Slashdot Mirror
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? ;)"
The bylaw in question was a restriction on billboard advertising, incidentally. This case doesn't have terribly much to do with online freedom of criticism, which has usually been a matter of copyright or libel law -- not municipal "visual pollution" regulations.
Where the devil did that 'aboot' thing come from, anyway? In all my years here in Canada, I've never heard anyone ever say 'aboot'. 'Eh', on the other hand, is a completely different matter.
It's a difference in how we pronounce the ou. Americans stress it differently, and to their ear, it sounds like we're saying "oo". It's nowhere near as pronounced as comedians make it seem, but it is there.
It's also stronger the further east you go.
The point here isn't whether you have the right to criticize something, but how that right trumps the government's rights to censor it - even if they use "neutral" means.
In this case the government was trying to keep drivers safe (or property values up...) by forbidding signs. But the Canadian courts said the guy's right to criticize, and the right of others to have access to it, trumped those laws. This might not extend too much into computer issues, but for a lot of folks out there who don't get all their news on-line it makes a big difference.
In the US, political speech is the most protected kind of speech (obscenity/porn being least protected). BUTT, there are still many places that forbid you from posting flyers up on telephone poles, postering, etc.
Those laws make it hard for shallow-pocketed grassroots groups to get the word out. If the only legal way to put out your perspective is on a billboard, how many perspectives will we get?
We can make fun of Canada all we want, and I'll be the first to, but this ruling, in its own little way, is a victory for the little guy.
Teaching, coding, coffee, revolution.
FYI: 48K is relatively small for an SCC decision. In this case, I think it is both concise and broad. It makes it clear that, even though the restriction on advertising is only a side-effect of an otherwise well-meaning law, it's effects on effective free speech are unacceptable.
I think that, among other things, it serves notice that a DMCA-type law would not be accepted in Canada (unless the government were to invoke the dreaded notwithstanding clause).
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
burn as much as you want
Don't burn anything illegally. We need to show them that we would rather not have their content than have it at their price. By pirating the content, we are just showing them that we would rather steal than buy. Go support the local bands and the independent films instead. We don't need the RIAA's and MPAA's crap. So don't get it.
The masses are the crack whores of religion.
As a Canadian lawyer, I thought I would disabuse a few posters here who do not understand what this decision was about.
This was a decision in respect of the constitutionality of a bylaw under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - as such - it was wholly concerned with the attempt of a governmental entity (a muncipality) attempting to regulate non-commercial speech.
It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the right of a citizen to criticize a company, their software, or otherwise, vis-a-vis that citizen and the company.
This was NOT a dispute between the insurance company and the citizen. That is an important distinction.
To clarify - the Candian Charter applies only to the relationship of an individual with the state or its agencies. It has no application - ZERO - as between an individual and another individual. No exceptions. Nada.
The SCC has time and time again struck down legislation that has attempted to regulate private speech that is not otherwise criminal in nature (advocates hate, criminal libel)or commercial in purpose. It has done so enthusiastically in the past, for example, by preventing municipalities from passing bylaws (without any rational restraint) against the posting of handbills on public property.
It has done so in this case by holding that a billboard erected by a customer with an axe to grind is not an "advertisment". Advertisements, as commercial speech, are not entitled to the same degree of deference and protection under the Charter as "political" or socially motivated speech. There is a significant difference between the two under Canadian law.
End result: You can't pass an oppressive bylaw which restricts a citizen from engaging in socially useful speech with other ctizens.
That's it - that's all. To attempt to extract a comment made by the court with respect to the potential social utility of a complaint about a company is to elevate obiter dicta and turn it into a "ruling". That isn't what they said and to suggest otherwise is to wholly miconstrue the meaning and effect of the judgment.
All you can determine from the judgment is a reaffirmation that an individual's complaint about a company is not "commercial speech" within Canada, and its nature does not change whether it is posted on the Net, on a handbill or on a billboard.
Regards,
.Robert