9 ms·

Canadian here. Would you be so kind as to elaborate on your sweeping allegation regarding free expression? As it is, this just seems like some random stab that

Canadian here. Would you be so kind as to elaborate on your sweeping allegation regarding free expression? As it is, this just seems like some random stab that doesn't concern the topic at hand (which has far more immediate concerns tied to it). Section 1 of the Constitution of Canada (1982) outlines freedom of speech. Just about the only thing you can't do, outside of pursuing damages in the court system for specific cases, is stand on the street screaming "Let's kill all white/black/asian/aboriginal people right now". For that, you might land yourself in some trouble.

syshum 9y ago
Huffington post Story http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/tom-kott/freedom-of-speech-canada_b_2324999.html http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/tom-kott/freedom-of-speech-cana... None of these would be Constitutional in the US https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada Duke Paper on comparing Free Speech in the US vs Canada http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4120&context=lcp http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=... i can find more examples later if you want.
- sunir 9y ago
  That does not support your claim Canada has no concept of freedom of speech in the Constitution.
  - syshum 9y ago
    My claim was that Canada as no concept like the 1st amendment... Canada does not offer the same level of protection in their constitution as the US Constitution does Canada's "Free Speech" code is much weaker, to the point that is not a Free Speech Code.. Of course I am a free speech absolutist so...
    - flamedoge 9y ago
      ... Charter, and my understanding is that freedom of expression in Canada is subject to not infringing other rights and freedoms.
    - DKnoll 9y ago
      I think you'll find if you look closely that Canada is an entirely different country than the US and the United States government cannot define free speech globally. There are many human rights provisions in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that the United States does not have, which include limitations on free speech when it is intended to or has a high likelihood to infringe on the rights of others. I should add that civil courts in the US will award damages for libel to victims, regardless of the 1st amendment. You can also be charged criminally for direct threats of physical harm. Your speech is not free in an absolute sense anywhere; your speech is free as defined by law in your jurisdiction. Before you talk further on a topic you don't understand I'd suggest actually reading our constitution and not repeating what has been told to you by other Americans on the Internet.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > I should add that civil courts in the US will award damages for libel to victims, regardless of the 1st amendment. Since the threshold for libel in the US is higher than at common law specifically because of First Amendment restrictions, “despite the existence of” would be more accurate than “regardless of”. (This is a minor correction; your broader point is valid.)
        DKnoll 9y ago
        Thanks, 'despite the existence of' fits better with the point I was trying to make. The 1st amendment would definitely be regarded in a libel lawsuit.
      - syshum 9y ago
        So much wrong here where to start.... >>>I think you'll find if you look closely that Canada is an entirely different country than the US and the United States government cannot define free speech globally. Pretty sure I clearly stated this fact in my comments, further at no point did I say the US could define free speech globally, in fact in this discussion it is Canada not the US attempting the define speech globally. I was asking if Canada feels it can define Free Speech in the US, and how that would be a violation of our constitution because we have higher protections for free speech than Canada. So clearly I understand Canada is a different nation. >>>There are many human rights provisions in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that the United States does not have, which include limitations on free speech when it is intended to or has a high likelihood to infringe on the rights of others. This is actually false. If you believe that you completely misunderstand the history and purpose of the the US Constitution, and how that differs from the Charter of Rights in Canada. The US Constitution is not a complete enumeration of rights, in fact if you read the Federalist Papers you will see a concern that the Bill of rights would lead to some people