Time to add my own two cents on freedom of speech

A number of my blogger friends such as Vicky and Marc-André have both weighed in on the subject of what limits (if any) should be imposed on an individual's right to self-expression over the past few months, and with the latest "shock-jock" scandal just breaking south of the border (see link below), I thought I'd add my own two cents.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/don_imus

It seems that radio show host Don Imus has drawn the ire of a substantial portion of the American public by his repeated use of racial and sexist slurs.

As the above link demonstrates, this is nothing new for this individual. It appears that this time however, he has managed to step into a hornet's nest because the young black women he called "nappy-headed hos" are fighting back. It seems that the young ladies in question have actually rallied together and managed to attract the attention of such powerful activists as the Reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, who lobbied the network and appear to have succeeded in convincing the network to throw Imus off the air.

The problem? Well, obviously this brings up the major issue of free speech. From a legal point of view, it's not as big of a problem here in Canada, where all of our most important rights are guaranteed by the charter, but are subject to the reasonable limits clause (section 1 of the charter). In the states however, rights take on a more absolute form. Already, presidential hopeful John McCain has reportedly come out in favour of Imus.

The obvious argument in favour of the remarks is that no matter what he may have said, what he said was just words, and that as a society the American people should not be picking and choosing what they want to hear. The second they start to forbid one form of speech, they are leaving all other forms of speech, such as political criticism, wide open.

As important as it is to protect free speech, I have to say that I am quite comfortable limiting what someone does and does not have the right to express on national television. So long as the limits imposed on someone's rights are "reasonable" as is the general standard here in Canada (there is a more detailed set of standards outlined by the Supreme Court in R. v. Oakes).

As I wrote before when commenting on Marc-André's blog, the courts have long since enforced the tort of slander, which essentially allows an individual to seek re-payment if someone has unjustly made disparaging remarks about them. I can therefore see no reason why a group of people should not have the right to protection under the law from hateful remarks being made about them for no reason. It is one thing to point out foul deeds committed by one person; it is completely another thing to randomly assign a bunch of negative traits to an entire group of people based simply on stereotypical beliefs.

In Imus' case, he has been lucky enough not to be prosecuted (I am not aware of what if any hate-speech legislation exists in the states). The fact that he has at least admitted that his comments were "stupid" has at least some sort of redeeming quality to, however given that this is not exactly a first strike for the man, I am willing to say that he has been punished fairly.