Is freedom of speech really free?

BY BRITTNEY CHANNER

Hey Everyone, Welcome back to another week of enlightenment and informative topics that are meant to challenge and encourage you to act on things in ways you have never imagined. This week I would like to talk about something a bit similar to last week’s edition, but this time provide its possible contradictory connection with the law. As heard often within my articles and amongst any school setting, Canadian citizens are entitled to rights and freedoms that are guaranteed under the law.

One popular freedom that many people who live in western democracies such as Canada or the U.S freely utilize or cite, is the freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression; or as stipulated in the First Amendment, freedom of speech. However, what happens when you try to exercise that very freedom and are met constantly with backlash and controversy? Is freedom of speech still free? Or does it come with a cost?

There have been many instances of individuals, especially musicians who have spoken out on issues that they felt were important and were immediately met with criticisms and disgust. A popular American example is when country-based music group The Dixie Chicks faced public scrutiny and fan recoil after the lead singer, Natalie Mains criticized the President of the United States; who was George W. Bush at the time by stating “We’re ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas” at their concert in London, England. Shortly thereafter this comment was made, the U.S media picked up the story and a gust of anger and harsh comments followed.

The three members of the Dixie Chicks lives were threatened with death after the comments were made and many of their sponsors dropped them from their promotional deals, which had many supporters of free speech wondering if there was a cost to how one chooses to express themselves or were certain statements free to say and others not. One protestor of the band stated, “freedom of speech is fine, but by God, you don’t do it outside of the country and you don’t do it publicly”.

How free can a citizen be if they are not able to voice what they truly feel about those who have been elected to represent a nation? Would the First Amendment still apply in this case? Can one truly be entitled to freedom of speech if certain aspects of their speech are limited? Questions such as these have been debated for quite some time and the answers to these questions continue to create division.

The idea of free speech has also been questioned on our home turf of Canada in the Supreme Court case of R. v. Keegstra. A man named James Keegstra was a high school teacher in Alberta who taught his students that Jewish people were evil. He even went further to deny the existence of the Holocaust and stated that it was “invented” by Jewish people to gain sympathy (Department of Justice Canada, 2018). Keegstra was charged and convicted of promoting hatred against an identifiable group however, in court he argued that the prohibitions on his hate speech infringed on his freedom of expression, which is noted within the Charter.

Surprisingly, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the Charter protects all forms of speech; including hate speech as long as it does not include violence. Nevertheless, the court also acknowledged that the limits that were placed on Keegrstra were justifiable because it aimed to protect groups targeted by hate speech; especially in a country that is dedicated to promoting equality and multiculturalism (Department of Justice Canada, 2018).

If one were to play devil’s advocate, one could say that Keegstra was simply expressing his belief no matter how unpopular and controversial it was and therefore had every right to do so. However, the end result of his case shows how freedom of expression is not definite and in particular, situations can be limited; especially in situations where there is a need to create balance amongst competing interests such as equality and multiculturalism.

The idea of free speech is one of the many things that entice many immigrants to come to Canada as well as many Canadians to stay in Canada. Nevertheless, the question of whether free speech is actually a real concept or a freedom with limitations has been and will continue to be debated. Nonetheless, a balance must be created where an individual’s views are respected without fear of reprimand and the law is upheld to its full extent. And yet…can free speech and the limitations placed on it coexist successfully?