A rchive Date
[ 04-04-2002 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ Canada ]
|
[http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/e-business_law.html
Freedom of speech on the Net
By DAVID CANTON -- For The London Free Press
March 30, 2002
The Supreme Court of Canada recently ruled the right to freedom of speech and expression -- as provided in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- includes the right of consumers to criticize a product or make negative comments about services by "counter-advertising."
The court specifically referred to the Internet as a way for consumers to do so.
A unanimous court found in favour of Roger Guignard, who was charged by the City of Saint-Hyancinthe for violating the city's planning bylaw that prohibited the erection of advertising signs outside an industrial zone.
Guignard posted a sign outside his building expressing his dissatisfaction with his insurance company, which he felt had failed to promptly compensate him for a loss.
Guignard argued the bylaw unjustifiably violated his freedom of expression in in that it prohibited consumers from posting unfavourable opinions of the products or services of a business. The municipality claimed the bylaw prevented visual pollution and driver distraction.
The Supreme Court ruled in Guignard's favour, finding the bylaw infringed Guignard's right to freedom of expression in a manner not justified under the charter.
The court stated citizens have the freedom of commercial expression and "such expression derives from the very nature of our economic system, which is based on the existence of a free market."
As such, "counter-advertising" is a protected form of expression.
Noting the importance of economic activity in society, the court stressed "a consumer's counter-advertising assists in circulating information and protecting the interests of society just as much as does advertising or certain forms of political expression."
The court noted posting signs, distributing pamphlets or leaflets and posting messages on the Internet are the most effective means of expression for consumers with limited resources.
The court ruled the bylaw severely curtailed Guignard's freedom to express his dissatisfaction with the quality of his insurance company's services as it restricted him to using advertising methods that require adequate financial resources or to virtually private communications.
Although the decision relates to the limits on a specific municipality's bylaw, it provides some guidance on the boundaries of freedom of expression on the Internet, which allows consumers to post counter-advertising messages in an expedient and inexpensive fashion. Consequently, the court appears to support a consumer's expression of dissatisfaction with a business over the Internet.
Such expression is limited, however, by defamation laws, which would make the consumer liable for libel if the information was untrue.
Not at issue in Guignard is anonymity. On the Internet, individuals often use an alias or simply post messages while remaining anonymous.
In Canada, the issue of online anonymity has yet to be seriously debated in the courts. Guignard is an indication by our courts of the boundaries on Canadian freedom of speech and expression using the Internet.
David Canton is a lawyer with the high-tech/ e-business practice group at Harrison Pensa, a London-based legal services partnership. This article contains general comments only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have legal questions, we recommend you contact a qualified lawyer. David Canton may be reached by calling 519-661-6776 or e-mail dcanton@harrisonpensa.com.
Letters to the editor should be sent to letters@lfpress.com.
 World Fact Book (CIA)]]
Cross-Indexed:
|
|