Free Speech Limitations Preserve the Human Rights of Many

By Georgia Katsabanis

Today, citizens of democratic countries enjoy an array of opportunity and take many things for granted.  Free speech is among these enjoyments; individuals generally value the freedom that encompasses their right of speech. In any democratic society individuals can voice their concerns, express opinions, and participate in public forums to ensure that their self-interests are accounted for in the greater public domain. Citizens are thought to be rational beings predisposed with the ability to know what is right from what is wrong, and as such, will choose ways to enhance their self-autonomy, free of constraint.    

While speech is viewed as a fundamental right granted equally to all individuals despite evident differences that exist between mankind, it continues to be contested whether or not the Canadian polity has gone too far in limiting individual entitlement to free speech. Many people feel that they cannot freely express their opinions without running the risk of punishment or oppression by public authority.  The divide remains unclear between what can and cannot be rightfully said. In some instances, individuals unknowingly express opinions or beliefs that violate the threshold of human respect and in doing so, jeopardize their right to free speech. One historic example of this is viewed in the prosecution of Socrates for his expression of political associations and religious ideas. Socrates was viewed as spreading false ideals to the public, corrupting the minds of youth, and thus, causing indirect harm to Athenians [1].  Were limitations to his speech rightfully justified or were they taken too far?

If you want to enjoy the right to free speech, you have to acknowledge the right for all.  This means, that to exercise your right, you have to do so in a manner that complies with respecting other individuals, especially in the maintenance of their well-being.  Freedom of speech does not mean that you can freely say anything about anyone or anything without repercussions [2]. In cases where harm is expressed towards a vulnerable person or group, the enticer has their freedom of speech limited. These limitations are still in keeping with civil liberties, yet some individuals question the extent of the limitation in light of the enticer’s personal liberty. 

In Canada, it must be noted that “right to the freedom of expression is not absolute, nor should it be” [3].  Just as rights are freely given, they can freely be taken away if abused or exercised in ways that are not in compliance with upholding the democratic values of society. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms seeks to protect the rights of individuals yet the Charter also lists “reasonable limits on rights that can be demonstrably justified” in society [4].  In the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Supreme Court of Canada lists a provision that prohibits spreading of hatred on the basis of discrimination. This provision is one example where limitations placed on freedom of expression is justified. The Ontario Human Rights Code “prohibits discrimination and harassment in five social areas: 1) good, services, and facilities, 2) housing accommodation, 3) employment, 4) contracts, and 5) membership in unions, trade, and vocational associations” [3]. The Code cannot prevent intolerant views; it can only prohibit people from acting on these views when one of the above social areas is present [3].

Section 13 of the Human Rights Code has been accused of narrowly limiting one’s freedom of expression in instances where the rights of vulnerable members are at risk [3]. This section of the Code makes it illegal for individuals to publish or display offensive material on signs, emblems, or symbols. The Code fails to account for other methods of displaying offensive material such as in an article [3]. The same message can be written on a sign and stated in an article, but only the sign would fall within Section 13.  This is an example where limitations to free speech have not gone too far. Rather, more action needs to be taken to ensure that offensive material is restricted and the vulnerable are protected. John Stuart Mill introduced what is known as the harm principle. He places the following limitation on free expression: “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others” [5]. The harm principle limits an individual’s rights if doing so seeks to advance the greater good of society. Here, limitations to one are justified by preserving the interests of many.  

If we have gone too far in limiting speech, then we should ask ourselves why people continue to express opinions. Even though an individual may be penalized for something they say, the individual still remains free as a person. As a citizen, you are always entitled the right to hold opinions and the Charter recognizes this privilege.

In circumstances where there is no hate or enticement expressed towards others, speech persists in a way where values are expressed freely, yet in keeping with practices of universal respect. One does not have to look too far to see examples of this type of speech being employed in everyday situations. During lectures, Professors will occasionally seek the opinions and input from the student body to deliberate further discussion in the lecture hall and to encourage diversity in thinking. Here, students typically do not refrain from voicing their opinions, and they do so freely, without the fear of punishment. As long as opinions are respectable in presentation and do not seek to harm anyone, speech is encouraged in the lecture and no ones right to participate is limited.

Everyday there are hateful remarks that are directed towards individuals of all backgrounds and sometimes, there is no intervention.  No matter how free speech is, if speech is abused and filled with hate, slander, and the belittlement of other people, this type of speech induces hurt and leaves emotional scars on the vulnerable.  Just because you have a voice and can express yourself, does not mean that you can hurt people either intentionally or indirectly.  There are instances where free speech must be limited. This does not mean that we have generally gone too far with imposing speech limitations, it just means that some of your rights must be taken away to protect the greater population of people from discrimination. These limitations are necessary, and without them, society would be worse off, resulting in more harm [6].

The Canadian polity acknowledges and accepts the free flow of opinions but not when these opinions are viewed as detrimental to the rights of someone else. In other countries, presumably those with practices characteristic of undemocratic ruling, individuals face excruciating and harsh punishments for vocalizing their thoughts and opinions. In some cases assassination is the end result [7], [8].  Canada’s punishment to those individuals whose free speech does not align with upholding traditional democratic values, does not amount to the same degree of severity.
There exists the punishment of limitation, but not the punishment of death for expression. We do not resort to violent measures to limit ones free speech. To do so would only seek to undermine democracy.  Sometimes people might deserve a more severe punishment than we give them, but they remain relatively free from such a punishment. Canada has not exacerbated the limit and gone as far as to say no one can express opinions. Curtailing the right to free speech in instances where someone promotes hate to individuals or groups in society does not violate the democratic rights of anybody; it just protects the freedom and dignity of many. This is one of our main goals as a society premised on securing human rights for all, is it not?