 | The examples and perspective in this article's body section deal primarily with the English-speaking world and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject.(November 2019) |
Compelled speech is a transmission of expression required by law. A related legal concept is protected speech . Just as freedom of speech protects free expression, in many cases it similarly protects an individual from being required to utter or otherwise express a thought with which that individual disagrees.
Freedom of expression is a fundamental freedom under Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Supreme Court of Canada has interpreted this right as including "the right to say nothing or the right not to say certain things." [1] In RJR-MacDonald Inc v Canada (AG) , tobacco companies successfully challenged legislation requiring them to include unattributed health warnings on packaging. In Lavigne v Ontario Public Service Employees Union , the Court held that mandatory union membership and dues, some of which were used for purposes the union member disagreed with, did not violate his right to freedom of expression. In Slaight Communications Inc. v Davidson, [2] the Court held that a requirement to provide a reference letter for a former employee who was unjustly dismissed did infringe the employer's freedom of expression, but this infringement was upheld as a reasonable limitation under section 1 of the Charter. [3]
In 2016, University of Toronto psychology professor and clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson argued that amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code would require compelled speech. [4] The amendments added gender expression and gender identity as protected grounds to the Canadian Human Rights Act and to the Criminal Code provisions dealing with hate propaganda, incitement to genocide, and aggravating factors in sentencing. Peterson argued that the law would allow him to be fined or imprisoned if he refused to refer to students by their preferred gender pronouns. [4] [5] Legal experts challenged Peterson's interpretation, saying that the bill would not criminalize using non-preferred pronouns. [6] [7] [8]
In 2021, Polish-Canadian pastor Artur Pawlowski was ordered by a court to inform his audience of the established opinions of medical experts regarding COVID-19 when expressing his views on the topic in a public setting. The requirement was a part of his probation conditions, which he had been placed on as a sentence for contempt of court, after he violated a court order requiring him to obey public health restrictions. [9] [10] [11] However, the sentence was overturned on appeal. [12]
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right of freedom of expression, and section 3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998, requires that as far as possible all legislation be given effect in a way which is compatible with this. In Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd , the Supreme Court considered whether a bakery in Northern Ireland had violated anti-discrimination law by refusing to decorate a cake with a message in support of gay marriage, with which the bakers disagreed on religious grounds. They held that although the bakery may have discriminated on the basis of the customer's political beliefs, which would in itself contravene the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, [13] the legislation had to be "read down" in a way which would not violate the defendants' Article 10 rights, taken to include the right not to express a particular opinion. The right in Article 9 is a limited right because it permits restrictions on free speech that are necessary in a democratic society in pursuit of a legitimate aim, but the Supreme Court found that no such justification existed in this case. [14] (The court also considered whether the defendants had discriminated based on sexual orientation, but because they concluded that they had not done, the court did not need to consider whether the relevant legislation should be similarly read down. [15]
During The Killing Time of the 1680s an Abjuration Oath could be put to suspects where they were given the option to abjure or renounce their allegiances. The terms of the oath were deliberately designed to offend the consciences of the Presbyterian Covenanters. Those who would not swear "whether they have arms, or not" could be "immediately killed" by field trial "before two witnesses" on a charge of high treason. [16] John Brown was included among those executed in this judicial process by John Graham, 1st Viscount Dundee (Bluidy Clavers) on 1 May 1685. [17] The wives and children of such men could also be put out of their houses if they had spoken to the suspect or refused the oath themselves. 18-year-old Margaret Wilson and 63-year-old Margaret McLaughlan were killed "without human hand" when they were drowned in the sea for refusing to take the Abjuration Oath. [18]
A government of, by, and for the people also speaks on behalf of its people. The government is not required to express views held by groups in the population.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws that: regulate an establishment of religion; prohibit the free exercise of religion; abridge the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.
Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is part of the Constitution of Canada. It is commonly known as the notwithstanding clause, sometimes referred to as the override power, and it allows Parliament or provincial legislatures to temporarily override sections 2 and 7–15 of the Charter.
Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court, decided on June 28, 2000, that held that the constitutional right to freedom of association allowed the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) to exclude a homosexual person from membership in spite of a state law requiring equal treatment of homosexuals in public accommodations. More generally, the court ruled that a private organization such as the BSA may exclude a person from membership when "the presence of that person affects in a significant way the group's ability to advocate public or private viewpoints". In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that opposition to homosexuality is part of BSA's "expressive message" and that allowing homosexuals as adult leaders would interfere with that message.
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court. Alabama sought to prevent the NAACP from conducting further business in the state. After the circuit court issued a restraining order, the state issued a subpoena for various records, including the NAACP's membership lists. The Supreme Court ruled that Alabama's demand for the lists had violated the right of due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
In criminal law, self-incrimination is the act of making a statement that exposes oneself to an accusation of criminal liability or prosecution. Self-incrimination can occur either directly or indirectly: directly, by means of interrogation where information of a self-incriminatory nature is disclosed; or indirectly, when information of a self-incriminatory nature is disclosed voluntarily without pressure from another person.
Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") is the section of the Constitution of Canada that lists what the Charter calls "fundamental freedoms" theoretically applying to everyone in Canada, regardless of whether they are a Canadian citizen, or an individual or corporation. These freedoms can be held against actions of all levels of government and are enforceable by the courts. The fundamental freedoms are freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association.
Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by a high degree of protection from encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in a constitution, or have been found under due process of law. The United Nations' Sustainable Development Goal 16, established in 2015, underscores the link between promoting human rights and sustaining peace.
The Fundamental Rights in India enshrined in part III of the Constitution of India guarantee civil liberties such that all Indians can lead their lives in peace and harmony as citizens of India. These rights are known as "fundamental" as they are the most essential for all-round development i.e., material, intellectual, moral and spiritual and protected by fundamental law of the land i.e. constitution. If the rights provided by Constitution especially the Fundamental rights are violated the Supreme Court and the High Courts can issue writs under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, respectively, directing the State Machinery for enforcement of the fundamental rights.
In law, commercial speech is speech or writing on behalf of a business with the intent of earning revenue or a profit. It is economic in nature and usually attempts to persuade consumers to purchase the business's product or service. The Supreme Court of the United States defines commercial speech as speech that "proposes a commercial transaction".
Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that New Hampshire could not constitutionally require citizens to display the state motto upon their license plates when the state motto was offensive to their moral convictions.
The Constitution of India provides the right to freedom, given in article 19 with the view of guaranteeing individual rights that were considered vital by the framers of the constitution. The right to freedom in Article 19 guarantees the freedom of speech and expression, as one of its six freedoms.
NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963), is a 6-to-3 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the reservation of jurisdiction by a federal district court did not bar the U.S. Supreme Court from reviewing a state court's ruling, and also overturned certain laws enacted by the state of Virginia in 1956 as part of the Stanley Plan and massive resistance, as violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The statutes struck down by the Supreme Court had expanded the definitions of the traditional common law crimes of champerty and maintenance, as well as barratry, and had been targeted at the NAACP and its civil rights litigation.
Scull v. Virginia ex rel. Committee on Law Reform and Racial Activities, 359 U.S. 344 (1959), is a 9–0 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that a conviction violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution if the defendant is not given an opportunity "to determine whether he was within his rights in refusing to answer" an inquiry put to him by the legislature of a U.S. state.
Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147 (1959), was a U.S. Supreme Court case upholding the freedom of the press. The decision deemed unconstitutional a city ordinance that made one in possession of obscene books criminally liable because it did not require proof that one had knowledge of the book's content, and thus violated the freedom of the press guaranteed in the First Amendment. Smith v. California continued the Supreme Court precedent of ruling that questions of freedom of expression were protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion by state action. It also established that in order for one to be criminally liable for possession of obscene material, there must be proof of one's knowledge of the material. It described that by requiring booksellers to know the contents of all of the books that they sell, this would lead to the government compelling booksellers to self-censor thereby restricting the public's access to books which the State could not constitutionally suppress directly.
Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court, which held that a police officer does not deprive a suspect of constitutional rights by failing to issue a Miranda warning. However, the court held open the possibility that the right to substantive due process could be violated in certain egregious circumstances and remanded the case to the lower court to decide this issue on the case's facts.
Hazelwood School District et al. v. Kuhlmeier et al., 484 U.S. 260 (1988), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which held, in a 5–3 decision, that student speech in a school-sponsored student newspaper at a public highschool could be censored by school officials without a violation of First Amendment rights if the school's actions were "reasonably related" to a legitimate pedagogical concern.
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a case in the Supreme Court of the United States that dealt with whether owners of public accommodations can refuse certain services based on the First Amendment claims of free speech and free exercise of religion, and therefore be granted an exemption from laws ensuring non-discrimination in public accommodations—in particular, by refusing to provide creative services, such as making a custom wedding cake for the marriage of a gay couple, on the basis of the owner's religious beliefs.
An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code is a law passed in 2017 by the Parliament of Canada. It was introduced as Bill C-16 of the first session of the 42nd Parliament. The law adds gender expression and gender identity as protected grounds to the Canadian Human Rights Act, and also to the Criminal Code provisions dealing with hate propaganda, incitement to genocide, and aggravating factors in sentencing.
Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association, 544 U.S. 550 (2005), is a First Amendment case of the Supreme Court of the United States. At issue was whether a beef producer could be compelled to contribute to beef industry advertising.
National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a case before the Supreme Court of the United States addressing the constitutionality of California's FACT Act, which mandated that crisis pregnancy centers provide certain disclosures about state services. The law required that licensed centers post visible notices that other options for pregnancy, including abortion, are available from state-sponsored clinics. It also mandated that unlicensed centers post notice of their unlicensed status. The centers, typically run by Christian non-profit groups, challenged the act on the basis that it violated their free speech. After prior reviews in lower courts, the case was brought to the Supreme Court, asking "Whether the disclosures required by the California Reproductive FACT Act violate the protections set forth in the free speech clause of the First Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment."
He said he would refuse to refer to transgender students by their preferred pronouns [...]. Experts on Canadian law said that Peterson was misreading the bill — that the legal standard for 'hate speech' would require something far worse, like saying transgender people should be killed, to qualify for legal punishment.