Warrant canaries are largely believed to be unworkable. Ie federal lawyers are going to say "cute, but no, you cannot disclose that we warranted you in this or any other way."
Compelled speech of any kind has been repeatedly ruled unconstitutional. Also many companies have triggered their canaries, including Apple, Silent Circle, and Reddit. If Apple's legal department considers it valid I'm inclined to agree with them absent positive evidence of the contrary.
Many of those seem to be "you cannot do this legally codified activity unless you also fulfill the requirements enumerated therein". Can't sell food in retail setting without labeling it as required in the law that regulates food sales, and so on. That seems separate from compelling a creation of a false statement unrelated to business activity.
Why is the commentary of far-right reactionary, who is not a legal expert, commenting on a canadian law, that has nothing to do with warrants, with a citation pointing out that legal experts disagree with him, at all relevant to this conversation?
This forum requires a basic assumption of good faith for posters, especially when it comes to such a trivial mistake like having the wrong anchor section on a link to a short article. It was probably an artifact of their browser trying to be “helpful” when they were copying the link to the full article. Your aggression is unwarranted.
Perhaps, but until there's a test case we're all just guessing. So far the Supreme Court has been fairly strict in following the compelled speech doctrine.
They can say "don't do anything". They can't say "don't avoid doing something." That's the point if the age of the warrant canary notification--they stopped updating it. This is in effect a dead canary, they're saying they are subject to an order they can't disclose.