misunderstanding the purpose of the Bill of Rights, leading them to believe it was complete enumeration of rights when that was never the intention of the Founders. The US Constitution is a document that grants government power, any power not expressly granted to the government in the Constitution is a power forbidden to the federal government and is reserved for the States and the People. In contrast the Canada system of government where the government starts from a position of total power and the Charter of Rights removes some power from the government, this is a critical difference in how our governments are structured. The Charter of Rights in Canada is the total enumeration of rights for Canadian Citizens. This is the opposite approach of the US Constitution. >>>I should add that civil courts in the US will award damages for libel to victims, regardless of the 1st amendment. You can also be charged criminally for direct threats of physical harm. US History it riddled with bad court rulings, some of these are what you are referring to. Yes at some points in history the Supreme Court has been derelict in their support of Free Speech as required by the Constitution. True-threat jurisprudence remains a muddled mess. That however does not invalidate my statements, far from it. In recent years the Supreme Court has been rolling back many of these Terrible Terrible rulings of the past, restoring Free Speech to its proper constitutional level. On the topic of civil liability, I do not find awarding damages for libel to be a form of censorship, Rights come with responsibility, so you are free to libel or slander or defame, but if you cause that person actual articulable damages then you will be responsible for those damages, that is not censorship. It should be pointed out that generally speaking in order for this happen in the US you have to be making false statements of fact that you knew to be false at the time you made them... Making true factual statements is a absolute defense, a protection not found in some other nations, however I am not sure if Canada has such a defense. >>>Before you talk further on a topic you don't understand I'd suggest actually reading our constitution and not repeating what has been told to you by other Americans on the Internet. I understand the topic of US Constitution very well, I will admit to be less knowledgeable on Canadian law, however I have seen enough news stories, and actual cases to reach the conclusion that the US has better protections for Free Speech than Canada Does. Your prohibition on "hate Speech" which seems to be expanding to even include calling someone the incorrect pronoun, or the fining of Comedians, and the arresting of Americans for “smuggling hate speech” on their iPad the is pretty much proof positive that Canada has lower free speech protections than the US.
protomyth 9y ago
How do you square the Constitution of Canada with the Human Rights Commission that fines comedians and authors? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Human_Rights_Commission_free_speech_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Human_Rights_Commissi...
- 2preserve 9y ago
  It's actually a great example of how freedom of speech is not a binary. It's possible to curtail some forms of expression, such as hate-speech, without turning the country into an autocratic regime that punishes thought crimes. Lots of Americans like to think that as soon as you moderately curtail freedom of expression, you've crossed some threshold and you're now North Korea. Turns out that with a strong judiciary (that isn't corrupted by money and politics) it's possible to have reasonable constraints on expression!
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - syshum 9y ago
    Except Free Speech is a Binary, and that is exactly what Canada is doing,... punishing thought crimes. >Lots of Americans like to think that as soon as you moderately curtail freedom of expression, you've crossed some threshold You have crossed a Threshold >and you're now North Korea. Nice strawman you have there..... >it's possible to have reasonable constraints on expression! Proving you do not have or support Free Speech, you support "Reasonably Restricted Speech" which is not the same thing
    - 2preserve 9y ago
      > Proving you do not have or support Free Speech, you support "Reasonably Restricted Speech" which is not the same thing See, this is exactly what I said. I didn't need to build a strawman. You did it for me. I'm free to run down the street swinging your fists, but if I swing my fist into someone's face and break their nose, that's bad. I think we can all agree on that, right? What if I told you that swinging my fists was a form of "artistic expression", or was part of my religion? Should I be free to express myself at the expense of the rest of society?
