User:Anasilvaaa/sandbox

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

History of Free Speech in Canadian Media

“I despise what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it” – Voltaire[1]


Freedom of speech is the heart of democracy and the ability to express one’s beliefs are essential to human rights and our character. It is not only found in media but also culture, thought and intellectual inquiry. [2] Freedoms of speech is not only communicated directly through newspapers, radio and television but are presented in novels, poems, films, lyrics etc. .[3]

In practice, the right to freedom of speech can be subjected to limitations such as hate speech, slander, libel etc. Censorship can be described metaphorically as a removal of an individual or group’s voice.[4] The discussion of the existence of free speech to contemporary life is debatable. While some say that free speech is still equally practiced and represented in the media, others argue that is through government regulations and censorship that freedom of expression is no longer “free” in the media.


When we come to consider whether free speech should be restricted, we should take into account four factors [5]:

  1. The content of the expression
  2. The manner of expression
  3. The intentions of the speaker
  4. The circumstances


Defenders of free speech recognize that some limits to freedom are required. Without restrictions, total freedom of speech would allow freedom to slander, freedom to employ in false and highly misleading advertising, freedom to publish inappropriate sexual material etc..[6]

The media holds more responsibility other than telling us the news and to some extent shape our lives.[7] The media has the responsibility to uphold basic guidelines such as honesty, fairness, accuracy, and “must also make an effort to provide socially responsible coverage that fosters the common good in their communities and affirms constitutional freedom”.[8]

Canadian Libel and Defamation Law

“Limits on speech were incorporated in the criminal code in relation to treason, sedition, blasphemous and defamatory libel, disruption of religious worship, hate propaganda, spreading false news, public mischief, obscenity, indecency and other forms.”[9]

Libel involves publication in some permanent form like writing in a book, newspaper, and slander.[10] Defamation is a tort that gives a person the right to recover damages for injury due to publication of words that were intended to lower a person’s character.[11] The law therefore encourages the people in mass media to publish with caution, to avoid any forms of slander and to respect a person’s freedom of expression.

A case in Alberta challenged the violation of freedom of expression and an issue of group libel. James Keegstra, an anti-Semite, taught Holocaust revisionism to schoolchildren in Alberta—in which Keegstra challenged his violation of new freedom of expression.[12] Keegstra was convicted and prosecuted for violation of the laws of group libel which promotes the disadvantage of unequal groups through hate propaganda.[13] Similar to white supremacy, anti-Semitism promotes inequality of Jews based on religion and ethnicity.[14]

Censorship on Media

It can be argued that censorship and regulations limit the freedom of speech in media and are an uncontrolled and no longer “free’ environment. Censorship is often described as a removal of an individual or groups voice.[15] Censorship is both an incentive and reason to the performance of certain expressions, attitudes, and behaviour,[16] and how a society chooses to organize its system of social control.[17] It contends that we have more to fear from the economic groups who have the power to control the media through ownership and advertising than the state itself.[18] Mass media of communication is no longer a reflection of ideas in the community but are part of a class structure.[19]

Censorship redefines the idea of freedom of speech as a public right rather than a private one. Senator Keith Davey took a supporting view, writing in the

Toronto Globe and Mail: “Too many publishers harbor the absurd notion that freedom of the press is something they own…of course the exact opposite is the case. Press freedom is the right of the people.”[20]

FLQ Crisis

After the

Canadian Radio-Television Commission (CRTC) discussed ways of achieving restraint regulations but concluded it would lead to accusations of censorship.[23] The War Measures Act was invoked and CBC news reports in Ottawa received instructions that they were to broadcast only stories that were attributed to an identifiable source, retrain comments from the opposition parties, and to not allow their names to be identified with political statements.[24] It was decided that the Secretary of State should see that private and public sectors of the media were accepting the government decisions.[25] Program Secretary to the Prime Minister, J. Davey, thought the government should concentrate on four areas—one being for the Strategic Operations Centre to continue monitoring the media from week to week.[26]

Associations and Controls

Communications control institutions are governmental agencies that regulate, may change the media, regulations, and new regulatory bodies.[27] In 1982, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau said: “When the media do not discipline themselves, the state steps in”.[28] There are some inter-media control institutions that regulate themselves to avoid being regulated by the government such as: The Canadian Association of Broadcasters, the Ontario Press Council, publishes associations, and advertising groups.[29]

