Freedom of Expression

Section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that "Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: ... freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication." Clearly, the concept "freedom of expression" could cover a wide range of material, from commercial expression to political expression, to social expression, to hate speeches and even pornography. This paper will examine i) limits to freedom of expression, ii) arguments surrounding expression, and iii) when freedom of expression breaks the barrier between what is reasonable and what is legal.

There are of course limits to free speech and free press guarantees. For example, even though the press enjoys constitutional rights of access and publication, they do not have protection for all means and methods they might choose to adopt. The press does not, for example, have immunity to running a pedestrian down in pursuit of a new story under the defense "freedom of the press". Nor is an attack on someone considered to be expression. As a result, the term freedom of expression is reasonable as long as it falls within the scope of the law. Understanding freedom of expression requires not only understanding its place in the constitution, but also in the context of society and society's values.

There are arguments that surround the notion of freedom of expression, both for and against it. Freedom of expression is a fundamental justification for free speech, as such, it can be argued that there is no limit (unless within the scope of the law) on the extent that people express themselves. A good example that demonstrates this is the current 'Occupy' movement, where police have abused protestors (strike with batons, pepper spray, etc) for peacefully protesting the greed of multi national corporations. With respect to Occupy Toronto, some municipalities have decided that protests have gone on long enough and should cease. A CCLA article states that "In a democracy, the right to protest does not end simply because it has become uncomfortable for some or because some have decided that the message has been heard. We are pleased that these issues will be considered by the courts and that the argument for robust protection of freedom of expression and peaceful assembly will be given due consideration." Clearly the Occupy movement has caused quite a stir both politically and judicially, with freedom of expression as a clear case against police and their attempts to prevent protestors from 'speaking their mind'.

With respect to freedom of expression, the question that negates this notion is when does freedom of expression break the barrier between reasonable and law? For the sake of argument, I will use the textbook example of censoring pornography. There are arguments that state pornography is an art, and therefore the artist