CDN Supreme Court Upholds 'Net Free Speech

Gryphon writes: "The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that a citizen has the right to express dissatifaction with the products or services of a company; in this case, an insurance company. This raises some interesting questions: does this extend to posting benchmarks of computer applications? Dissatisfaction with application security holes? Strike one for the little guy in Canada -- and maybe move here if you want to avoid the DMCA? ;)"

Comments

DMCA is coming here too

[brunes69]

...or at least the equivalent of it. See the copyright reform process at Heretige Canada website for more details, although the deadline for comments has already expired. (700 were posted!)

Similar to US case, about local regulations

[Seth Finkelstein]

This sounds very similar to the 1994 US Supreme Court ruling:

City Of Ladue et al. v. Gilleo

An ordinance of petitioner City of Ladue bans all residential signs but those falling within one of ten exemptions, for the principal purpose of minimizing the visual clutter associated with such signs. Respondent Gilleo filed this action, alleging that the ordinance violated her right to free speech by prohibiting her from displaying a sign stating, "For Peace in the Gulf," from her home. The District Court found the ordinance unconstitutional, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the ordinance was a "content based" regulation, and that Ladue's substantial interests in enacting it were not sufficiently compelling to support such a restriction.

Held: The ordinance violates a Ladue resident's right to free speech. Pp. 4-16.

But I doubt it'll help with the DMCA ...

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

Time, Manner, Place

[coyote-san]

In the US, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech but most jurisdictions have restrictions based on "time, manner and place" without conflict. As long as meaningful speech is still permitted, these restrictions are usually upheld.

Two examples: Boulder, Colorado bans large outdoor billboards. (It also bans new construction taller than a "mature cottonwood tree" - 55 ft - and has other non-speech related restrictions.) The purpose is to protect the mountain view. It's been challenged, e.g., by the "National Debt Clock," but since smaller signs are still legal and legible at normal city highway speeds, the ban was upheld.

Second example: after people picked an abortion doctor's home residence in unincorporated Littleton, Colorado (IIRC) for years, the county agreed to restrictions at the request of neighbors. Pickets are still permitted, but the total area of the signs must be modest (under 3 square feet?) and they must walk at least 100 years before turning around. This was challenged, but since picketing was still permitted and the restrictions served a legitimate need (the pickets had become traffic hazards by clustering with large signs) the restrictions were upheld.

Re:It's offline free speech, actually.

[bareminimum]

It doesn't really matter. This decision clearly states that by enforcing laws the government cannot prevent people from demonstrating their dissatisfaction towards a company's services (or lack thereof).

Here is the link to the full decision. There is a convenient short version in the first few pages. Have a read.

The full text of the decision

[darkonc]

The Supreme Court of Canada home page has the full text in the Recent decisions section under the name R. v. Guignard (html, text and WordPerfect6.1 formats). (It's also, of course, available in French)

In a few months or so, it'll be moved into their by-volume section..