Exam 3 - State Censorship Flashcards
AB Statutes 1938 - Overview
- Aberhart issued a bill to enable censorship of media amid criticisms of his Social Credit program, but framed it as “attempting to prevent false information” …
- Brown, a journalist from Edmonton Journal, was held in jail, without trial, “at the pleasure of the assembly”. - later won a Pulitzer Prize
AB Statutes 1938 - Ruling(s)
- The Supreme Court dismissed the bill as ultra vires of the province
- “We would never pass a bill that would infringe upon a constitutional right”
- the press bill would have interfered with freedom of speech and press, thus passing such a law would be undermining democracy and our own constitution
AB Statutes 1938 - Key principle
citizens of Canada possess FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS (EXPRESSION/ASSOCIATION) derived from constitution - no government would pass a law that would violate such freedoms.
THE POWERS ISSUE: do provinces have the power/jurisdiction to be dealing with these cases/laws?
LAW used as an (improper) TOOL for manipulation
sedition
incitement of violence or revolt against the state
** criminalization of seditious discourse is undemocratic and out-dated **
defamation
harmful and reputation-condemning speech, causing legally redressable injury
Saumur v. Quebec 1953 - Overview
- Saumur, a JW, challenged the province of Quebec’s power to prohibit the JW religious pamphleteering in the street
- after he was charged, he challenged the by-law as ULTRA VIRES of the province in court (to say that the province can’t impede on his freedom of religious expression)
Saumur v. Quebec 1953 - Ruling(s)
- Saumur won a 5-4 decision
- Justice RAND had many reasons for voting in Saumur’s favor - religious freedom is constitutional (almost god-given, not civil/positive right or granted by state) primary condition of community life within a democratic legal order…
civil rights vs. fundamental freedoms
civil rights GRANTED by positive law (government power)
fundamental freedoms ARISE from natural law
Boucher v. The Queen 1951 - Overview
- Boucher (farmer) and JW charged with seditious libel while distributing religious pamphlets that CRITICIZED the government’s suppression of JW practices
- seditious libel: a common charge against JW and other contrarian religions
Boucher v. The Queen 1951 - Ruling(s)
- found GUILTY, upheld upon appeal
- all 9 justices conceded that the conviction should be quashed due to errors in the trial judge’s charge to the jury
- a mere publication for critical statements without incitement of violence cannot be seditious libel and thus cannot be criminal.
Roncarelli v. Duplessis 1959 - Overview
- Roncarelli (restaurant owner) used his wealth/success to bail out other JW in holding who were arrested by municipal govt.
- the Quebec Premier Duplessis subsequently revoked Roncarelli’s liquor license in retaliation, stripping the “provincial privilege”
- Roncarelli sued, won, appealed/sent to Supreme Court
Roncarelli v. Duplessis 1959 - Ruling(s)
- Supreme Court cleared the record/accusations of Roncarelli upon finding that Duplessis ordered the cancellation which was outside his authority as provincial premier
- POWERS ISSUE
- no public official is above the law and cannot suspend/dispense it.
Brodie, Dansky, Rubin v. The Queen 1962 - Overview
- challenged Lady Chatterley’s Lover by DH Lawrence as obscene under the criminal code
- primary concern for legislators concerning obscenity was the CORROSIVE EFFECT of explicit materials on young, impressionable minds.
Obscenity - definitions
Hicklin: the corrosive materials that could impact the vulnerable
1959 (Fulton): any publication of a dominant characteristic of which the undue exploitation of sex .. or crime, war, cruelty, and violence … shall be deemed obscene.
Brodie, Dansky, Rubin v. The Queen 1962 - Ruling(s)
- majority opinions (not obscene) won5 to 4
- majority rulers (Judson, Cartwright, Abbot, Martland, Ritchie) found that the sexual content of the book was essential to literary merit of the novel, and thus NOT undue exploitation
- minority rulers (Kerwin, Taschereau, Locke, Fauteaux) found that the sexual content of the book was irrelevant to literary characteristics and was undue exploitation.
undue exploitation
inappropriate and unnecessary display of explicit content in media
Brodie, Dansky, Rubin v. The Queen 1962 - Key point
KNOW WHAT IS ILLEGAL AND OBSCENE. FAMILIARITY WITH SUCH DEFINITIONS ARE CRUCIAL. THE LAW MUST BE UNDERSTANDABLE OR ELSE IT HAS NO VALIDITY.
Hate Propaganda and the Cohen Committee - Overview
- established to help find solutions in potential legislation against hateful propaganda
- amends to criminal code: a) render advocacy of genocide criminal, b) criminalize public incitement of hatred, c) criminalize wilful promotion of hatred against “identifiable” groups
- belief that minority groups should be able to live as they please without fear of deliberate/vicious promotion of hatred against them … freedom of speech does not equate to the right to vilify (a group).
Hate Propaganda and the Cohen Committee - Concerns
- public order: suppression of hate propaganda is essential in maintaining order in society
- media proponents of extreme right wing values
Hate Propaganda and the Cohen Committee - Legislation
- Advocating Genocide: “any form of advocacy/promotion of genocide is outside bounds of legitimate public discussion”.
- Public Incitement of Hatred/Willful Promotion of Hatred: “any sort of hatred or contempt against identifiable groups (section of public distinguished by race/colour/ethnicity)”
Hate Propaganda and the Cohen Committee - Criticism
- press was divided, some saying that if we create laws that silence mouths of harmful speech it may come back and be used to stop other mouths that belong to the prophets and redeemers
Hate Propaganda and the Cohen Committee - Key points
INTRODUCED RIGHTS OF GROUP DEFAMATION
- advantages: takes financial burden off individual (state pays for trial), recognition of minority status and inclusion in political sphere.
WORRIES ABOUT BEING UNCONSTITUTIONAL WHILE TRYING TO CENSOR HATE SPEECH.
the purpose question
is the law being used in the way it was intended?
