboat, not a mighty aircraft carrier.

00:01:18.980 Here's today's podcast.

00:01:21.540 Tonight, China's Navy launches its second aircraft carrier and has a third under construction.

00:01:42.560 What do you think they want to do with it?

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.

00:02:13.760 It's been in the works for almost five years.

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.

00:02:23.060 It's now in sea trials.

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.

00:02:40.340 It's already in service.

00:02:42.560 It's combat ready, but it's primarily being used for training and learning how to do aircraft carriers.

00:02:50.600 That's a specialized skill set.

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.

00:03:09.960 It was half finished.

00:03:11.140 Now, China lied to get it. 0.91

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. 0.99

00:03:26.240 Could you imagine anyone other than our stupid media party actually believing that? 0.99

00:03:33.060 Yeah, they want that aircraft carrier for a casino. 1.00

00:03:36.200 Well, of course, it's an aircraft carrier now.

00:03:38.040 Well, hey, at least they bought it, unlike many things that China just outright steals. 0.82

00:03:44.660 You'll notice those fighter jets on the Liaoning.

00:03:48.340 Pretty cool.

00:03:49.620 They're called J-15s. 1.00

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.

00:04:14.660 Hey, fair enough.

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? 1.00

00:04:28.340 Why does China need an aircraft carrier?

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.

00:04:44.020 Its constitution is designed that way.

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.

00:04:58.400 An aircraft carrier is a different thing.

00:05:00.960 It's about projecting your country's force far, far away from home. 0.89

00:05:06.780 Well, it's not a defensive military concept.

00:05:10.380 It's about dominating other places that you just show up to by almost surprise.

00:05:17.140 That's what China wants to do. 0.86

00:05:19.580 It's so expensive.

00:05:21.260 It's so strategic.

00:05:22.280 It's so long-term.

00:05:23.720 Like I say, China first acquired the hull for the Liaoning 20 years ago.

00:05:29.640 It just now commissioned the Shandong.

00:05:32.640 But where do you think it'll be 20 years from now?

00:05:37.780 And for what reason?

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,

00:06:04.060 including Vietnam or the Philippines.

00:06:07.820 Chinese Navy ships regularly harass Vietnamese and Filipino ships,

00:06:12.940 both military ships and even just fishermen.

00:06:16.520 China's flexing their muscles right now. 0.99

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 0.98

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?

00:07:10.880 Even Japan would be challenged by this.

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.

00:07:31.020 Russia has one. India has one.

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.

00:07:39.120 France has one.

00:07:40.740 The U.K. has two, and they're beefing them up.

00:07:43.840 They're getting more modern.

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.

00:07:54.540 There it is.

00:07:55.560 First time ever F-35 taking off from the decks of the HMS Queen Elizabeth.

00:08:02.760 Pretty awesome.

00:08:04.780 Look at that.

00:08:05.820 So the Royal Navy isn't quite willing to concede to the People's Liberation Army Navy.

00:08:12.100 That's the actual name.

00:08:13.740 People's Liberation Army Navy.

00:08:16.820 But I'd still bet on the Brits.

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. 0.91

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.

00:08:45.220 Actually, for more than a century, really.

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. 0.99

00:08:57.720 Here's a story from just a few months ago.

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.

00:09:17.800 And here's the National Post.

00:09:18.960 Canadian warships shadowed by Chinese Navy in South China Sea.

00:09:23.740 It was a bit of a cat-and-mouse game.

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.

00:09:54.400 Those never turned into shooting incidents.

00:09:56.640 They were tests.

00:09:58.380 They were psychological in purpose to show the West that it was constantly being hunted

00:10:02.460 to show what Russia could do.

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. 0.93

00:10:16.580 And they have for years.

00:10:18.380 And now it's getting serious.

00:10:20.840 But we're acting like it's nothing.

00:10:22.340 We're acting like China is an ally.

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.

00:10:35.780 They were so excited.

00:10:36.600 This is what was published.

