How free is freedom of the press in Canada? The freedom of press is guaranteed by Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: “Everyone [has] the fundamental freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication” (Media Law). However, Section 1 states that the fundamental freedoms in democracy can be limited for justifiable reasons: “The 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” (Media Law). There are criminal and common laws on the provincial and federal levels which place legal restriction on how the press gathers and publishes information (Media Law). For example, there are criminal laws against trespassing and recording information (“Defamation on the Internet”). The essay will focus upon the law most relevant to freedom of the press issues, “defamation.” It will explore the issue of defamation within the context of internet use and showcase, through court cases, how online “private” messages such as e-mail are implacable in defamation cases. According to the legal definition, defamation occurs in a specific case. “[When] a person (individual, corporation, or society) says (slanders) or writes (libel) something damaging (not trivial) to the reputation of another person” (“Defamation on the Internet”). Slander cannot be anything trite but complaining about a product or a malicious comment on a blog or social media website can fall into this category (“Defamation on the Internet”). This definition portrays defamation laws as highly subjective; it is dependent on the victims, perpetrator... ... middle of paper ... ...x.htm>. Powell, Betsy. "Defamatory Email Costs Sender $7,800." The Toronto Star. Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd, 4 Sept. 2008. Web. 6 Apr. 2011. . Proudfoot, Sharon. "Unruly World of Internet Leads to Rise in Libel Cases." Canada.com. CANWEST, 17 Mar. 2006. Web. 6 Apr. 2011. . Sutherland, David F. "Defamation on the Internet." Ad IDEM / CMLA. David F. Sutherland & Associates, 1999. Web. 6 Apr. 2011. . "Wiebe v Bouchard, 2005 BCSC 47." Roger McConchie Law - Defamation Privacy Media Injurious Falsehood Breach of Confidence Internet Law & Legal Services. McConchie Law Corporation. Web. 11 Apr. 2011. .
In order for Canada to share an equal part in the overall media industry as any other country, Canadian content regulations must be in place. CanCon regulations should be enforced on Canadian media content, as it is a crucial aspect of national culture, representative of the country as a whole. Without such regulations determined by CanCon, Canadian society risks becoming lost within the commotion of international media and their varied interests.
The Plaintiff Falls argues that he is a not a public figure because he did not voluntarily thrust himself into public controversy over his termination. However, this is not the test. Rather, the test is if the title “sportswriter” earns him public figure attention for the purposes of commentary. According to the USA Today’s “cover story,” The Sporting News had a circulation of 700,000 in 1985. Due to this finding, Falls could not argue a claim for protection as a private figure, and thus, he is required to prove actual
McAlpine v Bercow signifies the importance of vigilance when making an opinion public in the digital communication sphere. This case certainly contributes to the regulation of modern-day English media and defamation law on a broader scale. The reasoning delivered by Tugendhat J explain that the former defamation principles that claimants relied on in traditional media environments, are now readily translated into the digital social media world. A ‘tweet’ seven words long has been proven to result in defaming the reputation of those mistakenly accused. Those that choose to use Twitter, or any other seemingly casual format, must be aware that being defamatory on a social media site can be just as damaging as that precipitated in a newspaper, speech or broadcast.
The concept was called into question, when criminal defamation proceeding was initiated against Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal by Union Transport Minister Nitin Gadkari and city lawyer Surender Sharma for allegedly making defamatory remarks. The complainant claimed, “Defamatory, unlawful and derogatory words have been used by the accused person” which has lowered his reputation in the Bar and Society. Another well
...wo Lawsuits." Novato Advance Archives 20 January 1999. Novato Advance. 22 pars. Online. Internet 25 April 1999. Available HTTP: www.novatoadvance.com/archi...doc=/1999/January/20-272-news9.txt
2010. "The Media's Role in Shaping Canadian Civic and Political Engagement." Policy and Society 29 (1): 37-51.
Cyber bullying is an ever growing problem in the era of technological advancement; many children and teens fall victim to it every day. However, methods to prevent cyber bullying are being developed. Individuals may soon be able to be prosecuted for statements made on social media due to a new bill called the Megan Meier Cyber Bullying Prevention Act. This bill is absolutely necessary because, currently, cyberbullying is virtually inescapable, it affects millions, and it leads to physical harm. If this new bill is put into play, cyber bullying could become a rare occurrence and could become much less severe than it is as of now.
The relationship between a person’s right to the First Amendment and another’s right to protect their name has always been strained. The line is often blurred with regards to knowing which personal remarks are allowed and which border defamation.
Phillips, Whitney. "Don't Feed the Trolls? It's Not That Simple." The Daily Dot. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Apr. 2014.
Offman, C. (2013, Oct 19). The problem with 'cyberbullying'. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1442933369?accountid=45111
Restrictions on freedom of expression come in many forms including Criminal Code and Human Rights provisions limiting hate speech, municipal by-laws that regulate signage or where protests may take place, civil defamation (libel) actions, and restrictions placed on press freedoms. With more and more communication taking place online, government restrictions on access to the internet and the content and filtering policies of private companies also place limits on free expression. CCLA works to ensure that any limits are reasonable and strictly necessary.
Free speech is both a universal and national liberty. The United Nations and the United States of America believe that free speech is something that humans should be allowed to exercise. However, each respective group has their own limitations. These limitation, although broad, protect against free speech being taken too far. Like any liberty or privilege there must be a line in the sand to keep extremists from aggressively using and abusing this right. The United Nations formed "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights." With in this declaration are 40 articles with a preamble examining the rights which they believe are basic and necessary. Article 19 from this declaration says, "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
Eissens, Ronald. "Hate Speech on the Internet Should Be Regulated." Hate on the Net: Virtual Nursery for In Real Life Crime. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: International Network Against Cyber Hate (INACH), 2004. Rpt. in Civil Liberties. Ed. Roman Espejo. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2009. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 6 Feb. 2014.
"Indeed, the First Amendment is regularly limited by legislation in various ways, but this does not make it some sort of nebulous “privilege” such that hurt feelings justify its abridgement. The last time I checked, hurting someone’s feelings—even in real life—never justified criminal prosecution. It usually doesn’t justify civil litigation without constituting outright slander or libel. Like it or not, implicit with in the text of the First Amendment is the right to be as cruel as one wants, right up to the point of libel or slander, " In other words, the congress is prohibited from making any law that abridges the freedom of speech. Also, the article "The Dangers of Cyberbullying" states, "Congresswoman Linda Sanchez is sponsoring the Megan Meier Cyber Bullying Prevention Act. The bill would make bullying through an electronic means a federal crime." In other words, Congresswoman Linda Sanchez is planning to pass a bill that infringes the first amendment and to pass this bill would be a major crime that violates the Constitution. Although some critics may feel the constitution is not important, interfering in someone's freedom comes with a hefty price that is punishable by criminal prosecution. Clearly, these volatile actions contravene citizen's constitutional
Sinton, Peter. “10 Steps to Prevent Internet Sabotage”. SFGate. 15 Mar. 2000. Web. 16 Apr. 2014.