Level(s): Grades 10 to 12
Overview
| This lesson and all associated documents (handouts, overheads, backgrounders) is available in an easy-print, pdf kit version. To open the lesson kit for printing, click here.
|
In this lesson students learn about the inherent tension within democratic societies between freedom of expression and freedom from hatred and, specifically, how Canada has addressed these issues within the Criminal Code of Canada, the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Learning Outcomes
Students will:
- understand how the Criminal Code, the Human Rights Act, and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms apply to hate on the Internet
- understand the legal and ethical issues involved in the tension between freedom of expression and freedom from incitement to hatred
- appreciate the challenges in applying laws to an international medium such as the Internet
Preparation and Materials
For background reading, review Media Awareness Network (MNet)'s "Online Hate" section.
Photocopy the following:
Procedure
Class Discussion
Although most of us would agree that freedom of expression is essential in a healthy democracy, hate mongers will often use this freedom as justification for publishing their racist views.
(On the board, or in an overhead, review the David Matas quote with students.)
In his essay Countering Hate on the Internet: Recommendations for Action, David Matas of B'nai Brith, Canada, puts it this way:
The battle to protect against incitement to hatred often turns into a battle between free speech advocates and human rights advocates. Free speech advocates are primarily concerned with freedom of expression. Other human rights, such as the duty to protect against hate speech, are given by free speech advocates second rank.
Human rights advocates, on the other hand, give equal weight to the right to freedom of expression and the right to freedom from incitement to hatred. Neither right ranks higher than the other. Free speech advocates will tell you that banning hate speech on the internet will not work, cannot work. They will go even further and argue that because the Internet makes a mockery of hate speech prohibition laws, there is no point any more in having any such laws.
- What are the main points of this quote?
- If advocates for human rights rank freedom of expression and freedom from incitement to hatred equally, what might be a human rights approach to the issue of online hate?
- If free speech advocates rank freedom of expression as more important than freedom from incitement to hatred, what might be considered a free speech approach to the issue of online hate?
- What is being referred to by free speech advocates when they say the Internet makes a mockery of hate speech prohibition laws?
- Why might they think banning hate speech on the Internet wouldn't work?
- Do you agree or disagree with the beliefs of some free speech advocates that there's no point in applying any hate prohibition laws to a medium such as the Internet, that is so difficult to regulate?
These are some of the big questions that civil liberties groups and legislators in Canada and around the world are wrestling with.
In Canada, criminal laws on hate propaganda, child pornography and obscenity also apply to the Internet. (Distribute the handout "Hate and the Law" and review with students.)
Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms tries to establish a middle ground between freedom of expression and human rights by guaranteeing the rights and freedoms within the Charter subject only to "such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
This means that a law that limits free speech is okay as long as:
- it's a reasonable limit on free speech, and
- the limit is justified in a free and democratic society.
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled there are a number of reasons why limiting hateful speech makes sense
- Hate propaganda harms all of us
- Stopping the spread of hate propaganda makes it easier for people from different backgrounds to live together
- Stopping hate propaganda may even reduce violence in Canada
For these reasons, the Supreme Court ruled that Section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms isn't compromised when someone is charged with wilfully promoting hate and, in fact, that democratic societies must stop the spread of hate propaganda so everyone can live freely.
However, even with laws in place, it's difficult to control a global medium such as the Net. Take the case of Ernst Zündel as an example.
In January 2002, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ordered Ernst Zündel to cease and desist from publishing hate messages on his Zundelsite Web page because his writings violated Section 13 of the Human Rights Act.
13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
However, when he was convicted, Zundel merely had his site moved from a Canadian server to a server located in the United States – where it is outside Canadian jurisdiction and where it continues to promote racist views.
Quotes about this case from human rights advocates and advocates for freedom of expression echo the points made by David Matas at the beginning of this class:
What the ruling does is set a precedent in this country and that's why it's so important. It shows that Canadians will not tolerate hate and that anyone involved in promoting it will be subject to the law.
Karen Mock, Executive Director
Canadian Race Relations Foundation
Paul Fromm, Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, said the ruling was a "disaster" for free speech in Canada, especially since it didn't affect Zündel anyway:
The most damaging thing to free speech in this ruling is that truth is no defence. In human rights cases, the truth doesn't count, only people's feelings.
(Put "Case Study Overhead 1" onto the overhead projector.)
A classic example of the tension between free speech and hate is a Holocaust Revisionist Web page hosted on the server for Northwestern University. This Web page, created by an engineering professor from that university, features an essay claiming that the Holocaust was misunderstood and exaggerated – and that the real reason so many prisoners died in Nazi prison camps was that they contracted typhus and illnesses from the pesticides used during the delousing process.
When this Web page was discovered, it caused quite a scandal – especially when the president of the university upheld the professor's right to freedom of expression, while at the same time acknowledging that the views of this professor were false and "contemptible." In the end, the only change the professor had to make on his page was to add a disclaimer that his opinions were not supported by the university.
(Show "Case Study Overhead 2," and read the president's response to students.)
- Where would you say the President stands on this issue? Would you say he primarily supports human rights or freedom of expression? Why?
Activities
Short Essay
Have students write an opinion essay about this case study, addressing the following points:
- How Northwestern's stand on intellectual freedom compares with that of three Canadian universities. (This information can usually be found by looking at the "Intellectual Freedom" clauses in university policies for Responsible Use of Information Technology Facilities and Services.)
- Whether it's appropriate for a university to host Web pages known to contain false and inflammatory information.
- Where the student believes the line should be drawn between freedom of expression and indecent or illegal Web content.
(Students can access the full text of the president of Northwestern University's response at: http://www.ibiblio.org/team/history/controversy/970107-Butz.html. In addition, the Online Hate section of the MNet Web site section features information, essays and resources on this issue.)
Class Debate
Divide the class into two groups. Using "hate on the Internet" as a main focus, have students debate the following statement:
"The importance of encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society
outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship."
(To prepare for the debate, recommend that students visit MNet's Online Hate section – in particular, the essays "Online Hate and Free Speech" and "Online Hate and the Law.")
