June 16, 2026, OTTAWA – A civil liberties coalition is raising concerns that the government’s new Safe Social Media Act, Bill C-34, will serve as a backdoor to broaden the definition of terrorism, introduce a new definition of violent extremism, and extend what counts as a terrorism offence. The inclusion of these new definitions in the Safe Social Media Act – and a lack of adequate safeguards – will result in the censorship and possible removal of otherwise lawful content, including political and human rights advocacy, journalism, education and art.

“We recognize the importance of an overall framework to protect online safety and, in particular, to hold corporations accountable for harms they allow on their online platforms. However, Bill C-34 cannot be allowed to serve as a trojan horse to expand already controversial definitions of what constitutes acts of terrorism, create new definitions for acts of violent extremism, or harmful acts associated with them,” said Tim McSorley.

Previously, the federal government had promised that the online harms in any such legislation would adhere to what is already in the Criminal Code. However, a new definition of “acts of terrorism and violent extremism” expands the scope beyond the definition of acts of terrorism in s. 83.01 (1) of the Criminal Code, and creates a new category of violent extremism. This includes adding “undermining, weakening or destroying fundamental institutions or political, economic or social stability,” an incredibly broad definition that is undefined in either the Safe Social Media Act or the Criminal Code. Moreover, the existing definition of acts of terrorism state that any such actions are an offence if they intentionally cause death or serious bodily harm, endanger an individual’s life or cause a serious risk to the health or safety of the public, among other things. The new definition in Bill C-34 significantly expands the wording to include acts that “could cause” those outcomes.

Language in what will constitute “terrorist and violent extremist (TVE) content” also goes further than what is currently prohibited in the Criminal Code. While both C-34 and the Criminal Code will prohibit content that instructs, recruits or counsels individuals to participate in a terrorism or violent extremism, or the threatening to carry out such acts, the new legislation would also define harmful content as anything that “encourages” or “promotes” such activity. “Terrorist propaganda”, which would be the most direct – and appropriate – parallel in the Criminal Code to “terrorist content” is itself defined as “any writing, sign, visible representation or audio recording that counsels the commission of a terrorism offence.”

These new definitions create in Canadian law new expectations as to what constitutes both acts of terrorism and acts of violent extremism. Moreover, they will serve as the basis for what social media and AI chatbot services are expected to block people in Canada from being exposed to, under threat of serious fines and penalties. Combined, they create a potent recipe for limits of freedom of expression – and access to information – online.

These concerns are exacerbated by limited and confusing exceptions to what constitutes terrorism or violent extremism. For example, Bill C-34 states that TVE content excludes content “whose communication has a legitimate purpose, including a legitimate purpose related to the administration of justice or to journalism, education or art.” Instead of simply excluding the administration of justice, journalism, education or art, this definition will be predicated on the determination of a “legitimate purpose” – raising the question of who will make such a determination? The definition also fails to include anything related to advocacy, protest or dissent, all of which are excluded from the Criminal Code definition of terrorism.

Bill C-34 also states that terrorism or violent extremism does not include “activities undertaken by military forces of a state in the exercise of their official duties.” This narrows, in very problematic ways, a similar provision in the Criminal Code which states that the definition of terrorism does not include either official military duties (however only “to the extent that those activities are governed by other rules of international law”) or acts “committed during an armed conflict and that, at the time and in the place of [their] commission, [are] in accordance with customary international law or conventional international law applicable to the conflict.” The removal of references to international law is unacceptable and must be reversed.

Creating new definitions of terrorism or violent extremism – and expecting social media platforms to adequately interpret and enforce them – is problematic and should be avoided. Luckily, Bill C-34 already presents a clear solution, just as the previous Bill C-63 did: focusing instead on the removal of content that incites violence. Doing so takes away the discretionary and political nature of determining the motivation behind an act of violence, reducing the likelihood of undue censorship and making clearer to both the public and online platforms what content is prohibited.

“While the definition of “incitement to violence” also raises some concerns, it is a much better starting place to work from to prevent content that can lead to some of the most serious forms or harm,” said McSorley. “We look forward to working with the government and MPs from all parties to ensure that social media and AI chatbots are held accountable for their practices that can cause significant harms, all while ensuring people in Canada can share – and access – important content related to world events, political and human rights advocacy, academic debates and more, without undue fear of censorship.”

-30-

More information:
Tim McSorley
National Coordinator, ICLMG
(613) 241-5298