CamperBob2 9y ago
Popular, pleasant and agreeable speech doesn't need legal protection. The way Canada handles unpopular speech is simply not compatible with freedom of speech as we define it here. That said, this particular case doesn't have much to do with hate speech and other areas where a clear difference can be seen between US and Canadian law. There are cases in the US where a publisher has been penalized simply for linking to infringed intellectual property -- notably https://w2.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/20020703_eff_2600_pr.html https://w2.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/20020703_eff_2600... -- and that takes away a lot of our moral authority to criticize Canada for misguided decisions like this one. If 2600 Magazine were Canadian, we would certainly have brought our own legal pressure to bear against your country to try to force you to comply with our IP laws.
uiri 9y ago
Part I of the Constitution of Canada (1982) is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 1 of the Charter outlines that these Rights and Freedoms may have reasonable limits placed upon them in accordance with the principles of a free and democratic society. This alone - reading each constitution - demonstrates the fundamental difference in approach that each country's legal system takes to its freedoms.
- 52-6F-62 9y ago
  Yes! Thanks. It was Part 1, Section 2 I was referring to initially and mixed my terms. I think your takeaway is quite true. Personally, I don't think we've yet resolved which approach is better, though as you can probably tell by my other comments I'm leaning toward Canada's. That's open to change, but not yet.
xxpor 9y ago
Section 33 (the notwithstanding clause) makes most of the charter weak at best.
- 2preserve 9y ago
  The Charter legalized prostitution, gay marriage, abortions, and assisted suicide. It also banned discrimination against homosexuals, extraditing people to countries where they'll be tortured, and warrantless searches of your house. And it recognized that Aboriginals had title to their land. But yeah, you're right, it's pretty weak. Section 33 has been used once in it's 35 year history, so I see your point.
  - refurb 9y ago
    Well as long as they aren't using it now, everything should be ok, right?
  - 19guid 9y ago
    Huh? Section 33 hasn't just been used once. Quebec used to invoke section 33 on every piece of legislation passed by the National Assembly.
  - tonyarkles 9y ago
    While I generally agree with you, it is interesting to note that the notwithstanding clause was specifically used to target free speech. And not just a little bit of speech, but any English on signage in Quebec (which, if I recall, must be written more prominently in French than in English).
btilly 9y ago
Dual citizen here. Canadians and Americans understand free speech to mean different things, and from the US point of view, Canada does not actually have free speech. A standard example is that in Canada, a judge can impose publication bans on information presented in court. These bans can be temporary (don't report on the presented facts until the case is decided) or permanent (the rape victim may not be named). In the USA such bans are unconstitutional. Therefore US media is allowed to report on details of Canadian cases that Canadian media can't. My first exposure to the Internet was during the trial of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bernardo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bernardo and I well remember the arguments between Canadians upset that the case was being reported on against the judge's orders, and Americans who wondered what part of the phrase "free speech" the Canadians didn't get. Having just moved from Canada to the USA myself, it was a nice piece of culture shock.
- 52-6F-62 9y ago
  Thanks for chiming in. This comment was really helpful. The difference in the Bernardo case is that in Canada persons detained or charged with an offence are innocent until proven guilty. I'd wager that reporting on a case against a judge's orders creates the presumption of guilt, counter to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is hardcoded into our law here, whereas it is not in the United States where it is inferred. Frankly that case seems perfectly rational to me, as it protects the innocent who might be smeared and have their lives ruined by such reporting, for the price of denying us the intrigue and scandal of those kinds of cases -- but I was too young to remember the Bernardo case itself.
  - Declanomous 9y ago
