For years, I have been writing about Canada’s well intentioned but misguided efforts to legislate against the scourge of spam.
Five and a half years ago, in 2009 I wrote about the potential for the legislation “to inadvertently chill some beneficial forms of electronic commerce communications.”
It isn’t that I like getting spam; or getting junk mail. The problem is that the Act seems to be banning electronic communications that would be completely legitimate in paper form. I’m not crazy about door-to-door sales people either, but we need to be careful about restricting communications in a democratic society. Instead, we can teach ourselves how to slam the door politely. And once in a while, we actually open our wallets and purchase something, due to an unsolicited communication, whether it was in person, on paper or transmitted electronically.
A year later, in 2010 I wrote that I was somewhat surprised with the response to the Act by people who normally stand up for civil liberties.
Typically, we see internet communications as being less restrictive than traditional media. We have so many people that talk about open access to information and actively promote it. I see so many cases of civil libertarians up in arms over attempts to block digital communications – even in cases where hard copies are stopped at the border or seized by police.
So it is somewhat satisfying to read on Barry Sookman’s blog that a new paper by Emir Crowne from University of Windsor’s Faculty of Law and Stephanie Provato says “the Act may not survive constitutional scrutiny as it unduly restricts freedom of speech.”