Criminal Code of Canada - section 320.1(2) - Notice to person who posted the material

section 320.1(2)

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

This section outlines the process for a judge to give notice to a person who posted material to appear before the court and show cause why the material should not be deleted.

SECTION WORDING

320.1(2) Within a reasonable time after receiving the information referred to in paragraph (1)(c), the judge shall cause notice to be given to the person who posted the material, giving that person the opportunity to appear and be represented before the court and show cause why the material should not be deleted. If the person cannot be identified or located or does not reside in Canada, the judge may order the custodian of the computer system to post the text of the notice at the location where the material was previously stored and made available, until the time set for the appearance.

EXPLANATION

Section 320.1(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines the process for notice and an opportunity to be heard for individuals who have posted material on the internet that may be considered hate speech. The section requires that, within a reasonable time after receiving information about the alleged hate speech, a judge must cause notice to be given to the person who posted the material. This notice must provide them with the opportunity to appear before the court and show cause as to why the material should not be deleted. This section of the Criminal Code ensures that individuals who may have unintentionally posted material that is considered hate speech are given a fair opportunity to explain themselves before any action is taken. It also allows for the possibility that the person who posted the material may not be identified or located, in which case the custodian of the computer system is ordered to post the notice at the location where the material was previously stored and made available until the appearance is set. Overall, Section 320.1(2) of the Criminal Code provides an important protection for individuals who may have posted material that could potentially be considered hate speech. It gives them a fair opportunity to represent themselves and present their side of the story before any action is taken to delete the material. In this way, the section upholds the principles of justice and fairness that are fundamental to the Canadian legal system.

COMMENTARY

Section 320.1(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada deals with the issue of online censorship and internet regulation. In essence, it outlines the process by which a judge may order the removal of material posted on the internet that is deemed to be illegal or harmful to society in some way. The section requires that the person who posted the material be notified and given the opportunity to appear before the court and argue against the removal of the material. If that person is not identifiable or cannot be located, the judge may order that the notice be posted on the website where the material was originally located. This section of the Criminal Code is both controversial and important. On the one hand, it is designed to protect the public from harmful and illegal material that can harm individuals, communities and society as a whole. It gives judges the power to make decisions about what is appropriate for public consumption and ensures that harmful and illegal content is not readily available to the general public. On the other hand, however, it can also be seen as an infringement on free speech and potentially a form of government censorship. The controversy surrounding this section of the Criminal Code stems from the fact that it can be difficult to define what constitutes harmful or illegal content on the internet. There is often a fine line between speech that is protected and speech that is deemed harmful to society. As a result, judges must be careful to balance the need to protect the public with the need to respect freedom of expression. One potential concern is that the section could be used as a tool of government censorship, particularly if judges are not careful in their decision-making. If the government can decide what is permissible speech and what is not, it could be argued that they are violating the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is especially concerning in light of recent government moves to regulate online content, which have been criticized by some as excessive and potentially detrimental to free speech. Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge that there is a need for some level of regulation of online content. The internet is a powerful tool for communication, but it can also be a source of harm and misinformation. There are numerous examples of online content that has caused real-world harm, whether through hate speech, incitement to violence, or the spread of false information. In such cases, it is important for judges to have the ability to act quickly and decisively to protect the public. Overall, the section 320.1(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a nuanced and complex issue. It raises important questions about the balance between free speech and government regulation of the internet. While there are certainly concerns about the potential for government censorship, it is also important to acknowledge the need for some level of regulation in order to protect the public from harm. Ultimately, it is up to judges to navigate these issues carefully, and to ensure that they are making decisions that are both fair and in the best interests of society.

STRATEGY

Section 320.1(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada imposes an obligation on the judge to provide notice to the person responsible for posting material that may be deemed illegal, giving them a chance to appear and demonstrate why the material should not be deleted. One strategic consideration when dealing with this section of the Criminal Code is to carefully examine the grounds on which the material is being challenged. The judge will only accept a ground that establishes a plausible reason for allowing the material to remain online. Therefore, a detailed analysis of the legal, factual, and ethical basis of the challenge must be conducted before appearing in court. Another strategic consideration is to thoroughly research the judge's past rulings and opinions on similar cases. It can be possible to anticipate the outcome of a case based on the judge's past decisions. Therefore, researching and understanding the judge's background and tendencies can help to determine whether or not the case can be won. Strategies that can be employed include hiring an experienced lawyer who specializes in internet law to represent the person responsible for posting the disputed material. Such a lawyer will be familiar with the nuances of the law and can provide their client with the best possible defense. The lawyer can also provide the court with credible legal, factual, and ethical arguments in support of the material. Another strategy to be employed is to prepare a strong counterargument that exposes weaknesses in the complainant's case. The counterargument should demonstrate why the complainant's grounds for removing the material are weak and not well-founded. This can potentially weaken the complainant's case and make it easier to persuade the judge to dismiss the challenge. Another strategy is to identify possible allies who may support the person responsible for the material. They could include individuals or organizations who share similar views or have similar interests as the person posting the material. These individuals or organizations could be contacted and provided with information about the case so that they can lobby in favor of the person responsible for posting the material. In conclusion, when dealing with section 320.1(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada, it is important to thoroughly examine the legal, factual, and ethical basis of the challenge and carefully craft a strong defense. Hiring an experienced lawyer, conducting thorough research on the judge's previous rulings, preparing a strong counterargument, and identifying possible allies are some of the strategies that can be employed to successfully challenge a material removal request.