    In the US there is definitely concern that reporting can bias a jury pool such that they no longer presume the innocence of the accused. Freedom of Speech and the presumption of innocence until guilt has been proven are not considered to be mutually incompatible, and the issue is generally resolved during jury selection.
  - btilly 9y ago
    Here is the key difference. The presumption in Canada is that there is a balance to be found between different kinds of rights, and the government can be trusted to do a reasonable job of finding it. I remember feeling that way, and wondering how a rational person could see it otherwise. The presumption in the USA is that government is fundamentally untrustworthy and our enumerated rights exist as a protection against the government. While we may feel for the person who gets smeared by public rumor, we are scared of giving judges power to casually order the media around. This becomes in a sense a self-fulfilling prophecy. We hold our government to low standards, and our government fails to achieve them, which confirms the low opinion that we have of our government. In the case of high profile cases, the Canadian approach is to say that the media can't report. Jurors show up each day, hear evidence, and go home. Then eventually they make a decision. The US approach is to select a jury that has not yet been biased by the case, and then put them in a hotel with no access to the media. The controversy in the Bernardo case was because Canadian jurors could go home, turn on the TV, and hear an American station reporting on allegations that might or might not have enough evidence behind them to show up in court. So Canadians wanted American media to stop irresponsibly reporting on it. But how would YOU feel if another country wanted Canadian companies to follow THEIR laws? Yeah, that's exactly how Americans felt about the Canadian complaints.
KGIII 9y ago
I, too, have dual citizenship. This is something that would never happen in the US. https://news.vice.com/article/a-canadian-comedian-was-ordered-to-pay-42000-because-he-insulted-a-child-with-a-disability https://news.vice.com/article/a-canadian-comedian-was-ordere... Basically, a comedian made a comment in reference to a kid who'd sought donations because he was dying. His quip was: "But five years later, he wasn't dead, he's not dying," he quipped on stage. "The little bastard, he's just not dying." For that, the courts are making him pay some $42,000. That would not happen in the United States. You may, or may not, agree with the court's findings - but it's a difference between the two countries and their liberties to express themselves.
- 52-6F-62 9y ago
  It would happen in the United States if the victim decided to sue for libel, in which case I'd posture they'd pursue even higher damages (but that, I'll wholeheartedly admit, is pure speculation). Still in both cases, the public institution would have the final say in whether or not what was said should not be said. Edit: I was healthily corrected on this point. Not libel, but slander was what I was asserting as a possibility -- in the case we were discussing I was totally incorrect.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - ncallaway 9y ago
    > It would happen in the United States if the victim decided to sue for libel This is simply false, and a bad understanding of United States libel laws. Firstly, these were verbal statements which would make them slander and not libel. Secondly, these were _not_ false statements of fact (which is the only thing that constitutes libel or slander in the United States). Joking that the child was ugly is an opinion, which is protected by the first amendment. Joking that the child was not dead, and "wouldn't die" also isn't a statement of fact. It's simply not factually true that the comedian would be exposed to any civil liabilities for those jokes were they made in the United States. All that said, I agree with the vast majority of the people that those jokes were in extremely poor taste. I would encourage people not to support or listen to a comedian that mocks people in that way.
silver7017 9y ago
your country currently has a law which criminalizes referring to a person using the incorrect given name or personal pronoun. the US supreme court recently affirmed that even hateful statements which are clearly abhorrent and of no inherent value are protected. it is simply a matter of optimization for different things - Canada optimizes for its idea of the most civil possible discourse, and takes it to an extreme. The US optimizes for its idea of minimal obstructions to expression, and takes it to an extreme. it is this difference in definitions of protected speech that causes people from the US to attack Canada for the current state of free speech, I think.

