Freedom Of Expression Under Charter Framework

Canada has always had strict rules when regarding freedom of speech. Some believe that for democracy to function properly, freedom of speech is necessary. Although absolute freedom of speech allows for all voices to be heard. The voices of many can be heard, but there are many more that are left to not be heard. Wealth and power play a huge role in determining who gets heard. Although media outlets are supposed to be reliable sources of information, the media has become less and less reputable because of the now large number of sources derived from radio, television and the internet. These sources are hard to monitor and can generate false information and biased opinions. The line between verified and non-verified sources have become greyer

Snyder v. Phelps case is about the protest of Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) supporters at the funeral of Albert Snyder’s son protested against the acceptance of homosexuality by the US (Facts and Case Summary - Snyder v. Phelps). They showed different anti-gay signs targeting many people. Albert Snyder then sued the demonstrators by saying that these signs caused him anxiety, sorrow and pain. The Court didn’t protect Albert Snyder because they say that the demonstrators were protesting against society as a whole and not against his son. They also add that the signs shown on protest were protected under the First Amendment and told Snyder that if he continues this case he will have to pay a large amount of money to the church. In this case the main problem is whether the protesters have the right to protest at funerals of soldiers against homosexuality. In this policy memo, based on the concepts of equity, freedom of speech and liberty three main alternative solutions will be considered to this problem.

The Whatcott’s case against Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) is a one of the most recent case that emphasized on the issue of “hate speech” and “fundamental freedoms” listed in section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In Whatcott’s case, four complaints were filed with the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission about the four flyers published and distributed by William Whatcott. In the four flyers, William Whatcott expressed and emphasized strongly on religious convictions against homosexuals. He consistently campaigned against homosexuality, Islam and abortion in Saskatchewan and unfortunately, Whatcott included phrases such as “Keep Homosexuality out of Saskatoon’s Public Schools!” and “Sodomites in our Public Schools”(Criminal case) which can be seen as the hate speech in the flyers.

Phelps (2011) in regards to what kind of speech should be protected under the 1st Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. While it is understandable that people are entitled to the freedom of speech, even with a buffer zone enabled, but I found compelling is in the content and impact the case permitted in the aftermath. Freedom of speech? Or fighting words? The United States has reviewed similar cases such as Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell (1988); the exception is the issue of the picket signs held by members of the Westboro Baptist Church, while protesting the funeral of a fallen soldier as a matter of public concern regarding whether or not to cause emotional distress to a grieving family as a matter of a debate, but an 8-1 ruling ensured that even hateful speech was protected. I find it hard to believe that there was little to nothing SCOTUS would list as a constituting a compromise for both sides and how the majority claimed that Snyder’s right to privacy was not infringed upon—with only Justice Antonin Scalia dissenting, claiming that “in order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims.” As such, the Supreme Court’s ruling on this case led to a vulnerability in similar civil liberties: what

The right to freedom of speech as one of the fundamental human rights is enshrined in The Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is consisted of the freedom to speak, think and express oneself without censorship. Freedom of speech constitutes the essential foundations of a democratic society and the basic conditions for its progress and for the development. One of most important functions of the right to freedom of speech is that decision-making at all levels is preceded by discussion and consideration of a representative range of views. It enables the public to participate in making decisions based on the free flow of information and ideas. A decision made after adequate consultation is likely to be a better one which less imperfectly reflects

Many people believe The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, founded by Pierre Elliott Trudeau benefited and became the base for Canada’s foundation. Ironically, it is assumed that the Charter created individual rights and freedoms. However, I will argue that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms negatively impacted Canada, and that these affects are still being delt by Canadians. For these reasons, I will also examine the Charter did more harm to Canadians than good. The Charter Rights and Freedoms affected the operation of trials along with judiciary powers, multiculturalism and criminal law rights, which undermined Canadas intended democracy and assisted in generating a centralized government.