National Media associations, many newspapers, magazines, and major retail chains have supported the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards.[30] The Canadian Radio-Television Telecommunication Commission (CRTC), must approve all scripts for broadcasting advertisements of food, drugs, and cosmetic products over Canadian stations.[31] In Ontario, the Liquor License Board, under the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, publishes a book listing of what can and cannot be published in print and what can be broadcasted in advertising for wine, beer, and cider products.[32] All commercials that are intended for children under 12 years of age must follow the Broadcast Code for Advertising to Children and is managed by the Children’s Committee of the Advertising Standards Council.[33]

Books

What can and cannot be published in books raises questions of free speech and tolerance. In 1962, D.H Lawrence’s Lady Chatterley's Lover faced a court in a decision to be banned.[34] The case challenged the federal government’s obscenity laws under the criminal code.[35] The book frequently made use of the word ‘fuck’ and used detailed descriptions of adultery which insulted many readers.[36] It faced issues with obscenity and the notion that it would corrupt and degrade readers.[37] The rules of censorship by the federal government were not clear on the bans and censorship of literature[38] and in 1962, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the book could continue to published and found Lady Chatterly’s Lover not obscene.[39]

Mark Steyn’s 2006 book about the Muslim Diaspora in the West, America Alone¸ faced a conflict of being banned in Canada for insulting Islam.[40] The hearing arrived because of a complaint from Mohamed Elmasry, head of the Canadian Islamic Congress, stating that the article “discriminates against Muslims on the basis of their religion. It exposes Muslims to hatred and contempt due to their religion”.[41]

Television

By the early 1990s, Canada was the second largest exporter of audiovisual products after the United States. The Canadian State of 1968 added to the obligations of broadcasters that Canadian broadcasting should promote national unity, and that broadcasters must obey the laws respecting libel, obscenity, etc..[42]

Some suggest that Canada is advanced of multiculturalism but some challenge this with issues of ethnic and religious minorities. In 2004, broadcast carriers were to monitor foreign stations at all times and delete any content that may go against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.[43] Restrictions were placed on the broadcasting license for Al-Jazeera, an Arabic-language news network, by the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC).[44]

On January 11, 1982, the Inuit Broadcasting Corporation (IBC) began airing television programs across the Northwest Territories and Northern Quebec.[45] For almost a decade, Inuit communities received mostly English-language programming which raised a concern because many people in the North did not understand English.[46] Therefore, Inuit did not share the same cultural orientation and could not identify freely with their traditions or of southern Canada.[47]

Inuit Tapirisat began a three year Anik B Project name Inukshuk.[48] The Inukshuk Project linked six communities in three Arctic regions by satellite through one-way video and two-way audio.[49] Inukshuk aired teleconferencing, live and pre-taped programs and initiated the concept of an Inuktitut television network.[50] The Inuit Broadcasting Corporation assures more Inuktitut programming on television and Inuit have increasing access to information.[51] Inuit today are familiar with the role of communications on history and the process of contemporary development—cultural stability was strengthened because new electronic media allowed Inuit adaptation of their own institutions and participation was brought to the North.[52]

Free Speech on the Internet

The internet has become the gates of communication whether it is through interacting with each other or providing a wide selection of information to the public. Free speech and the use of the Internet ties with the capability of governments restricting free expression and the use of the Internet.[53] Although the Internet seems an innovative and sure form of media, it can be associated with irresponsible speech and dangers with it.


Richard Posner, an American jurist and legal theorist, identifies four means of publication:[54]

  1. Anonymity: The Internet permits users and creators of communications to remain hidden. This makes it far easier to produce, create and consume false, illegal, and dangerous material such as child pornography or hate speech.
  2. Lack of quality control: Almost anyone can post almost anything on the Internet. On the Internet unsubstantiated assertions are as easily published as well-researched articles.
  3. Huge potential audience: The Internet provides access to millions of potential readers and viewers across the world. This can magnify any harm cause by speech
  4. Antisocial people find their soul mates: People with odd, eccentric, subversive, and dangerous views can find each other very easily on the Internet. Such people become emboldened not only to express their ideas, but also to act upon them, their self-confidence bolstered by membership in a community of believers. This can bring dangers of people such as pedophiles.