syshum 9y ago

Huffington post Story http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/tom-kott/freedom-of-speech-canada_b_2324999.html http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/tom-kott/freedom-of-speech-cana... None of these would be Constitutional in the US https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada Duke Paper on comparing Free Speech in the US vs Canada http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4120&context=lcp http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=... i can find more examples later if you want.

sunir 9y ago
That does not support your claim Canada has no concept of freedom of speech in the Constitution.
- syshum 9y ago
  My claim was that Canada as no concept like the 1st amendment... Canada does not offer the same level of protection in their constitution as the US Constitution does Canada's "Free Speech" code is much weaker, to the point that is not a Free Speech Code.. Of course I am a free speech absolutist so...
  - flamedoge 9y ago
    ... Charter, and my understanding is that freedom of expression in Canada is subject to not infringing other rights and freedoms.
  - DKnoll 9y ago
    I think you'll find if you look closely that Canada is an entirely different country than the US and the United States government cannot define free speech globally. There are many human rights provisions in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that the United States does not have, which include limitations on free speech when it is intended to or has a high likelihood to infringe on the rights of others. I should add that civil courts in the US will award damages for libel to victims, regardless of the 1st amendment. You can also be charged criminally for direct threats of physical harm. Your speech is not free in an absolute sense anywhere; your speech is free as defined by law in your jurisdiction. Before you talk further on a topic you don't understand I'd suggest actually reading our constitution and not repeating what has been told to you by other Americans on the Internet.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > I should add that civil courts in the US will award damages for libel to victims, regardless of the 1st amendment. Since the threshold for libel in the US is higher than at common law specifically because of First Amendment restrictions, “despite the existence of” would be more accurate than “regardless of”. (This is a minor correction; your broader point is valid.)
      - DKnoll 9y ago
        Thanks, 'despite the existence of' fits better with the point I was trying to make. The 1st amendment would definitely be regarded in a libel lawsuit.
    - syshum 9y ago
      So much wrong here where to start.... >>>I think you'll find if you look closely that Canada is an entirely different country than the US and the United States government cannot define free speech globally. Pretty sure I clearly stated this fact in my comments, further at no point did I say the US could define free speech globally, in fact in this discussion it is Canada not the US attempting the define speech globally. I was asking if Canada feels it can define Free Speech in the US, and how that would be a violation of our constitution because we have higher protections for free speech than Canada. So clearly I understand Canada is a different nation. >>>There are many human rights provisions in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that the United States does not have, which include limitations on free speech when it is intended to or has a high likelihood to infringe on the rights of others. This is actually false. If you believe that you completely misunderstand the history and purpose of the the US Constitution, and how that differs from the Charter of Rights in Canada. The US Constitution is not a complete enumeration of rights, in fact if you read the Federalist Papers you will see a concern that the Bill of rights would lead to some people misunderstanding the purpose of the Bill of Rights, leading them to believe it was complete enumeration of rights when that was never the intention of the Founders. The US Constitution is a document that grants government power, any power not expressly granted to the government in the Constitution is a power forbidden to the federal government and is reserved for the States and the People. In contrast the Canada system of government where the government starts from a position of total power and the Charter of Rights removes some power from the government, this is a critical difference in how our governments are structured. The Charter of Rights in Canada is the total enumeration of rights for Canadian Citizens. This is the opposite approach of the US Constitution. >>>I should add that civil courts in the US will award damages for libel to victims, regardless of the 1st amendment. You can also be charged criminally for direct threats of physical harm. US History it riddled with bad court rulings, some of these are what you are referring to. Yes at some points in history the Supreme Court has been derelict in their support of Free Speech as required by the Constitution. True-threat jurisprudence remains a muddled mess. That however does not invalidate my statements, far from it. In recent years the Supreme Court has been rolling back many of these Terrible Terrible rulings of the past, restoring Free Speech to its proper constitutional level. On the topic of civil liability, I do not find awarding damages for libel to be a form of censorship, Rights come with responsibility, so you are free to libel or slander or defame, but if you cause that person actual articulable damages then you will be responsible for those damages, that is not censorship. It should be pointed out that generally speaking in order for this happen in the US you have to be making false statements of fact that you knew to be false at the time you made them... Making true factual statements is a absolute defense, a protection not found in some other nations, however I am not sure if Canada has such a defense. >>>Before you talk further on a topic you don't understand I'd suggest actually reading our constitution and not repeating what has been told to you by other Americans on the Internet. I understand the topic of US Constitution very well, I will admit to be less knowledgeable on Canadian law, however I have seen enough news stories, and actual cases to reach the conclusion that the US has better protections for Free Speech than Canada Does. Your prohibition on "hate Speech" which seems to be expanding to even include calling someone the incorrect pronoun, or the fining of Comedians, and the arresting of Americans for “smuggling hate speech” on their iPad the is pretty much proof positive that Canada has lower free speech protections than the US.

protomyth 9y ago

How do you square the Constitution of Canada with the Human Rights Commission that fines comedians and authors? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Human_Rights_Commission_free_speech_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Human_Rights_Commissi...

2preserve 9y ago
It's actually a great example of how freedom of speech is not a binary. It's possible to curtail some forms of expression, such as hate-speech, without turning the country into an autocratic regime that punishes thought crimes. Lots of Americans like to think that as soon as you moderately curtail freedom of expression, you've crossed some threshold and you're now North Korea. Turns out that with a strong judiciary (that isn't corrupted by money and politics) it's possible to have reasonable constraints on expression!
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- syshum 9y ago
  Except Free Speech is a Binary, and that is exactly what Canada is doing,... punishing thought crimes. >Lots of Americans like to think that as soon as you moderately curtail freedom of expression, you've crossed some threshold You have crossed a Threshold >and you're now North Korea. Nice strawman you have there..... >it's possible to have reasonable constraints on expression! Proving you do not have or support Free Speech, you support "Reasonably Restricted Speech" which is not the same thing
  - 2preserve 9y ago
    > Proving you do not have or support Free Speech, you support "Reasonably Restricted Speech" which is not the same thing See, this is exactly what I said. I didn't need to build a strawman. You did it for me. I'm free to run down the street swinging your fists, but if I swing my fist into someone's face and break their nose, that's bad. I think we can all agree on that, right? What if I told you that swinging my fists was a form of "artistic expression", or was part of my religion? Should I be free to express myself at the expense of the rest of society?

CamperBob2 9y ago

Popular, pleasant and agreeable speech doesn't need legal protection. The way Canada handles unpopular speech is simply not compatible with freedom of speech as we define it here. That said, this particular case doesn't have much to do with hate speech and other areas where a clear difference can be seen between US and Canadian law. There are cases in the US where a publisher has been penalized simply for linking to infringed intellectual property -- notably https://w2.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/20020703_eff_2600_pr.html https://w2.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/20020703_eff_2600... -- and that takes away a lot of our moral authority to criticize Canada for misguided decisions like this one. If 2600 Magazine were Canadian, we would certainly have brought our own legal pressure to bear against your country to try to force you to comply with our IP laws.

uiri 9y ago

Part I of the Constitution of Canada (1982) is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 1 of the Charter outlines that these Rights and Freedoms may have reasonable limits placed upon them in accordance with the principles of a free and democratic society. This alone - reading each constitution - demonstrates the fundamental difference in approach that each country's legal system takes to its freedoms.

52-6F-62 9y ago
Yes! Thanks. It was Part 1, Section 2 I was referring to initially and mixed my terms. I think your takeaway is quite true. Personally, I don't think we've yet resolved which approach is better, though as you can probably tell by my other comments I'm leaning toward Canada's. That's open to change, but not yet.

xxpor 9y ago

Section 33 (the notwithstanding clause) makes most of the charter weak at best.

2preserve 9y ago
The Charter legalized prostitution, gay marriage, abortions, and assisted suicide. It also banned discrimination against homosexuals, extraditing people to countries where they'll be tortured, and warrantless searches of your house. And it recognized that Aboriginals had title to their land. But yeah, you're right, it's pretty weak. Section 33 has been used once in it's 35 year history, so I see your point.
- refurb 9y ago
  Well as long as they aren't using it now, everything should be ok, right?
- 19guid 9y ago
  Huh? Section 33 hasn't just been used once. Quebec used to invoke section 33 on every piece of legislation passed by the National Assembly.
- tonyarkles 9y ago
  While I generally agree with you, it is interesting to note that the notwithstanding clause was specifically used to target free speech. And not just a little bit of speech, but any English on signage in Quebec (which, if I recall, must be written more prominently in French than in English).

btilly 9y ago

Dual citizen here. Canadians and Americans understand free speech to mean different things, and from the US point of view, Canada does not actually have free speech. A standard example is that in Canada, a judge can impose publication bans on information presented in court. These bans can be temporary (don't report on the presented facts until the case is decided) or permanent (the rape victim may not be named). In the USA such bans are unconstitutional. Therefore US media is allowed to report on details of Canadian cases that Canadian media can't. My first exposure to the Internet was during the trial of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bernardo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bernardo and I well remember the arguments between Canadians upset that the case was being reported on against the judge's orders, and Americans who wondered what part of the phrase "free speech" the Canadians didn't get. Having just moved from Canada to the USA myself, it was a nice piece of culture shock.

