Abstract
Canada and the United States have distinct legal regimes concerning hate speech, the former favouring restriction, the latter protection. They also have distinct structures of constitutional adjudication, with the Canadian courts being invited, indeed required, to engage in a much more overt balancing of competing interests (in this case, of liberty and equality) under the terms of the limitations clause of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This paper explores the extent to which the different results which the Canadian and American courts have reached with respect to hate speech might be attributable to this difference of methodology. In particular, it raises the question whether direct interest balancing tends to favour restrictions on speech, through the intermediate link of judicial deference to the legislature.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Cameron, Jamie, “The First Amendment and Section 1 of the Charter”, Media and Communications Law Review,I (1990–91), 59–125.
Cohen, Joshua, “Freedom of Expression”, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 22 (1993), 207–263.
Dworkin, Ronald, Freedom’s Law: The Moral Reading of the American Constitution ( Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996 )
Fiss, Owen M., The Irony of Free Speech ( Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996 )
Greenawalt, Kent, Fighting Words: Individuals, Communities, and Liberties of Speech ( Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995 )
Leeper, Roy, “Keegstra and R.A. V.: A Comparative Analysis of the Canadian and U.S. Approaches to Hate Speech Legislation”, Communication Law and Policy, 5 (2000), 295–321.
Matsuda, Mari J., Words that Wound: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech, and the First Amendment ( Boulder: Westview Press, 1993 )
Mill, John Stuart, “Utilitarianism”, in: J.M. Robson (ed.), Essays on Ethics, Religion and Society ( Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1969 ).
Mill, John Stuart, “On Liberty”, in J.M. Robson (ed.), Essays on Politics and Society ( Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1977 ).
Railton, Peter, “Alienation. Consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality”, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 13 (1984),134–171.
Scanlon, T.M., “Freedom of Expression and Categories of Expression”. University of Pittsburgh Lass’ Review, 40 (1979), 519–550.
Shaw, William H., Contemporary Ethics: Taking Account of Utilitarianism ( Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1999 )
Slote, Michael, Beyond Optimizing: A Study of Rational Choice ( Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989 ).
Sumner, L.W., The Moral Foundation of Rights ( Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987 ).
Sumner. L.W., “Should Hate Speech be Free Speech? John Stuart Mill and the Limits of Tolerance”, in: Raphael Cohen-Almagor (ed.), Liberal Democracy and the Limits of Tolerance:Essays in Honor and Memory of Yitzhak Rabin ( Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2000 )
Thomson, Judith, Rights. Restitution and Risk: Essays in Moral Theory ( Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986 )
Wellman, Carl, Real Rights ( Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995 ).
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2001 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sumner, W. (2001). Hate Speech and the Law: A Canadian Perspective. In: Soeteman, A. (eds) Pluralism and Law. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2702-0_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2702-0_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5722-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-2702-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive