576
submitted 10 months ago by MapleEngineer@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca

Other right-wing accounts variously reacted by describing the move as Orwellian, lamenting the death of free speech and even contemplating leaving Canada for good.

Oh no. Not that. Please no.

<Tee hee!>

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Crack0n7uesday@lemmy.world 49 points 10 months ago

This is Canada, they have different laws around protected free speech. People don't realize that the US is basically the only country that has these super broad free speech laws written into the constition.

[-] Cornelius_Wangenheim@lemmy.world 29 points 10 months ago

This is illegal in the US too (defamation per se). The main difference is that the US requires a higher standard for public figures (proving actual malice i.e. that they lied knowingly and maliciously).

[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 points 10 months ago

Fwiw "actual malice" doesn't require…actual malice. It just requires knowing the statement was false, or with reckless disregard for the veracity.

[-] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 19 points 10 months ago

The Constitution does not apply between interactions between private citizens. The Constitution only applies between the State and the Public.

[-] Grimpen@lemmy.ca 7 points 10 months ago

Technically Canada (and most other Liberal democracies) have similar freedom of expression (which includes speech). Where the difference lies between Canada and the US is in the Canadian Charter of Rights' structure vs. the US Constitution's structure.

In the US, "Freedom of Speech" is the first amendment, and as such (as I understand it) stands largely on it's own as an enumerated right. Unless it intersects with another Constitutional provision, or with the interpretation of the text of the first amendment itself, it's otherwise unlimited.

In Canada, Freedom of Expression is provided for in Section 2 of the Charter, but Section 1 provides for the limitation of any of the following rights and freedoms:

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

I Am Not A Lawyer, but the legal framework for testing Section 1 laws is call the Oakes test, and the language in this article bears the hallmark of justifications of the application of Section 1:

In its decision, the court found Webster’s statements failed a basic “public interest” test since “perpetuating hurtful myths and stereotypes about vulnerable members in our society” does not represent speech anti-SLAPP rules are “intended to protect."

I would assume that since this was an attempt to dismiss a lawsuit using Ontario's anti-SLAPP law, that the motion to dismiss was overruled because the anti-SLAPP laws were in line with promoting a Free and Democratic society.

Also there is Section 33, the "notwithstanding clause", which allows for the temporary suspension on just about any of the rights by the legislature, but that's not relevant here, ans is fairly rarely used (except in Quebec).

this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2023
576 points (95.7% liked)

Canada

7186 readers
380 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Universities


💵 Finance / Shopping


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS