Freedom of Expression in Canada

Limitations of Freedom of Expression

Freedom of Expression

One of the significant features of a democratic country is the existence of civil rights being exercised by the citizens. These rights include the freedom of speech. The freedom of the people to voice out their opinion on a particular issue is necessary in shaping the society and in forming policies that would govern them. In addition, freedom of expression is the means by which the government will know the need and grievances of the people. At the same time, the people’s exercise of expressing will ease the flow of information and intensify communication.

The right to exercise the freedom of expression has been inculcated not only in the common law but also on the Constitution. Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, everyone has the right to “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication” (R. v. Guignard, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 472). In addition, the freedom of expression has been bestowed upon citizens during the early existence. It has been realized that right of the people to speak their minds can effectively help the governors in governing the people. Furthermore, liberty in a democratic country is futile without the freedom of expression because it would mean that the thoughts and ideas of the people are caged. Seeing that the freedom of expression is essential in forming the society and in intensifying democracy, freedom should not be limited.

Noam Chomsky once said, “If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise we don’t believe in it at all.” From his statement, the significance of the freedom is recognized. In addition, the statement also implies that limiting the freedom is tantamount to failure of respecting it. Freedom of expression is granted to citizens for a noble purpose. Aside from that, it is through the freedom that people actively participate in the policy making and in the affairs in the society.

The freedom of expression is not only limited to addressing or voicing out opinions related to political issues. Instead, the freedom extends even to private people against a private individual or entity. In exercising the freedom, various means can be used or employed. The use of media and press are the most common but is only available among the rich. Advertising and signage are another form of exercising the freedom. Significantly, the Constitutional guarantee extends to the right of the people to burst out their dissatisfaction to a particular product or services (R. v. Guignard, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 472). This is well discussed in the case of R. v. Guignard.

In the particular case, Guignard insured his property located within the City of Saint-Hyacinthe (R. v. Guignard, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 472). The Commerce group is the insurance company where Guignard insured his property from any risk (R. v. Guignard, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 472). A loss then occurred during the period covered by the insurance policy. When Guignard went to the insurance company for indemnity, he was only assured of promises until he was tired of the incessant delays. By reason of his disappointment, Guignard posted a sign bearing his dissatisfaction toward the insurance company (R. v. Guignard, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 472). The sign included a word “incompetent” which is directed against the insurance company.

During that time, there was an existing zoning by-law in the city specifically prohibiting the putting up of advertising signs outside an industrial area (R. v. Guignard, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 472). Guignard was ordered to remove the sign he erected. Eventually, the municipality charged Guignard for violating the by-law (R. v. Guignard, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 472).In the resolution of the case, the Municipal Court found Guignard guilty and upheld the validity of the by-law (R. v. Guignard, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 472). The court stated that the law does not contravene the freedom of expression because the by-law was adopted for the purposes of protecting the public from visual pollution and for maintaining a pleasant environment (R. v. Guignard, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 472). Furthermore, the court stressed that the law only limits the exercise of the freedom.

The case reached the Supreme Court questioning the constitutionality of the by-law. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Municipal Court by absolving the liability of Guignard and declaring that the by-law violated the Constitution. In arriving in such conclusion, the Supreme Court stated that like in the exercise of the freedom in political field, the freedom can also extends in the commercial and for economic purposes. In the world of commerce, the business owners have the right to exercise the freedom of expression by advertising their product or service to the people. They are also protected by law from any damaging statements as an effect of competition. Likewise, the customers arte also protected by the laws as to the assurance of the quality and from fraud that the business owners may commit. More importantly, the court held that customers can exercise their freedom of expression by voicing out their satisfaction or dissatisfaction to a certain product or services (R. v. Guignard, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 472). In the exercise of their freedom, any means can be employed. The erection of signboard has been recognized and been available as the affordable means. Furthermore, the use of sign is covered by the Constitutional guarantee. Therefore, in prohibiting Guignard from posting the sign bearing his opinion, it means limiting his right of expression.

More importantly, the Court held that in weighing the Constitutional guarantee, the purpose of the law should be justifiable enough to compromise the freedom. In this instant case, the purpose of the law was merely to protect the people from visual pollution (R. v. Guignard, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 472). The Court found the reason unjustifiable and amounts to limiting the freedom. This could relate to substantive and procedural law because it firstly, sets out a definition of certain words and actions in law. In the issues of the case, The courts debating and concluded as to what is the definition and differences between“sign” and “advertising sign” as well as “freedom of expression” and secondly, in relation to the case, this is exactly the point of law in dispute which entails what is considered a sign in accordance with visual pollution and what is considered infringements of freedom of expression.

Additionally, under the natural law, the freedom of expression has been recognized as a necessary factor of existence. Man has been created bearing the highest intelligence. Part of being is his inquisitiveness on things and issues and affairs in any aspect. Opinions are formed out of every thing that happens in the community. In addition, the freedom of expression would allow a person join in the societal affairs. Like in the instant case, the respondent merely exercised his freedom in order to let the people know the circumstances that he had been through.

Under the positivist theory, the freedom of expression has been granted and has not been limited because it has been recognized as a weapon of the people in protecting themselves from any abuses and in making their opinions known by others. In the instant case, the freedom has been exercised as a means of protecting other insurers and to warn other people of the incompetency of the insurance company. Likewise, it is his only means of expressing his dissatisfactions.

In assessing the case and the freedom of expression in the context of the theories provided, the freedom should never be limited. The inclusion of the freedom in the Constitution only assures and provides the people with a weapon they can use in suppressing the abuses of the government and in correcting the mistakes of private entities. Notably, the case was resolved by evaluating the importance of freedom and that of the law. Meanwhile, the court resolved the case by interpreting the by-law and viewing it in the concept of substantive law. In the case, the procedure how the case was handled was not questioned. Instead, the court concentrated on the legal implication of the law and surrounding facts of the case. In the case, Guignard prompted to erect the sign out of his dissatisfaction and by virtue of his freedom of expression. On the other hand, the legal implication of the by-law was weighed as to its effect on the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression. Hence, the court is correct in declaring the law as a violation of the freedom of expression and also implies that the freedom is limitless for as long as the exercise of the freedom does not amount to defamation.

References

R. v. Guignard, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 472, 2002 SCC 14.

References: R. v. Guignard, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 472, 2002 SCC 14.