The internet has brought concerns about the limits of free speech that copyright law imposes.[55] This can become a restriction on freedom of speech if a person wishes to use work without proper permission. Copyright protects the words and images used to portray the ideas but it does not protect the ideas themselves.[56] When it comes to any restrictions on free speech there needs to be a valid justification for it, but the case of copyright seems to override the idea that it is against free speech—rather a solution to the protection of people’s words and images.[57]

Internet providers have laws against hate messages and if sites violate these terms they become shut down. Bernard Klatt was the owner of a Internet Service Provider (ISP) named Fairview Technology Centre Ltd in Oliver, British Columbia.[58] In 1998, Klatt was identified as a host of multiple websites associated with hate speech, neo-Nazi organizations, the Toronto-based Heritage Front, the World Wide Church of the Creator, and the French Charlemagne Hammerhead Skinheads.[59] Local businesses, schools, students and government agencies had easy access to the racist sites because Fairview Technology was their service provider.[60] The Hate Crimes Unit established by the government in British Columbia examined the complaints against Fairview, and required Fairview to accept full legal liability for the material on the sites; Klatt then sold the Internet service to another company.[61]

Pornography as Free Speech

“Pornography presents a difficult challenge for anyone who believes in freedom of expression. Should pornography be tolerated, in all its manifestations, provided that no one is directly harmed in its making: or are there more important values at stake here than freedom?”[62]


Canadian pro-pornography feminist Wendy McElroy argues for the toleration of pornography.[63] In her book, XXX: A Woman’s Right to Pornography (1995), she believes that women (and men) are free to make up their own minds about their use of pornography and should not be forbidden access to it.[64] If this is true, then pornography should be of some importance since it allows its users to learn about themselves and is part of the principle of free speech.[65] Some believe that the law should protect values and that anything that may corrupt or undermine these values should be banned by the law.[66] However, those in favor of defending free speech believe that any restriction must strongly be based on more than just a reaction of disgust and hatred.[67]

The approach by the Supreme Court on free expression has been that in deciding whether a restriction on freedom of expression is justified, the harms done by the particular form of expression must be weighed against the harm that would be done by the restriction itself.

Catherine MacKinnon, and American feminist and activist, says: “It is conceived in terms of what it says, which is imagined more or less effective or harmful as someone then acts on it, rather than in terms of what it does. Fundamentally, in this view, a form of communication cannot, as such, do anything bad except offend”.[69]
Pornography also raises issues concerning rape, violation of women and child pornography.

Free speech in Fearful Times

Communication has an importance in times of crisis to warn communities of disasters and help follow the impact of it.The terms of Canada’s renewed Official Secrets Act causes fears in Canadian media in which they may not be free to report on abuses in the national security sphere because they could be prosecuted.[70] The Canadian attitude to criminalizing speech associated with terrorism has so far been somewhat careful.[71] Canada amended its 2001 Anti-terrorism Bill to provide that “for a greater certainty, the expression of a political, religious, or ideological thought, belief or opinion”[72] will not constitute a terrorist activity unless the expression satisfies the other definition of terrorist activities.[73] Canada did increase the ability to seize and remove hate propaganda from the Internet and new penalties for damage to religious property in connection to terrorism and hate speech.[74]

Despite the

Front de Liberation du Quebec and even some journalists were jailed.[79]

