What is the Cost of Free Speech for Entertainment? A Missed Opportunity by the Supreme Court of Canada to Reduce Offensive Speech and Protect Marginalized Youth

Headnote

The Supreme Court of Canada recently released its decision in the controversial case of Mike Ward v. Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse). This article argues that by adopting a narrow stance in its ruling in favour of a stand-up comedian's right to continue demeaning jokes about Jeremy Gabriel, a Quebecois teenager with Treacher-Collins syndrome, the Supreme Court lost an important opportunity to establish much needed standards relating to offensive online speech. The comedian's jokes about Gabriel spread rapidly on social media resulting in sustained cyberbullying by his classmates. By reviewing evidence-based scholarship the authors demonstrate that demeaning and offensive speech can promote cycles of cyberbullying suicidal ideation and in some cases suicide. It has especially devastating effects on highly vulnerable individuals and groups in society. The authors highlight the need for the judiciary to become better apprised of increasingly polarized and discriminatory online social contexts in contemporary society in which jokes and online offensive material significantly marginalize certain segments of society. They note that the ruling favours profit over the safety and wellbeing of vulnerable Canadians especially teenagers and proffer that although the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Quebec Charter of Human Rights protect freedom of expression, such expression must be weighed against the impact of speech on people with disabilities and other marginalized groups. This approach is essential given the increase in public calls for the law to address the overwhelming proliferation of offensive online speech due to lack of adequate regulation by social media platforms.

La Cour suprême du Canada a récemment rendu sa décision dans l'affaire controversée Mike Ward c. Québec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse). Cet article soutient qu'en adoptant une position étroite dans sa décision en faveur du droit d'un humoriste de continuer à faire des blagues dégradantes sur Jérémy Gabriel, un adolescent québécois atteint du syndrome de Treacher-Collins, la Cour suprême a perdu une occasion importante d'établir des normes bien nécessaires concernant le discours offensant en ligne. Les blagues du comédien sur Gabriel se sont rapidement propagées sur les réseaux sociaux, ce qui a entraıË néune cyberintimidation soutenue de la part de ses camarades de classe. En examinant des recherches...