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.

00:10:58.440 Oh, really?

00:10:58.840 So we're educating China on military things?

00:11:02.160 Is that what's going on?

00:11:03.780 How much spying do you think was done in that four-day exchange?

00:11:09.040 If you think that's bad,

00:11:10.420 Australia actually let China train with them.

00:11:15.940 China engages in Australia's largest maritime drill for the first time.

00:11:20.980 This is from last year.

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?

00:11:34.840 Hang on.

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?

00:11:59.500 Who's the great enemy they're facing off?

00:12:02.020 Is it Fiji?

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?

00:12:13.980 Hey, congratulations, everybody.

00:12:16.140 Happy birthday.

00:12:16.820 It's the 70th anniversary of the People's Liberation Army-Navy.

00:12:21.500 So they had a huge party in Communist China,

00:12:24.840 celebrating their glorious victories and their domination of their own people and domination still to come. 0.84

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.

00:12:41.620 Really, 60 countries?

00:12:42.760 Who was there?

00:12:43.980 And I note this was this year while China was holding two Canadian hostages, which is still...

00:12:48.880 Who was there?

00:12:49.500 Let me read.

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.

00:12:59.380 Hmm.

00:13:00.040 Really?

00:13:00.320 Anyway, we're celebrating their navy.

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.

00:13:10.780 China isn't a military backwater anymore.

00:13:13.200 It's catching up quickly.

00:13:14.500 It spends more than any country in the world on its military other than the U.S. 1.00

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. 1.00

00:13:28.500 If you doubt me, ask Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig. 1.00

00:13:33.240 Well, you can't, you see, because they're still in a Chinese prison. 0.87

00:13:37.680 Stay with us for more.

00:13:51.080 Welcome back.

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.

00:14:24.260 Let me read the critical sentence.

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.

00:15:59.300 To do so is a violation of the treaty.

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.

00:16:33.900 It's really great to be here. Thank you, Ezra.

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?

00:17:00.640 No, unfortunately not.

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.

00:17:50.520 We have to know the situation we're in.

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,

00:18:10.100 we could be fined a lot.

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?

00:18:23.040 How do you square the two, Professor?

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

00:18:43.160 on which this USMCA provision is based.

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.

00:19:10.740 But there is another provision in the USMCA

00:19:16.700 that gives the tech companies immunity for censoring any content that they provide,

00:19:24.660 that they consider objectionable.

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.

00:19:36.020 So your initial intuition was correct.

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

00:19:51.560 that your prime minister has just set forth.

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,

00:20:06.580 impose hate speech regulation.

00:20:08.940 Oh, Google.

00:20:10.100 Oh, YouTube.

00:20:11.480 You have complete legal protection.

00:20:13.900 Okay.

00:20:14.120 Now, which section is that?

00:20:15.960 Because we'll show it to our viewers.

00:20:17.320 That's a subsection in Article 19.

00:20:19.440 Am I right?

00:20:20.500 Yeah.

00:20:21.000 So look at Article 19, Section 17, Interactive Computer Services,

00:20:27.700 and Article 3, and it says,

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,

00:21:12.200 lascivious, sexual, nudity stuff.

00:21:14.380 But this is sort of anything that's objectionable, including hate speech.

00:21:18.660 And so, you know, we're in the United States.

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,

00:21:35.980 but I want to understand a little bit more.

00:21:39.420 What I think you've just read there gives companies the rights

00:21:44.820 to remove what they consider objectionable.

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,

00:21:59.660 this might permit it under the law,

00:22:01.760 but does this let the government sit in the driver's seat

00:22:05.220 of determining what's objectionable?

00:22:07.800 No, it doesn't, but it would protect any efforts

00:22:11.940 to buy the platforms to censor.

00:22:16.140 So, for instance, if YouTube, pursuant to implementing this directive

00:22:21.460 from the Canadian government,

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,

00:22:37.700 I don't know, is a Republican

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

00:22:46.320 and they would suffer no legal repercussions.

