Freedom Of Speech Vs Hate Speech

What if the leader of an extreme military group, like the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), was giving a speech, would you tell them to watch their language? Enforcing hate speech laws are unnecessary because there are alternative laws in place to protect human rights, civilization can self-regulate around negative opinions and most importantly, it challenges the constitutional freedom of speech Canadians are promised. The surge of social media platforms encourages men and women to communicate globally and discuss their commonalities, but it can provoke hateful words when strong opinions conflict with each other. By banning hate speech, it opens the door to banning any kind of free speech, and the freedom to express one’s opinion is hindered.

There are separate laws for harassment, violence, threats, and discrimination – all of which are qualitatively worse than hate speech and are justifiably criminalized in Canada.

Hate speech is speech which attacks an identifiable person or group on the basis of their attributes like their sex, religion, race, disability or sexual orientation. One should not be prosecuted for expressing an opinion, regardless if it is in a negative tone. In today’s digital era, hate speech is commonly found on social platforms; controversial comments often spark heated discussions and hurtful comments. In many instances, cyberbullies will purposely incite hate towards an identifiable person and/or group, cyberbullying is a type of harassment using new technology. Cyberbullies use social media, blogs, texting, and other online venues to engage in deliberate, repeated, and hostile conduct intended to harm, harass or slander someone (Canadian Bar Association, 2016). Section 264 of the criminal code states that no person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct such as repeatedly communicate with, either directly or indirectly or engaging in threatening conduct (Criminal Code, 1985). Additionally, hate speech may fall under slander and defamation if false information is posted. Section 300 of the criminal code states that everyone who publishes a defamatory libel that he or she knows is

false is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years (Criminal Code, 1985). Speech that rises to the level of harassment and discrimination is not protected, there are alternative laws protecting human rights. There are men and women that will speak insensitive and malicious comments, but they should not be prosecuted for having an opinion. Humans can regulate themselves and tune out the individuals that spout hateful words.
Society in first world countries has finally reached the point that there can be serious social consequences for a convention that posted a “Whites only” sign at the registration. Throughout human existence, hateful sentiments like homophobia, racism and sexism that were once accepted heavily has become narrow-minded and old fashion beliefs. Communities are extremely capable of regulating themselves as humans are upheld by a code of moral values and ethics. The first step to preventing hate speech is reaching out through an education system. Brandi Simonsen, a co-director of the Centre for Behavioral Education and Research sat down for an interview with Loretta Waldman of University Connecticut’s news website discussing the best practices to defeat bullying and hate speech. Schools have access to a clear, systematic, and empirically validated approach to address hateful comments (Jones, 2017). Instead of waiting for problems to arise, school systems can easily make sure a positive and proactive approach is applied across all students, staff, and sub-groups in the building (Jones, 2017). Additionally, it is important to teach students specific problem-solving strategies for instances in which they witness or experience disrespectful behavior (Jones, 2017). To prevent hate speech and bullying, it’s important to launch a school-wide “stop signal” for disrespect, this teaches communities at a young age that this behavior is not condoned (Jones, 2017). In cases where an educational system is absent, parents and communities play a similar role to demonstrate clear expectations and actively teach how to be respectful. It’s very common that when a family member or friend posts a status on Facebook inciting hate against an identifiable group, they are typically met with backlash or are secluded from future activities. On the other hand, it can be met with positivity and agreeance. Hate speech is still free speech no matter what it incites, the key to preventing hateful language is teaching respect at a young age. If hate speech were taken away, there would be nothing left for free speech and it would fundamentally change the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Hateful expression on the web should never rise to the level required for criminal prosecution, it is another form of expressing one’s opinion that may be swayed by personal beliefs or misconstrued facts.

According to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, everyone has the freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression including freedom of the press and other media of communication (Canadian Charter, 1982, s 1(2)(b). However, this upholding is not absolute in Canada due to reasonable limitations. Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives Canadians the right to free speech, but allows the government to subject to legal prosecution if the limits are reasonable and justifiable in a democratic society (Canadian Charter, 1982, s 1(2)(b). Today, Canada’s hate speech laws make it a criminal offence to “communicate statements in any public place which incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace” (Criminal Code, 1985). It becomes “an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years” or “an offence punishable on summary conviction” (Criminal Code, 1985). If Canada strengthens their hate speech laws, the government would need to decide what hate

s