Freedom of thought, belief, and opinion are Charter rights that deserve full legal protection

We live in a world of influence, whether by elected officials, advertisers, or friends and family. But something different is going on with technology-facilitated manipulation of our minds. Consider the immersive influence of virtual reality, the dark patterns of website design nudging consumer behaviour, the psychological influence of memes and videos, or the impact of recommender systems on youth mental health. These examples scratch the surface of the various ways technology is being used to hack our minds, and they are slipping through the cracks of the law. Emily Laidlaw is a Centre for International Governance Innovation senior fellow, a Canada Research Chair in Cybersecurity Law, and an associate professor with the Faculty of Law at the University of Calgary. Handout photograph Canada already has laws that apply to some parts of this problem. Competition law regulates deceptive marketing. Privacy law addresses commercial use of personal data. But these laws skirt the edges of the problem. The core mischief is interference with our freedom to think which is a Charter right. The hurdle is that it requires legal gymnastics for the right to have any practical effect. Government action is needed to ensure that the legal right to protection of our inner minds is meaningful. Section 2(b) of the Charter protects freedom of thought, belief, and opinion. They are the lesser-known cousins of freedom of expression. Rather than protecting what we express, these freedoms protect the internal space in our minds from invasion and manipulation so that we can develop ideas and opinions free from interference. Similar rights exist under international human rights law, and the Canadian government is advised to turn attention to those debates. Recent works by Susie Alegre and Evelyn Aswad have sounded the alarm about the risks posed by technology to freedom of thought and opinion. In Canada, freedom of thought, belief, and opinion have rarely been litigated or discussed, and not at all in the context of technology. They are, as Dwight G. Newman describes them, “forgotten freedoms.” Even if the substance of the relevant Charter rights is fleshed out, it will not solve the problem at hand. The present threat to our rights does not primarily come from government, but rather from corporate actors. Therein lies the rub. Private parties do not owe each other constitutional duties. TikTok, for example, does not have a legal duty to users to protect their freedom of thought, belief, and opinion, even if its algorithm implicates these rights by recommending videos on self-harm, eating disorders, and violent extremism. This is because the Charter only directly applies to governmental action. The Charter is still relevant to private actors. Charter values shape the development of various laws that apply to private actors, but it’s not a free-for-all. The circumstances where Charter values can be considered by a court are relatively narrow, making these rights of little practical use—at least directly—for the types of threats discussed here. As a result, in order to protect our freedom of thought and opinion from corporate invasions, government action is required. But is the government legally required to act? Generally, these types of rights are treated as negative liberties. As long as the government stays out of the way, it is presumed that our freedoms are protected. It is not a hard-and-fast rule, and there are many circumstances where a government must positively act. However, there is no legal duty to pass legislation that does not exist. As the Supreme Court of Canada stated, “one must always guard against reviewing legislative silence.” This means that while the government should enact legislation to regulate the impact of technology-facilitated mind manipulation, it is not legally required to do so. We are thus at the mercy of government to choose to do something. The approach under Canadian law likely does not comply with our obligations under international human rights law. Canada acceded to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in 1976. As part of that process, our country is required to make the necessary changes to domestic law to ensure that it is compliant with the ICCPR. The ICCPR requires that states take positive steps to protect rights even between private parties. In fact, states debated whether the right to freedom of expression and opinion should be limited to governmental action, and the language was intentionally left broad to require that governments protect individuals from corporate interferences with rights. As a result, freedom to think and opine is a corporate responsibility even if Canadian domestic law does not frame it as such. The government should act to ensure that the right is protected as envisioned under international human rights. Where do we go from here? Government action is needed to breathe life into the rights of thought, belief, and opinion to ensure that our minds are protected from the unchecked influence of technology, and to make these rights meaningful as between private parties. The Government of Canada is in the midst of significant law reform to address the impact of emerging technologies across the gamut of online safety, privacy, artificial intelligence, and competition law. At this time, these efforts fall short of protecting the relevant Charter rights from corporate interferences, even when considered collectively. As a first step, the government should examine the organizational and technological activities that drive manipulation of our minds and implicate freedom of thought and opinion. Then it should undertake a review of current and proposed laws to identify gaps in protection to effect any necessary changes. Freedom of thought, belief, and opinion are Charter rights, but they have largely gone unnoticed. They deserve fulsome protection, even from corporate actors. Emily Laidlaw is a Centre for International Governance Innovation senior fellow and contributor to CIGI’s freedom of thought research project, Legitimate Influence or Unlawful Manipulation? She is also Canada Research Chair in Cybersecurity Law, and an associate professor with the Faculty of Law at the University of Calgary. The Hill Times

Freedom of thought, belief, and opinion are Charter rights that deserve full legal protection

Freedom of thought, belief, and opinion are Charter rights that deserve fulsome protection, even from corporate actors.

Canada’s aging crisis and a call for reform in eldercare

South Korea to the rescue in Ukraine?

Appeasing Donald Trump with defence dollars

A reluctance for post-pandemic learning

It’s not promises that build the economy—it’s construction

Progress towards partnership: Canada taking strides on African engagement

Bill 21 should be quickly repealed

We’re at the wrong end of a data vacuum: let’s fix it!

We need stronger online protections for children in the digital age

AI IQ: safeguarding elections requires more oversight to thwart voter manipulation, say expert, Senator

Canadians’ privacy could take a serious hit this coming legislative session

News

Get free news updates

Opinion

Submit a guest opinion article

resources

Advertise

subscribe

get help

Get free news updates

Submit a guest opinion article

Freedom of thought, belief, and opinion are Charter rights that deserve full legal protection

Freedom of thought, belief, and opinion are Charter rights that deserve fulsome protection, even from corporate actors.

Get The Weekend Point of View Newsletter