Notes

  1. ^ 1. "Freedom of Speech and Thought: Endangered?" Candlelight Stories. Candlelight Stories, 4 May 2009. Web. 7 Nov. 2011. <http://www.candlelightstories.com/2009/05/04/freedom-of-speech-and-thought-endangered/>
  2. ^ 3. "Freedom of Expression: Essential Principles." Democracy Web: Comparative Studies in Freedom. Web. 11 Oct. 2011. <http://www.democracyweb.org/expression/principles.php>.
  3. ^ 4. Warburton, Nigel. Free Speech: a Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2009. Print.
  4. ^ 5. Ibid.
  5. ^ 6.. Cohen-Almagor, Raphael. The Scope of Tolerance : Studies on the Costs of Free Expression and Freedom of the Press. London: Routledge, 2006. 244. Print.
  6. ^ 7. Warburton, Nigel. Free Speech: a Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2009. 8. Print.
  7. ^ 8. .Cohen-Almagor, Raphael. The Scope of Tolerance : Studies on the Costs of Free Expression and Freedom of the Press. London: Routledge, 2006. 241. Print.
  8. ^ Ibid.
  9. ^ ["Censorship." Canada's Human Rights History.Web. 9 Oct.2011. <http://www.historyofrights.com/events/censorship.html>.
  10. ^ Flaherty, Gerald A. Defamation Law in Canada. Ottawa, Ont.: Canadian Bar Foundation, 1984. P.91.
  11. ^ Richard, John D., and Stuart M. Robertson. The Charter and the Media. Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Bar Foundation, 1985. P.51.
  12. ^ MacKinnon, Catharine A. Only Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1993. P.99.
  13. ^ Ibid.
  14. ^ Ibid.
  15. ^ Warburton, Nigel. Free Speech: a Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2009.
  16. ^ Singer, Benjamin D. Communications in Canadian Society. Don Mills, Ontario: Addison-Wesley, 1983. P.210.
  17. ^ Ibid. P.220.
  18. ^ Ibid. P.221.
  19. ^ Ibid.
  20. ^ Senator D. Keith Davey, “How Misreading Jolted the Press”, Globe and Mail, September 16, 1981, p.7.
  21. ^ Cohen-Almagor, Raphael. The Scope of Tolerance : Studies on the Costs of Free Expression and Freedom of the Press. London: Routledge, 2006. P.226.
  22. ^ Ibid. P.227.
  23. ^ Minutes of the Cabinet Committee on Security and Intelligence (16 October 1970). P.2 (classified “Secret”).
  24. ^ Cohen-Almagor, Raphael. The Scope of Tolerance : Studies on the Costs of Free Expression and Freedom of the Press. London: Routledge, 2006. P.228.
  25. ^ Ibid. P.230.
  26. ^ Minutes of the Cabinet Committee on Security and Intelligence (6 November 1970). P.11 (classified “Secret”).
  27. ^ Singer, Benjamin D. Communications in Canadian Society. Don Mills, Ontario: Addison-Wesley, 1983. P.91.
  28. ^ Ibid.
  29. ^ Ibid.
  30. ^ Ibid. P.125.
  31. ^ Ibid. P.126.
  32. ^ Ibid. P.128.
  33. ^ Ibid.
  34. ^ "Censorship." Canada's Human Rights History. Web. 9 Oct. 2011. <http://www.historyofrights.com/events/censorship.html>.
  35. ^ Ibid.
  36. ^ Warburton, Nigel. Free Speech: a Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2009. P.73.
  37. ^ "Censorship." Canada's Human Rights History. Web. 9 Oct. 2011. <http://www.historyofrights.com/events/censorship.html>.
  38. ^ Ibid.
  39. ^ Warburton, Nigel. Free Speech: a Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2009.
  40. ^ Macdonald, Neil. "Free Speech, Eh? Why Is Canada Prosecuting Mark Steyn?" CBC.ca - Canadian News. 13 June 2008. Web. 12 Oct. 2011. <http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2008/06/13/f-rfa-macdonald.html>.
  41. ^ Ibid.
  42. ^ Singer, Benjamin D. Communications in Canadian Society. Don Mills, Ontario: Addison-Wesley, 1983. P.95.
  43. ^ Beaty, Bart, Derek Briton, Gloria Filax, and Rebecca Sullivan, eds. How Canadians Communicate III: Contexts of Canadian Popular Culture. Edmonton: AU, 2010. P.17.
  44. ^ Ibid.
  45. ^ Singer, Benjamin D. Communications in Canadian Society. Don Mills, Ontario: Addison-Wesley, 1983. P.237.
  46. ^ Ibid. P.241.
  47. ^ Ibid.
  48. ^ Ibid. P.242.
  49. ^ Ibid.
  50. ^ Ibid. P.243.
  51. ^ Ibid. P.245.
  52. ^ Ibid.
  53. ^ Warburton, Nigel. Free Speech: a Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2009. P.81.
  54. ^ Ibid. P.82.
  55. ^ Warburton, Nigel. Free Speech: a Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2009. P.88.
  56. ^ Ibid. P.90.
  57. ^ Ibid. P.95.
  58. ^ Cohen-Almagor, Raphael. The Scope of Tolerance : Studies on the Costs of Free Expression and Freedom of the Press. London: Routledge, 2006. 244. P.259.
  59. ^ Ibid.
  60. ^ Ibid.
  61. ^ Ibid.
  62. ^ Warburton, Nigel. Free Speech: a Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2009. 8. P.59.
  63. ^ Ibid. P.64.
  64. ^ Ibid.
  65. ^ Ibid.
  66. ^ Ibid.P.70.
  67. ^ Ibid.P.72.
  68. ^ Sumner, L. W. The Hateful and the Obscene: Studies in the Limits of Free Expression. Toronto: University of Toronto, 2004. P.164
  69. ^ MacKinnon, Catharine A. Only Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1993. P.11.
  70. ^ Manson, Allan, and James Turk. Free Speech in Fearful Times: after 9/11 in Canada, the U.S., Australia & Europe. Toronto: Lorimer, 2007. P.157.
  71. ^ Ibid. P.158.
  72. ^ Criminal Code of Canada, s.83.01 (1.1).
  73. ^ Manson, Allan, and James Turk. Free Speech in Fearful Times: after 9/11 in Canada, the U.S., Australia & Europe. Toronto: Lorimer, 2007. P.158.
  74. ^ Ibid. P.159.
  75. ^ "BACKGROUND ‘War and the media Cabinet can invoke full-scale censorship." Globe & Mail [Toronto, Canada] 17 Jan. 1991: A4. Canadian Periodicals Index Quarterly. Web. 23 Oct. 2011. <http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?action=interpret&id=GALE%7CA164293562&v=2.1&u=ko_k12hs_d62&it=r&p=GPS&sw=w&authCount=1>.
  76. ^ Ibid.
  77. ^ Ibid.
  78. ^ Ibid.
  79. ^ Ibid.

