Talk:Freedom of expression in Canada

Freedom of speech is only moderate here

Speaking as a Canadian, freedom of speech is only moderate here. You have "freedom of expression" except where it is thought to potentially offend anyone. The right to not be offended is often thought of as greater than the right of the publisher to freedom of speech. Notice how few works of strong opinion are published or sold here, and how controlled pornography is, for instance. We have "human rights" tribunals to persecute anyone who says anything that can be interpreted as the slightest bit in disagreement with Canada's official multiculturalism policy. Also, as I understand it, any form of portrayal of what we might politely term 'rough sex' is illegal. There are books written on this stuff. (See Ezra Levant's work, for instance.) I am always surprised at how much more freedom of speech there is in the USA and in Britain, for instance, than here. The bent of the law here seems to assume that what we are allowed to express or witness in terms of media is wholly under the control of society, and it must always be for the greater good. This kind of philosophy is really an anti-free one. It fears freedom of speech as something that could subvert the state or disturb the peace. I hope the article can indicate these things. Kozushi (talk) 05:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Ezra Levant is a convicted libeller - His convictions for defamation and libel are not evidence that canada does not have free speech but rather that Ezra Levant illegally spread lies about individuals with the intent to hurt their reputation - which is not protected speech anywhere I know of in the world. 198.48.136.149 (talk) 03:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Extreme bias

Can something be done about the extreme bias of this article? This is nowhere near wikipedia's standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.36.137.7 (talk) 10:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Do people still see the article as biased? In my reading of the article, I see that it could use quite a bit of copy editing to improve its readability, but I didn't feel that the article was biased. If there are cases where the article is biased, please point them out. Be specific both about what the bias is and where it appears. -Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is biased and poorly written. I would honestly suggest it be removed until it receives attention. Almost no understanding of freedom of expression jurisprudence is present. The second line directly contradicts the first: "Unlike many democracies, freedom of speech in Canada is not protected". This is entirely fallacious. While section 1 allows limits on freedom of expression, like every other Charter right, to say it is therefore "unprotected" is absurd. The pornography section does not even discuss R v. Butler, which is the most important case in Canada on pornography and state censorship of obscenity. Much of this reads like a personal treatise about how Canada's freedom of expression guarantee is insufficient, and focuses on the opinions of those who feel that way. Lines such as "It can be argued that censorship and regulations limit the freedom of speech in media and are an uncontrolled and no longer "free" environment." Lines such as these are both violations of WP:NPOV and attribution rules, on top of being grammatically incorrect. If I have some free time, I will rewrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.200.6.10 (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I deleted the weasel word sentences in "reasonable limits" as they talked vaguely about how Canadians allegedly "feel" without any sources. They are clearly opinions of the author. Removed to bring the article up to wikipedia standards 198.48.136.149 (talk) 03:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Ludicrous to cite a 1995 article on the porn industry

For the porn bit they're citing a 1995 article. This is ludicrous, the porn industry is nothing like it was 18 years ago. I'm just saying that is silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.14.168 (talk) 07:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you should judge the appropriateness of a source based solely on its date. You really need to read the source's content and judge if it is still relevant or not. In this particular case, is there anything in this sub-section of the Wikipedia article that is out-of-date? Are there better sources that could / should be cited? -Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

America Alone

Under "Books" this article refers to a 2008 case where a Muslim group in BC sought to ban "America Alone". The human rights tribunal decisions are publicly accessible. I can't even find an entry for the book itself, only for a magazine article based on the book, and the tribunal dismissed the charges: http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/decisions/2008/pdf/oct/378_Elmasry_and_Habib_v_Rogers_Publishing_and_MacQueen_(No_4)_2008_BCHRT_378.pdf

It seems absurd to include this example in a discussion of freedom of speech in Canada when the charges were dismissed. 68.149.169.124 (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't remove the material, but I did edit it a bit so that it is clear when the case occurred and that all three tribunals or commissions dismissed or otherwise upheld the right to free speech, expression, and of the press. I think that is a good thing for the article to cover. One can sometimes learn as much or more about the extent of these freedom's by looking at cases where the decision was to not restrict speech as you can by looking at cases where restrictions were imposed or enforced. -Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Real Freedom Of Speech

In my opinion, here's my thoughts. Freedom Of Speech should not be defined differently in different countries as the right to Speak Freely; or at the level which you can do so, depending on what country you are in. We are in the 21st century here on Earth and Everyone on Earth should Equally have the Freedom to speak whatever it is that is on their mind. It shouldn't matter what country you live in. When (someone)'1' has something that they need to say, I say let them be heard no matter what they have to say. We the people of earth should have the finale judgement of the validity of what they (Had/Have)'1' to say.

