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.
