Freedom of expression is a phrase that is thrown around quite often, especially in court. In the case of R. v. Guignard, it was determined that Guignard had broken the law when he erected signs citing his disapproval of an insurance company’s services1. Clearly, this was not something that should fall under freedom of expression; it is obvious that Guignard simply wanted to bad-mouth the insurance company, and used the all-too-abused phrase “freedom of expression” to defend his actions, this type of defence happens somewhat too often. In putting up certain signs against the company is harmful to the business and would hurt the reputation of the company in general hence resulting in less customers and a decline in business. This is exactly the type of “expression” that needs laws against to prevent such harmful things to happen to a collective group as well as individuals. One may ask: how does freedom of expression directly impact law?
Substantive/procedural law firstly, sets out a definition of certain words and actions in law. In the issues of the case, The courts debating and concluded as to what is the definition of “sign” and “advertising sign” as well as “freedom of expression” and secondly, in relation to the case, this is exactly the point of law in dispute which entails what is considered a sign and what is considered infringements of freedom of expression.
Often, when one hears of issues regarding the freedom of expression, it is often assumed that someone, somewhere is being censored by speaking out against something with which they disagree. In Guignard’s case, however, it seems almost as though he simply wanted to slander his insurance company. Guignard accused his insurance coverers, Commerce Group, of being “The Incompetent Insurance Company.”2
From this, one could conclude that freedom of expression is a metaphorical trump card to be played by any individual who feels as though they have something cruel to say to another individual, but wants no negative repercussions as a result of their actions. It seems fortunate, then, that Guignard was prevented from continuing his actions.3 Though some may view this as an unjust act of severe limitation, it can be seen, upon further investigation, that Guignard was upset because the insurance company disagreed with him on one of his claims.4 When this is taken into consideration, it becomes more and more doubtful that Guignard erected signs citing Commerce Group’s alleged incompetence for his own expressive purposes; it then seems as though Guignard simply wanted a means of attack.
From there, a question arises. “Are freedom of expression-based cases just something for rude people to hide behind?” Although this question cannot be answered with a simple “yes” or “no,” it does stand to reason that Guignard is not the only man with a negative opinion, loud mouth (metaphorically), and a freedom-of-expression defence.
It is quite simple, from this point onward, to imagine all of the possible things that would result of the freedom-of-expression defence was absolute. Racism. Sexism. Every sort of discrimination, and “ism” imaginable. Virtually no one would suggest that those forms of crude discrimination deserve to be protected; why should one entire race be discriminated against? Why one entire gender? Why, then, should an entire company be called incompetent based on a disagreement with one man?
In addition, Guignard’s opinion stems from his claim being denied.4 If his claim would have been approved, he would not consider Commerce Group to be incompetent. This suggests that their competence is not in question; only their agreeability with Guignard. It stands to reason, then, that Guignard was outright slandering Commerce Group.
If slander – and corporate discrimination, if one chooses to view it that way – were to be defendable under freedom of expression’s umbrella, then the possibility for other slander – and other forms of discrimination – to be protected becomes possible. In the case of R. v. Guignard brought about what may turn out to be a dangerous precedent.
In the media, there are virtually endless methods of attack, in a number of forms. Popular music – of particular notoriety, rap – has often served as a means of conveying one’s anger. However, as music (and rap) is considered an expressive art, it is near impossible to discern between slander and mere expression. One rap artist that has drawn much scorn as a result of his lyrics is Marshall Mathers, also known as Eminem. His lyrics are often misogynous and crude, however, he has been protected under many different freedom-of-expression-based precedents. Feminist legal theory would likely view this sort of protection as a direct assault; as though it were necessary to have their feeling of subordination personified.
So, then, where must society draw the line? Clearly, allowing individuals to slander and bad-mouth has had very negative repercussions in society. That does not mean, however, that all things artistic and expressive should be restricted and carefully-checked. The fact of the matter is that artistic ideals fuel much of the creative atmosphere. If all of these mediums were to be harshly controlled, then things such as film and fiction would be much duller.
It would seem, at this point, that a contradiction is present; it is not, however.
The simple way of putting it is that freedom of expression should be allowed in moderation. If everyone can say everything, there would be slanderous chaos; if no one could say anything, then a feeling of creative oppression would cause anger amongst citizens of Caanada
-
Paragraph 3
