History and Socio-political implications:
When looking at the legal history of this case, we see many cases that have had similar situations. Looking at R v. Butler where Chief Justice Sopinka stated, “The case requires the Court to address one of the most difficult and controversial of contemporary issues, that of determining whether, and to what extent, Parliament may legitimately criminalize obscenity.” The R v Butler case is similar to the Sharpe case as it deals with what could be classified as obscenity and at that time obscenity also included child pornography. (Court of Appeal for British Columbia, 1999) Sopinka spoke about s.163 (1)(b) having a very weird aspect, it made possession of materials which promoted or advocated a certain
…show more content…
form criminal activity a crime, even though having the material at hand isn’t a crime in itself.
She explained that it was that “if the Criminal Code made it a crime to possess a book which counsels or advocates the overthrow by force or violence of the government but did not make it a crime to advocate publicly the use of force or violence for such a purpose.” This is why the Sharpe case and Butler case was so hard to decide. Another case that is also similar to these is the R v Keegstra case, in whereby Keegstra a teacher in Alberta told his students that the Holocaust was a tool to bring about sympathy for the Jews. He was accused of being anti-Semitic and charged under hate propaganda legislation (section 319(2) of the Criminal Code). He brought a Charter challenge under section 2(b). It was seen that the term expression should embrace all content of expression regardless of the meaning or message sought to be conveyed and no matter obnoxious the message. It was decided by Chief Justice McLachlin that freedom of expression is important in order to promote the free flow of ideas that are essential to democracy, but it should follow three rationales. 1. Seeking and attaining the …show more content…
truth, 2. Promote a marketplace of ideas, 3. Have a tolerant and welcoming environment. Not passing these three rationales Keegsta was convicted. When looking at the Sharpe case we can see that Sharpe agreed that children should be protected from the harms of child pornography and just as the Butler case mentioned it should be okay for him to have copies of Child Pornography, as he is not committing the act. Nonetheless, the rationale behind the Sharpe case was that it promoted child pornography and distribution as he had possession of it and that promotes the idea of child pornography. (Casebrief, 2012) The case of R.
v. Sharpe had significant socio-political implications because this case raised the public debate concerning the pornography legislation and legislators to start working on the development of amendments which could guarantee the protection of children from being involved in or harmed by the pornography. The case of R. v. Sharpe revealed the fact that the existing legislation does not prevent children from the involvement into the production of pornography. At the same time, it became obvious that the existing legislation should balance the pornography law and the right to freedom of expression. The pornography law aims at the prevention of the spread of pornography and ban of the pornography production. The protection of children from the involvement in the pornography production is one of the primary goals of the existing legislation. Nonetheless, the case of R. v. Sharpe proves that the existing exceptions make the pornography legislation ineffective. After the case, the public and legislators grew more aware of the fact that stricter pornography legislation has to be implemented. In conclusion the case of R .v Sharpe is super controversial and by examining this case, we can see how some legislations can be bypassed and fall through the cracks. The case of R v Sharpe was a lengthy and difficult process requiring facts, reasoning and precedent. However when all of these were completed, the SCC were able to make a fair decision and conclude that S.163 was a
reasonable limit to the freedom of expression s.2 (b) of the charter.
The R vs Papajohn case took place in Vancouver of 1979. It was one of the first controversial sexual assault cases because of the issue of false consent. Geroge Papajohn was accused of sexual assault and found guilty. George Papajohn put his house up for sale and acquired the help of a real-estate agent, Constance (real name is protected under rape shield act). Because of the differing stories gave to the court, Papajohns intentions remain unclear. Did George Papajohn commit sexual assault or was it an honest mistake of false consent?
In the majority opinion, Justice White wrote “Educators did not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the content of student speech so long as their actions were” The court also noted that the paper was a sponsored newspaper by the school which was not intended to be seen by the public, but rather for journalism students to write articles based off of the requirements for journalism 2 class, and all subjects must be appropriate for the school and all its
There is no dispute that Mr.Nanokeesic showed an attempt to prevent the police from finding the weapon, when he ran from the police and discarded his backpack. The backpack was found by the police and searched, without a warrant.
