URL: https://www.fire.org/news/blogs/free-speech-dispatch/canada-considering-action-against-false-and-misleading-information
Title: Canada is considering action against ‘false and misleading information.’ But exactly what action is a mystery. | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression
Status: 200
Final URL: https://www.fire.org/news/blogs/free-speech-dispatch/canada-considering-action-against-false-and-misleading-information

Canada is considering action against ‘false and misleading information.’ But exactly what action is a mystery. | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression
Skip to main content
Member Portal
Students
Faculty
Alumni
College Administrators
About Us
Store
Submit a Case
Newsletter
Donate
Home
Store
Donate
Defending Your Rights
What We Do
Individual Rights Advocacy
Reforming College Policies
Legal Support
Legislative Policy Reform
Our Impact
What we defend
Free Speech
Academic Freedom
Religious Liberty
Due Process
Press Freedom
Freedom of Assembly
Freedom of Conscience
Title IX
Have your rights been violated?
If you face retaliation over protected speech, reach out to FIRE to learn more about how we can protect your rights.
Submit a Case
Get Involved
Make a difference
Get FIRE Updates
Take Action
Donate
Attend an Event
Host a FIRE Speaker
Be an Advocate
Join Our Team
Subscribe to FIRE Updates
Stay up to date with FIRE's biggest cases and battles for free expression.
Subscribe
Take Action
Across the nation, free speech rights are under attack. Join us in defending this essential quality of liberty. Make your voice heard and join a campaign.
Protect Free Speech
Research & Learn
Resources
Resource Library
Reports
Issue Pages
Databases
Campus Guides
Toolkits
Books
Supreme Court Cases
College Free Speech Rankings
Presented by FIRE and College Pulse, the 2026 College Free Speech Rankings is the largest survey of campus free expression ever performed.
Explore Rankings
National Speech Index
The National Speech Index tracks free speech sentiments in America. It is a quarterly survey component of America's Political Pulse from the Polarization Research Lab.
Learn More
Colleges
News
Cases
Submit a Case
Newsletter
Home
Newsdesk
Contents
Table of Contents
Share
Share with Email
Share on Bluesky
Share on Twitter
Share on Facebook
Print
Canada is considering action against ‘false and misleading information.’ But exactly what action is a mystery.
by
Sarah McLaughlin
July 10, 2026
View credit
close
Shutterstock
A recent records request
revealed
that a Canadian government department is working up a potential new federal strategy on misinformation. But the section explaining what “legal action” would be taken against misinformation, and either the users posting it or the platforms hosting it, is obscured by a large black bar.
Ottawa outlet
Blacklock’s Reporter
shared
this month that it obtained the 35-page memo "Misinformation and Disinformation Strategy" from Minister of Industry Mélanie Joly’s office.
The memo
recommends
that the
Innovation, Science and Economic Development department
determine when material is “factually incorrect, misleading or out of context.” It also singles out social media platforms as “channels where misinformation related to the department’s mandate is most likely to appear or spread.”
And the memo
advises
a “transition from a reactive stance to one that is focused on prevention and early detection” that “will enable the department to proactively address false and misleading information.”
How does the First Amendment apply to AI regulation in hiring and health care?
Governments are regulating AI used in hiring and health care. But when does regulating decision-making tools become regulating speech?
Read More
But most important is the section titled “legal action.” It also happens to be almost entirely redacted. A paragraph underneath it is covered by a black bar and the only visible portion states: “Ensure any such actions are documented, proportionate, and subject to senior level approval.”
There is certainly a role for governments to appropriately respond to false information. There are a lot of lies and half-truths that can be detrimental to public health and safety — whether about surging viral and bacterial infections or threats from foreign powers — and public officials can serve their constituents well by directing people to accurate information.
But
how
they do so is absolutely vital and the redactions here are troubling. Public officials can use government channels, social media advocacy, traditional media campaigns, and more to counter mistruths and to challenge what they deem false. But that method — more speech — is vastly different from potential legal action against either individual users who post or platforms that host information that the government deems false or even “out of context.”