References

  1. "BACKGROUND ‘War and the media Cabinet can invoke full-scale censorship." Globe & Mail [Toronto, Canada] 17 Jan. 1991: A4. Canadian Periodicals Index Quarterly. Web. 23 Oct. 2011. <http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?action=interpret&id=GALE%7CA164293562&v=2.1&u=ko_k12hs_d62&it=r&p=GPS&sw=w&authCount=1>.
  2. Beaty, Bart, Derek Briton, Gloria Filax, and Rebecca Sullivan, eds. How Canadians Communicate III: Contexts of Canadian Popular Culture. Edmonton: AU, 2010. Print.
  3. "Censorship." Canada's Human Rights History. Web. 9 Oct. 2011. <http://www.historyofrights.com/events/censorship.html>.
  4. Cohen-Almagor, Raphael. The Scope of Tolerance : Studies on the Costs of Free Expression and Freedom of the Press. London: Routledge, 2006. 241. Print.
  5. Criminal Code of Canada, s.83.01 (1.1).
  6. Flaherty, Gerald A. Defamation Law in Canada. Ottawa, Ont.: Canadian Bar Foundation, 1984.
  7. "Freedom of Expression: Essential Principles." Democracy Web: Comparative Studies in Freedom. Web. 11 Oct. 2011. <http://www.democracyweb.org/expression/principles.php>.
  8. "Freedom of Speech and Thought: Endangered?" Candlelight Stories. Candlelight Stories, 4 May 2009. Web. 7 Nov. 2011. <http://www.candlelightstories.com/2009/05/04/freedom-of-speech-and-thought-endangered/>.
  9. Macdonald, Neil. "Free Speech, Eh? Why Is Canada Prosecuting Mark Steyn?" CBC.ca - Canadian News. 13 June 2008. Web. 12 Oct. 2011. <http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2008/06/13/f-rfa-macdonald.html>.
  10. MacKinnon, Catharine A. Only Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1993.
  11. Manson, Allan, and James Turk. Free Speech in Fearful Times: after 9/11 in Canada, the U.S., Australia & Europe. Toronto: Lorimer, 2007. Print.
  12. Minutes of the Cabinet Committee on Security and Intelligence (16 October 1970). P.2 (classified “Secret”).
  13. Minutes of the Cabinet Committee on Security and Intelligence (6 November 1970). P.11 (classified “Secret”).
  14. Richard, John D., and Stuart M. Robertson. The Charter and the Media. Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Bar Foundation, 1985.
  15. Singer, Benjamin D. Communications in Canadian Society. Don Mills, Ontario: Addison-Wesley, 1983.
  16. Sumner, L. W. The Hateful and the Obscene: Studies in the Limits of Free Expression. Toronto: University of Toronto, 2004.
  17. Warburton, Nigel. Free Speech: a Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2009. Print.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Anasilvaaa/sandbox&oldid=463039770"