The first amendment gives U.S. individuals five fundamental rights (also known as the freedom of expression):

Limits on our rights limit freedom. Colin Kaepernick, a former 49ers quarterback, took a knee during the presentation of the protested during the U.S. national anthem as a way of social protest. Kaepernick and others following his suit have silently protested racial inequality and police brutality. Protesting the national anthem is an appropriate form of free speech. Due to exercising the First Amendment, nonviolent protesting, and by being national, influential football players, refusing to stand for the national anthem is ethical.

Freedom of expression is one of the fundamental components of the Charter of Rights and Freedom (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, 1982). However, with the introduction of Bill C-51, these rights may be compromised. The expanded monitoring capabilities given to the CSIS now allows for the monitoring, censoring, and ultimately criminalizing any offence involving the “terrorist offences in general”(Forceses, 2015). This type of censorship can have detrimental effect to certain aspect of our society. An individual may have certain opinions about to terrorism, and sharing these opinions may be considered as criminal activity according to Bill C-51. To illustrate, academic freedom and free speech is an essential part of every university and

Furthermore, women gained more by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and with the help of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms was established in 1982 and it forbids discrimination based on gender. It states that all rights and freedoms apply to persons, regardless of gender. As a result, women start being considered equal to men, and the wage gap gets smaller.

Civil Liberty, a freedom guaranteed to all American Citizens, but not really. It’s obvious, really! Just look harder into society and one will see the clear truth Civil Liberty is the freedom that any and all U.S citizens can exercise customary rights. Customary rights are the ones stated in the bill of rights, things such as freedom of speech. If one were to look closer or just watch the news they would understand how this is false ant the real definition of civil liberty is that one may exercise their rights if someone of higher authority feels as though its okay for them to do so.

  No matter how fervently someone believes in the justice of his cause, suppression of the free exchange of ideas is failure at best or downright wrong. The power or might behind an idea does not make the idea right. Many powerful people throughout history have been wrong. Few people, if any, would judge "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" to be subversive or wrong. In 1939 Ambassador Kennedy was so caught up in the fears of the times that he was willing to use the power of his money to protect the world against a film. When people are caught up in the movements of their time, all people must be extra zealous to guard and encourage freedom of expression. Otherwise, a mob mentality reigns, and people

Privacy and freedom of expression are both vital in the preservation of society. In stating this one must be acutely aware of the medias role in directly advocating for freedom of expression over an individual’s right to privacy. In AG v Guardian Newspapers, Lord Geoff states that ‘freedom of expression has existed in this country perhaps as long, if not longer, than it has existed in any other country in the world’ . Nevertheless these rights must be balanced and applied in a manner which is just.

An essential role of a journalist is to act as a ‘public watchdog’ and the media enjoys freedoms and protection in pursuit of this objective. Court reporting is fundamental to the principle of open justice that ‘not only must justice be done; it must also be seen to be done.’ This common aim of media and the courts is met with some restrictions, of which contempt of court is most serious. For journalists, contempt can generally arise where an article prejudices a person’s right to a fair trial. It is mostly covered by the Contempt of Court Act 1981, hereafter referred to as ‘The Act’, which was brought in to force in an attempt to strike a fair balance between the Article 6 right to a fair trial and Article 10 freedom of expression contained within the European Convention of Human Rights. It encourages responsible reporting while discouraging outside interference with justice. Scottish courts are viewed as comparatively harsh on contempt, but it is important for them to remain realistic. It is rare that a trial will be deserted on the basis of contempt of court, as courts are disinclined to allow appalling crimes to go unpunished due to inevitable publicity regarding them. In Cox & Griffiths, Petitioners Lord Prosser stated that ‘juries are healthy bodies. They do not need a germ-free atmosphere’.

Freedom of expression, and open access to media, are as fundamental to the survival of Progress as the sun and rain are to the survival of planet Earth. Yet censorship remains a traditional response of any group that finds itself offended at another's message or creative indulgence.