00:22:49.320 I think I might be zeroing in on the key point in our conversation,

00:22:56.180 and it's this.

00:22:57.720 If you assume that Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter

00:23:01.520 will happily go along with the censorship,

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,

00:23:21.880 I guess what I was perhaps foolishly thinking

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.

00:23:43.680 So I was perhaps foolishly thinking

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,

00:23:59.360 if Facebook, YouTube, Google, Twitter said,

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,

00:24:11.740 does this USMCA provision protect them

00:24:16.660 from these substantial fines that Trudeau's contemplating?

00:24:20.560 No.

00:24:22.360 Okay, that's a pretty clear answer.

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.

00:24:36.280 How does it not protect them

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

00:24:56.000 if they choose to impose censorship.

00:24:59.360 So it says nothing about the rights or abilities of governments

00:25:04.360 to impose censorship regimes.

00:25:07.560 And then the part that you had read earlier,

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.

00:26:17.940 Does that make sense?

00:26:18.760 Well, I mean, I'm surprised to hear that.

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.

00:26:33.260 I mean, I'm not a, I don't practice law.

00:26:36.100 No, I completely understand it.

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.

00:27:01.280 So read the language again, Mr. Levant.

00:27:04.260 It's quite interesting.

00:27:05.520 Okay.

00:27:06.140 Sure.

00:27:06.600 We've got it up on the screen.

00:27:07.680 Go ahead and, and, and did you want to go through it?

00:27:12.140 Oh, I don't see it.

00:27:13.260 So what am I not seeing?

00:27:15.160 Um, okay.

00:27:18.600 Which paragraph are you referring to?

00:27:21.560 Okay.

00:27:22.200 Uh, um, I'm, um, um, 1917.

00:27:26.000 Yeah.

00:27:26.140 Which paragraph are you at?

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

00:28:17.120 the bad words.

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

00:28:36.480 have, uh, taken this.

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

00:28:44.540 our law and policy.

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

00:29:15.100 their bulletin board.

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

00:29:27.360 really, um, they're just conduits.

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,

00:29:45.740 the hate speech of their users.

00:29:48.740 So we're, we're all on board there, correct?

00:29:51.800 Yeah.

00:29:52.100 However we make sense.

00:29:53.020 Yeah.

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

00:30:13.160 to censor in good faith, it can do that.

00:30:16.360 Okay.

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

00:30:34.380 by tolerating it on its platform.

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

00:31:08.760 of it, then you become liable.

00:31:11.020 Does that make sense?

00:31:11.820 Yeah.

00:31:12.080 No, I suppose.

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.

00:31:48.720 Um, who's the accuser?

00:31:52.020 What are the merits?

00:31:52.900 Is it fair comment?

00:31:54.420 Like it's 24 hours.

00:31:55.980 There is no fair trial of anything in 24 hours.

00:32:00.900 No.

00:32:01.500 So how could, like, surely that's got to violate some, some norms of justice and fair procedure.

00:32:09.100 No, I agree.

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?

00:33:43.800 Yep.

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.

00:33:56.300 Exactly what that means is not clear.

00:33:58.680 Um, but it does sort of suggest that, you know, the Canadian more restrictive approach, um, could be applied.

00:34:05.280 All right.

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.

00:34:10.300 No, I, I hope I'm not being, like, confusing.

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. 0.98

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.

00:34:43.200 I hate to tell you this.

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.

00:34:56.840 And so the USMCA gives them legal cover.

00:35:00.300 And I don't dispute that at all.

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.

00:35:09.740 So the USMCA absolutely protects that.

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.

00:35:36.300 We don't want to be bound by this.

00:35:40.960 So I sort of had this flicker of hope that one of the companies would say no.

00:35:46.700 And then I thought, well, if a company...

00:35:48.560 Like they have with China and... 0.89

00:35:50.860 Well, I thought...

00:35:51.700 Or a long speech.

