Class Notes (834,026)
Canada (508,290)
Greg Flynn (95)

Monday February 3rd Lecture Note

2 Pages
Unlock Document

Political Science
Greg Flynn

Lecture – freedom of expression Monday February 3, 2014 Has to convey a meaning. And what about expression that is unpopular and in some ways might be harmful to society. b. Criminal Expression How about expression with the criminal sense. Expression needs to be explained. With hate propaganda they were promoting hate but however the government ended up losing. Then we moved onto pornography and should there be protection under the charter and yes it is protected under expression Re: Prostitution Reference Continued c. Hate Propaganda R. v. Zundel d. Obscenity/ Pornography R. v. Butler In Winnipeg store with pornography videos. The question was whether it was justifiable under section one and the purpose of legislation was to protect women and etc, and the courts went on saying it will only be justified (any that did not fit to meet that purpose could not be justified.). The court said there was explicit sex with violence and without violence that degraded and dehumanized, and then there was sex that had neither violence nor degradation. They held that only the final version that had no violence or degradation found that it fell in the right category and that it was saved by section one. 1. Sex with violence and sex without violence that degrograted human. Long story short government was able to prohibit the justifiable of expression On the Oakes test, this kind of expression does not stand on an equal footing. Which directly engaged the core values of freedom of expression. The court in Butler is trying to set up 2 different settings. Those that have core values through democracy and individual self fulfillment and those whose purposes aren’t really driven through those three purposes and on that basis they didn’t make the government’s job as tough as they could have. It doesn’t change the steps you employed in the section 1 analysis but how badly the government has to work to hold its case and succeed. R. v. Sharp An individual from BC who was charged with possession of child pornography: pics and videos of children. Sharp argued that the laws against child pornography were against his rights of section 2b. He said there was no harm in the pics because children kissing their parents and hugging and children in swimsuits can be under the definition of pornography. Because the definition of child pornography was broad therefore it would fail the Oakes test. Supreme Court bought some of his arguments but not all. The children hugging their parents are affection for their parents, but then went on and said some is not
More Less

Related notes for POLSCI 3NN6

Log In


Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.