The litigation of R. v. Buhay is a case where the Charter of rights and freedoms was violated by the policing parties but maintained and performed by the Supreme Court of Canada. This litigation began after two individuals; of which one was Mervyn Buhay, rented a locker at the Winnipeg bus depot. Buhay began to distract the security guards while his friend placed a duffel bag in the locker they had rented. After they left, the security guards were so engrossed by the smell coming from the locker that they unlocked it to find a sleeping bag full of marijuana in the duffel bag. Buhay was arrested the day after the bag was taken into possession even though no warrant was received to search the locker in the first place. During the first trial, due to the violation of the Charter by the police officers, Buhay was acquitted. The Crown, however, appealed this ruling and the case was taken to the Supreme Court of Canada where once again Buhay was acquitted in a 9-0 ruling. Although Buhay committed a crime by possessing marijuana, the police violated the Charter by searching Buhay`s locker without a warrant or his consent, making the Supreme court of Canada`s decision to acquit Buhay reasonable. The Supreme Court of Canada`s decision to acquit Buhay was reasonable due to the fact that the police violated the Charter of rights, no warrant was received to unlock the locker let alone seize the duffel bag, and lastly because the bus depots terms for the locker were not efficiently provided to the customers making them aware of any reasonable search conduct.
Summary of the Case On August 1987, Donald Butler opened a store in Winnipeg, Manitoba, called the “Avenue Boutique”. In this store, Butler sold and rented pornographic publications that were considered “hard core” and sexual paraphernalia. A couple weeks later, the City of Winnipeg Police searched and seized Butler’s sexually explicit materials lawfully. From this, Butler was charged with 173 counts under s. 163 of the Criminal Code. These charges included s. 163(1)(a) which criminalizes the distribution and the possession for distribution of obscene materials, as wells s. 163(2)(a) for selling and exposing obscene material to the public.
The conviction of guilty offenders when adhering to the guidelines of the NSW criminal trial process is not difficult based on the presumption of innocence. However, due to features of the criminal trial process, established by the adversarial system of trial, cases can often involve copious amounts of time and money, particularly evident in the case of R vs Rogerson and McNamara where factors such as time and money are demonstrated to be in excess. In addition, characteristics of the adversarial system such as plea bargaining has the power to hinder convictions due to the accused having the authority to hire experienced and expensive lawyers to argue their case, hence maintaining their innocence.
Illinois, the constitutional position on obscene material has not changed. The Miller Test, with the revised third prong has remained unaltered and obscenity prosecutions have continued in steady decline from 1990. The dispute and definition of obscenity still persist but with the lack of Supreme Court attention to such matters it development is unlikely. Perhaps the law of obscenity ought to be reexamined and defined to create a more constructive standard. Or, just as feasibly, it could be considered that a unanimous, objective standard is unattainable as Justice Stevens stated in his dissent “De gustibus non est disputandum. Just as there is no arguing about taste, there is no use litigating about
Everyone in America, from adults to students have freedom of speech. This freedom is provided by the first amendment. In the case Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, students fights for the freedom of speech in their school newspaper. One side of the case was three students who thought their free speech was violated and the other side was the principal defending the school. After the court's decision, this case had a big impact on the school and many other people. Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier talks about students not giving up their freedom of speech in a school setting.
In her essay “Let’s Put Pornography Back in the Closet,” Susan Brownmiller, a prominent feminist activist, argues that pornography should not be protected under the First Amendment (59). Her position is based on the belief that pornography is degrading and abusive towards women (Brownmiller 59). She introduces the reader to the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, and explains how it relates to her beliefs on censoring pornographic material (Brownmiller 58). In addition, she provides examples of First Amendment controversies such as Miller v. California and James Joyce’s Ulysses to explain how the law created a system to define pornographic material (Brownmiller 58). She described the system that used a three-part test as confusing (Brownmiller 58). Regardless of whether or not the First Amendment was intended to protect obscenities, she and many others believe that the legislatures should have the final say in the decision of creating and publishing pornography (Brownmiller 60).
The case, R. v. Keegstra, constructs a framework concerning whether the freedom of expression should be upheld in a democratic society, even wh...
Pornography is considered by many to be an unwelcome and distasteful part of our society. However, I argue that it is necessary to voice the unpopular viewpoints, under the Constitution. This paper is a defense of pornography as a constitutional right of free expression, under the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. In illustrating this argument, I will first define pornography as a concept, and then address central arguments in favor of pornography remaining legal and relatively unregulated – such as the development of the pornography debate throughout modern US law, and how activist groups address the censorship of adult entertainment.
Butler was one of many to be accused of a crime he didn’t commit. In 1993, a woman got
Freedom of speech is archetypally recognised as a basic human right in free and democratic societies. When contending whether speech that may be deemed offensive should be safeguarded one may refer to the judgement of Redmond-Bate v. DPP:
Hence censorship is essential in order to maintain peace and stability in the society. It will decrease the crime rates. Children can be exposed to sexual matters in school in a different manner as education. Excessive amount of sexual explicit material would surely be harmful. Censorship does not have a downside and it will be a better society.
In recent years, pornography has established itself as perhaps the most controversial topic arising out of the use of the Internet. The easy availability of this type of sexually explicit material has caused a panic among government officials, family groups, religious groups and law enforcement bodies and this panic has been perpetuated in the media.