Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403
Is the display of those images unlawful? I don't think so, and if there's a law that says it is I imagine it would be contrary to the charter as well. Keegstra doesn't hold that any expression that violates the law is subject to suppression, it may insinuate that in dicta, but the holding is focused on hate speech.
Speech that violates a valid law can likely be suppressed, but I don't see how that's the case here. The purported illegality isn't in what is being expressed, but rather in the chosen means and venue. Those are different things, and that's why Keegstra doesn't really apply. This is a forum of expression issue, not a content issue.
|
Actualy speech is a right under the Charter as part of the Freedom of Expression. The Justices made it unlawful to breach the criminal code while claiming to be exercising Freedom of Expression, in the case of Keegstra that was hate mongering, in this case it is displaying extremely graphic images in public...
Again the fact that the Keegstra case has nothing to do with what is happening at the UofC does not mean that the results of his case do not have an affect on the UofC's case against this group.
The Justices made sure that the Keegstra case demonstrated how the limit to the freedom of expression is in place ensure that the law can protect people from crimes that can be construed as freedom of expression. Specifiacly the Justices used examples of hate mongering, child pornography, and
graphic or innaporpriate immages.
I'm certain that the protest at the UofC breech bolded section, which makes me certain that it is against the law. I'm also certain that the pro-life message deserves to be herd, and if the protestors agree to stay within the law I will be certain that they deserve funding as a student group.
The Keegstra case is not simmilar to this case... but the results of the case on the constitution are important to this case. It's realy as simple as you can't go around exposing people to extremely graphic content, it's wrong and it is a breech of the Constitution.