For one thing, sometimes government officials are themselves incorrect about important matters. You can be elected or appointed as a government official, but you’re still just a human being. And like death and taxes, one of the realities of life is that we are imperfect creatures who get things wrong sometimes. That’s okay. It’s part of the human condition. But much danger lies in granting imperfect people not just the power to determine what is true or false, but to do so with the authority of the state as an enforcer.
And even more importantly: Sometimes politicians determine what is a lie or a fact not based on objective reality, but on what is personally or politically useful for them. Take a stroll through history, recent and ancient, and you’ll encounter many politicians and officials who sought power specifically for the purpose of maintaining it and abusing it. We must be careful against granting them authority to set the legal parameters of truth and falsity, even when we address the real challenges posed by lies and dishonesty.
These are live questions in the United States too, not just Canada or other nations.
Soapbox 2026: Tickets on Sale Now
Soapbox is FIRE’s bold new conference, taking place in Philadelphia to celebrate America’s 250th anniversary with high-impact keynotes, timely panels, and unforgettable entertainment.
Read More
That’s why FIRE has
endorsed
the bipartisan
JAWBONE Act
, introduced last month by Senators Ted Cruz and Ron Wyden. (See FIRE’s
explainer on jawboning here
.) The act would require the federal government to report its communications to social media companies and broadcasters about the speech they host and allow people to sue if the federal government is unconstitutionally leaning on private actors to censor speech the government cannot.
FIRE also
sued
Attorney General Pam Bondi and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem in February over their demands that Apple and Meta take down, respectively, an app that hosted footage of Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity in public and a Facebook group for users to share information about ICE operations in Chicago. (The lawsuit is now against Bondi’s and Noem’s successors, Attorney General Todd Blanche and Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin.) Just because federal officials allege information is dangerous, harmful, or detrimental to government policy does not mean they are exempt from the First Amendment’s limits on public officials’ ability to censor expression.
It isn’t clear whether this Canadian memo on misinformation advises standard jawboning, where government agencies would privately coerce social media platforms to take down speech it flags as misinformation, or, as
some
outlets
have suggested as a possibility, direct targeting of the individuals who post that speech. But both present deep challenges to free expression, and the existing uncertainty about what strategy the government may pursue only adds to that threat.
Free Speech Abroad
Social Media
Recent Articles
Get the latest free speech news and analysis from FIRE.
How does the First Amendment apply to AI regulation in hiring and health care?
July 8, 2026
Governments are regulating AI used in hiring and health care. But when does regulating decision-making tools become regulating speech?
Democracy has a participation problem. AI may help solve it.
July 7, 2026
AI won't fix democracy, but it can help more people participate by organizing public input at a scale traditional town halls never could.
VICTORY: Federal appeals court decisively rejects Florida’s ‘Stop WOKE Act’
July 7, 2026
Ruling rejects Florida’s attempt to enact a “speech ban on all public college and university professors,” protects academic freedom and free inquiry on campus.
Hazelwood is the training-wheels version of free speech. It's past time the Court revisited it.
July 6, 2026
Hazelwood gives school officials broad power to silence student speech. Nearly 40 years later, the Supreme Court should revisit it.
Related Articles
The ‘papers, please’ era of the internet will decimate your privacy
Analysis
UK teen social media ban is anonymity-killer for adults
Blog
Press freedom in Pakistan falls off a cliff
Analysis
You don’t need to live in China to experience China’s censorship
Analysis
French bill would criminalize ‘from the river to the sea’
Analysis
UK government admits the obvious: Free countries shouldn’t police legal speech
Analysis
© 2026
Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression
P.O. Box 40128
Philadelphia, PA 19106
fire@fire.org
215-717-FIRE
Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, FIRE, and the flame logo are registered trademarks of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. All rights reserved.
About Us
Contact Us
Careers
Submit a Case
Privacy Statement
Terms and Conditions
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram
YouTube
TikTok
Donate
Share
Share this selection on Twitter
Share this selection via email