52-6F-62 9y ago
Thanks for chiming in. This comment was really helpful. The difference in the Bernardo case is that in Canada persons detained or charged with an offence are innocent until proven guilty. I'd wager that reporting on a case against a judge's orders creates the presumption of guilt, counter to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is hardcoded into our law here, whereas it is not in the United States where it is inferred. Frankly that case seems perfectly rational to me, as it protects the innocent who might be smeared and have their lives ruined by such reporting, for the price of denying us the intrigue and scandal of those kinds of cases -- but I was too young to remember the Bernardo case itself.
- Declanomous 9y ago
  In the US there is definitely concern that reporting can bias a jury pool such that they no longer presume the innocence of the accused. Freedom of Speech and the presumption of innocence until guilt has been proven are not considered to be mutually incompatible, and the issue is generally resolved during jury selection.
- btilly 9y ago
  Here is the key difference. The presumption in Canada is that there is a balance to be found between different kinds of rights, and the government can be trusted to do a reasonable job of finding it. I remember feeling that way, and wondering how a rational person could see it otherwise. The presumption in the USA is that government is fundamentally untrustworthy and our enumerated rights exist as a protection against the government. While we may feel for the person who gets smeared by public rumor, we are scared of giving judges power to casually order the media around. This becomes in a sense a self-fulfilling prophecy. We hold our government to low standards, and our government fails to achieve them, which confirms the low opinion that we have of our government. In the case of high profile cases, the Canadian approach is to say that the media can't report. Jurors show up each day, hear evidence, and go home. Then eventually they make a decision. The US approach is to select a jury that has not yet been biased by the case, and then put them in a hotel with no access to the media. The controversy in the Bernardo case was because Canadian jurors could go home, turn on the TV, and hear an American station reporting on allegations that might or might not have enough evidence behind them to show up in court. So Canadians wanted American media to stop irresponsibly reporting on it. But how would YOU feel if another country wanted Canadian companies to follow THEIR laws? Yeah, that's exactly how Americans felt about the Canadian complaints.

KGIII 9y ago

I, too, have dual citizenship. This is something that would never happen in the US. https://news.vice.com/article/a-canadian-comedian-was-ordered-to-pay-42000-because-he-insulted-a-child-with-a-disability https://news.vice.com/article/a-canadian-comedian-was-ordere... Basically, a comedian made a comment in reference to a kid who'd sought donations because he was dying. His quip was: "But five years later, he wasn't dead, he's not dying," he quipped on stage. "The little bastard, he's just not dying." For that, the courts are making him pay some $42,000. That would not happen in the United States. You may, or may not, agree with the court's findings - but it's a difference between the two countries and their liberties to express themselves.

52-6F-62 9y ago
It would happen in the United States if the victim decided to sue for libel, in which case I'd posture they'd pursue even higher damages (but that, I'll wholeheartedly admit, is pure speculation). Still in both cases, the public institution would have the final say in whether or not what was said should not be said. Edit: I was healthily corrected on this point. Not libel, but slander was what I was asserting as a possibility -- in the case we were discussing I was totally incorrect.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- ncallaway 9y ago
  > It would happen in the United States if the victim decided to sue for libel This is simply false, and a bad understanding of United States libel laws. Firstly, these were verbal statements which would make them slander and not libel. Secondly, these were _not_ false statements of fact (which is the only thing that constitutes libel or slander in the United States). Joking that the child was ugly is an opinion, which is protected by the first amendment. Joking that the child was not dead, and "wouldn't die" also isn't a statement of fact. It's simply not factually true that the comedian would be exposed to any civil liabilities for those jokes were they made in the United States. All that said, I agree with the vast majority of the people that those jokes were in extremely poor taste. I would encourage people not to support or listen to a comedian that mocks people in that way.

silver7017 9y ago

your country currently has a law which criminalizes referring to a person using the incorrect given name or personal pronoun. the US supreme court recently affirmed that even hateful statements which are clearly abhorrent and of no inherent value are protected. it is simply a matter of optimization for different things - Canada optimizes for its idea of the most civil possible discourse, and takes it to an extreme. The US optimizes for its idea of minimal obstructions to expression, and takes it to an extreme. it is this difference in definitions of protected speech that causes people from the US to attack Canada for the current state of free speech, I think.