Introduction
Entrenched within the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms lies the fundamental rights that Canadian citizens share. The primary freedoms recognized within Section 2 of the Charter, such as the freedom of speech and expression, are necessary for a free and democratic society. Yet, a crucial conflict of rights exists within the system when the freedom of expression is used to perpetuate willful hatred against a certain individual or group. Controversy arises from this conflict first and foremost because the freedom of expression is meant to secure each person the right to express ideas and opinions without governmental interference, irrespective of what that opinion may be. In this paper, I will discuss the conflicting views of restricting the freedom of expression when it is used to promote hatred. I refer to the insights offered by Joel Feinberg and Joseph Raz to advance the view that the “right” to freedom of expression is not final and absolute, as expressions of hated do in fact cause real harm to people, and there rights too must be taken into consideration. Fundamental rights should be viewed as a privilege, which includes a responsibility to respect and value the rights of others to provide for a truly liberal democracy. I will refer to the landmark judicial decision in the Canadian Supreme Court case of R. v. Keegstra to argue that the rights of individuals and groups to be afforded the right to respect and dignity outweigh any claim to freedom of expression.
R v. Keegstra: s. 2 (b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms versus s. 319 (2) of the Criminal Code
The case, R. v. Keegstra, constructs a framework concerning whether the freedom of expression should be upheld in a democratic society, even wh...
... middle of paper ...
...rationale for limiting the ability to express such hate is made clear. Society owes protection to individual within a nation that undermines an individual’s human dignity. Parliament upheld its democratic duty in charging and convicting James Keegstra for his willful promoted and hatred and clear lack of any more conscience.
Works Cited
Emerson, Thomas I. “ Toward a General Theory of the First Amendment.” Yale Law
School Legal Scholarship Repository 72.5 (1963): 877-956. Web.
Feinberg, J. “ The Nature and Value of Rights.” Journal of Value Inquiry 4(1970): 243
260. Web.
Raz, Joseph. “Rights and Individual Well-Bring.” An International Journal of
Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law 5.2 (1992): 127-142. Web.
“R. v. Keegstra.” Canadian Cases in the Philosophy of Law. 4th Ed. J.E. Bickenback.
Toronto, Ontario: Broadview Press, 2007. 80-88. Print.
McKercher, William R., ed. The U.S. Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights
Dunsmuir, Mollie, comp. Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Fundamental Freedoms. Kristen Douglas, 29 Sept. 1998. Web. 28 Apr. 2014. .
Friedman, L. S. (2010). What Is the State of Civil Liberties in the United States?. Civil liberties (pp. 11-49). Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press.
Freedom of expression can sometimes be abused by saying hateful things, however overall it is positive and beneficial. It allows people to be themselves and have a voice, it promotes thinking and new ideas, it allows for peaceful conflict, it motivates people to make changes, and many other things. As one can see, freedom of expression is one of the main foundations of this country, and is tremendously beneficial to the people in, making Rosenblatt’s argument potent and
This source supplies my paper with more evidence of how freedom of speech is in a dangerous place. American has always stood by freedom of speech, and to see how social media platforms try to manipulate and take off as the choose to increase slight bias is unpleasant. The article establishes a worry to the fellow readers that hold freedom of speech so high and that it is at risk. The article manages to explain why freedom of speech is in danger, and why there should be no limits to free speech.
The.. Steiner, Gilbert. A. A. Constitutional Inequality. Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institution.
Because it is a Constitutional right, the concept of freedom of speech is hardly ever questioned. “On its most basic level [freedom of speech] means you can express an opinion without fear of censorship by the government, even if that opinion is an unpopular one” (Landmark Cases). However, the actions of Americans that are included under “free speech,” are often questioned. Many people support the theory of “free speech,” but may oppose particular practices of free speech that personally offend them. This hypocrisy is illustrated by the case of Neo-Nazis whose right to march in Skokie, Illinois in 1979 was protested by many, but ultimately successfully defended by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The residents of this predominantly Jewish town which contained many Holocaust survivors were offended by the presence of the Neo-Nazis. However, then ACLU Executive Director Aryeh Neier, who...
Schultz, David, and John R. Vile. The Encyclopedia of Civil Liberties in America. 710-712. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale Virtual Reference Library, n.d. Web. 18 Mar. 2010. .
[4] Hickok, Eugene Jr., ed. The Bill of Rights: Original Meaning and Current Understanding. Virginia: University Press of Virginia, 1991
"Declaration of the Rights of Man - 1789." The Avalon Project. Yale Law School, n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2014.
Why is it, that people’s feelings seem to be more important than free speech in today’s society? Is “hate speech” not covered by free speech? this frightening trend present in society – the idea that words cause harm, and should therefore be limited.
Freedom of speech cannot be considered an absolute freedom, and even society and the legal system recognize the boundaries or general situations where the speech should not be protected. Along with rights comes civil responsib...
People tend to take the concept of freedom of speech in another way or to another level. According to Jeremy Waldron, in his famous book “The Harm in Hate Speech” he expresses his opinion about how the ‘harm’ in hate speech isn’t associated with what the speaker wants to say, instead it has everything to
Banks, James. Regulating Hate Speech Online. (2010) International Review of Law, Computers & Technology. 2Vol. 24, No. 3, November 2010, 233−239
Simmons, A. John (1992). The Lockean Theory of Rights. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 127.