00:35:53.320 I thought if a company was resistant, does the USMCA give them strength?

00:36:00.020 And that was my whole premise.

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?

00:36:16.300 Yes, I think it does.

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.

00:37:04.560 But, yeah, if you can find someone who...

00:37:07.840 If you can find some Canadian platform who wants to work for freedom, you know,

00:37:13.660 that would be wonderful.

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.

00:37:23.640 Let me put something to you.

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. 0.52

00:37:40.120 I went through a whole process.

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.

00:38:47.620 No.

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.

00:39:12.560 And I think that that is a tremendous danger.

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. 0.97

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. 1.00

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.

00:42:36.380 We don't exercise editorial control.

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.

00:43:24.880 I am in no way trying to change your mind.

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.

00:44:00.140 Am I mistaken?

00:44:02.660 No, that's exactly right.

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. 1.00

00:44:33.220 Okay, thank you.

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.

00:44:46.480 We've survived them all so far.

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.

00:45:29.700 Yeah.

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.

00:46:09.360 I'm sure we'll talk again about this.

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.

00:46:26.900 Yeah.

00:46:27.380 I think just...

00:46:28.540 As Alexander Pope says, you know, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

00:46:31.720 Deep drink or...

00:46:32.740 Was it drink deep or drink not from the Purian spring?

00:46:35.580 So there you go.

00:46:36.340 Well, thank you.

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.

00:46:51.060 And who knows?

00:46:51.760 We may provide the test case for that.

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.

00:46:58.880 My pleasure and best of luck.

00:47:00.700 Thank you very much.

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.

00:47:13.840 Stay with us.

00:47:14.940 More ahead on The Rebel.

00:47:23.600 Hey, welcome back.

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?

00:47:45.260 Of course not.

00:47:46.240 And I wouldn't think so.

00:47:48.460 Why would it?

00:47:49.740 I'm not a party to the USMCA.

00:47:51.560 That's an international trade treaty.

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?

00:48:14.140 And Professor Kandube said, yes, it could.

00:48:16.920 But I'm sorry that I wasn't crystal clear.

00:48:21.300 I think Professor was thinking that I thought this would somehow help me.

00:48:26.240 No, no, no.

00:48:27.140 We're dead.

00:48:28.200 We're dead.

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.

00:48:46.300 That's what I was trying to get at.

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.

00:48:58.560 Here's the first letter here.

00:49:00.340 It's from Lou who writes,

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. 0.53

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.

00:49:45.840 I don't think that was directed by Trudeau.

00:49:48.940 Terry writes,

00:49:49.640 Yes, they're doing everything they can do to embed the concept of hate speech into law.

00:49:56.900 But hate speech according to whom?

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.

00:50:24.260 Now, I don't think it's enough.

00:50:25.340 I don't think we should prosecute people for hate speech.

00:50:28.640 Hate's just a feeling.

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.

00:50:40.800 This, by Trudeau, will not have any of those.

00:50:44.380 On my interview with Barbara K. Doug writes,

00:50:47.280 I'm so happy my kids go to a Catholic school in Ontario.

00:50:50.240 The public system is past broken.

00:50:52.080 I'm not religious either.

00:50:53.420 Just doing what's best for my family.

00:50:55.920 Fair enough, and I'm sure the Catholic schools are slightly less crazy.

00:50:59.540 than the public schools, but not by much.

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.

00:51:08.820 Absolute Marxism.

00:51:10.360 Yeah, I don't think that there's...

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,

00:51:35.380 as they used to be called.

00:51:36.600 Make the schools compete. 0.98

00:51:37.680 I bet you they'd lose a lot of their junk pretty quick.

00:51:41.100 All right, that's our show for today.

00:51:42.600 Until tomorrow, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters,

00:51:45.500 good night and keep fighting for freedom.

Rebel News Podcast - December 18, 2019

Aggressive, long-term, international expansion： China is building a third aircraft carrier

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript