Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think the more we discuss this issue, the more complex it appears to all of us. I think we can all agree that we should not allow, or at least encourage, distortion of the message. But when it comes to identifying satire or ridicule, those are pretty subjective terms. I just wonder how we could possibly even agree on where the boundaries are.
But extending it to electoral or partisan purposes, I would question how we could possibly do our jobs well, in terms of contrasting certain political stances of a party with our opposition when it comes to a specific issue. And especially you've identified here in this other note you're not only talking about web, you're talking about journals, minutes of meetings, as well as broadcast. I think you'd virtually eliminate our ability to contrast our position with that of the opposition, or vice versa.
So I'm just wondering how we could possibly live with a statement that's as all-inclusive as the one that's in it. I realize it's a discussion starting point, but I would think it goes to the point of eliminating our ability to contrast our positions with those on the other side.