Correct me if I'm wrong but without Freedom Of Speech universally across the world, this would violate human rights. I wouldn't even be able to talk about this as I am right now. I think it is very fundamental to keep our perception on this topic, very clear. Without Freedom Of Speech, we are not really a society that will thrive socially or economically. Our science and technology as a species, is based off of growth from being creative and innovative and able to interact with one another is the innate skill of the human race. We use it to build/create newer and better things to solve the worlds issues.

What I'm basically saying is that I feel the the world is being controlled and manipulated to think a certain way. We challenge and deny or avoid a better way of living life on Earth because that is what we were born into. If we just got rid of that mentality that we have to compete with one another to survive, then Freedom Of Speech would help the human species evolve. It may even save the human race in time before it is even needed. science should be guiding us into the future of the human race. Not Politicians that wheel and deal with our planets finite resources and get to control the general populations of countries. Countries and made to divide us and to stop us from being just the human race. I believe extraterrestrials and in more control of this planet than we are as a human species, native to this planet. Feel Free to include any comments or questions or objections to this topic. Again this is just my opinion. Any constructive criticism or positive remarks are welcome and encouraged. :)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.246.242 (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to express your opinions or share original research. 198.48.136.149 (talk) 07:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Freedom of speech in Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131219154807/http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/06/07/jonathan-kay-good-riddance-to-section-13-of-the-canadian-human-rights-act/ to http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/06/07/jonathan-kay-good-riddance-to-section-13-of-the-canadian-human-rights-act/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

General quality of this article

The overall quality of this article strikes me as low, particularly compared to the article on Freedom of Speech in the United States. It would be a worthwhile endeavor for those with expertise in this topic to rewrite the page. I could go through and add a lot of "Original Research" and "Citation Needed" notes, but the topic deserves a fresh start, in my opinion. Just to cite some important omissions, the article should reference:

• the Oakes test of whether a violation of rights is justifiable:

1. There must be a pressing and substantial objective
2. The means must be proportional
   1. The means must be rationally connected to the objective
   2. There must be minimal impairment of rights
   3. There must be proportionality between the infringement and objective;

• R v Butler, which allows bans on depictions of explicit sex with actual or threatened physical violence, and on depictions of explicit sex without violence, but which subjects participants to treatment that is degrading or dehumanizing if the risk of harm [presumably to society] is substantial;
• R. v. Sharpe which upheld the child pornography section of the Criminal Code but made an exception where the written or visual representations were created and possessed by the accused for exclusive personal use;
• Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v Canada which upheld the right of Canada Customs to prevent the importation of material that had already been banned as obscene by the courts, but curtailed the agency's right to preemptively or punitively detain material that had not been so adjudicated;
• Irwin Toy Ltd v Quebec (AG), which allows bans on advertising to children;
• Ford v Quebec, which held that a total ban on the use of languages other than French in commercial signs was not a proportionate restriction on freedom of expression.

Tetsuo (talk) 04:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

"Censorship on media" section is argumentative and lacks any connection to the topic

"Censorship on media

It can be argued that censorship and regulations limit the freedom of expression in media and are an uncontrolled and no longer "free" environment. Censorship is often described as a removal of an individual or group's voice.[10] Censorship is both an incentive and reason to the performance of certain expressions, attitudes, and behaviour, and how a society chooses to organize its system of social control. 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. Mass media of communication is no longer a reflection of ideas in the community but are part of a class structure.[11]:210–221

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 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."[12]:7"'

There is no reference to Canada in the above. It is written in an argumentative tone - this is obvious in the passages that begin: "It can be argued that", "Censorship is often described as", and "It contends".

The "It" in "It contends" is censorship. I was unaware a concept was able to argue for itself. This is someone's argument. They should be identified and placed in the broader context of the debate.

Why is a brief, error-filled (the three-word title includes a typo (or misunderstanding of prepositions)) persuasive essay on the nature of censorship given a section in the Freedom of Speech in Canada article, with no references to Canadian laws or instances of censorship? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apex Editor (talk • contribs) 00:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article was the subject of an educational assignment at University of Toronto supported by Canada Education Program and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

extreme bias

In general extreme bias in the article, in particular the economic benefits analysis, referencing a extreme right libertarian think tank as only reference. This article need a warning message and a rewrite to bring in balance. 72.53.104.28 (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2023 (UTC)