#CanadaSOLETFLaunch Canada's approach to expressive freedom is multifaceted, encompassing both legal interpretations and historical practices.
**Legal Framework: Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms**
Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of expression, which includes the right to express oneself through various mediums, such as speech, art, and protest. This freedom is considered fundamental to democratic society, supporting the search for truth, participation in political decision-making, and individual self-fulfillment citeturn0search2.
However, the Supreme Court of Canada's interpretation of this right has evolved over time. In some instances, the Court has been cautious, balancing expressive freedoms against other societal interests. For example, in cases like *Harper v. Canada* and *Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada*, the Court upheld certain limitations on expression to serve broader objectives, such as electoral fairness and public morality citeturn0search7.
Critics argue that this approach can lead to inconsistencies, where the value of the expression is weighed against its potential harm, sometimes resulting in the suppression of unpopular or controversial speech citeturn0search13.
**Historical Perspective: Public Expression in Victorian Toronto**
Historically, expressive acts have played a significant role in Canadian society. Ian Radforth's book, *Expressive Acts: Celebrations and Demonstrations in the Streets of Victorian Toronto*, explores how public gatherings, such as parades and protests, were used to express political opinions, celebrate events, and assert community identities in the 19th century. These acts of public expression were integral to the social and political fabric of the time, reflecting the community's values and tensions citeturn0search1.
**Contemporary Issues: Internet and Expression**
In the digital age, the Supreme Court has addressed new challenges related to expressive freedom. In *Crookes v. Newton*, the Court ruled that merely hyperlinking to defamatory content does not constitute publication, thereby protecting the act of linking as a form of expression on the internet citeturn0news28.
This decision underscores the Court's recognition of the importance of maintaining freedom of expression in the evolving landscape of digital communication.
In summary, Canada's legal and historical contexts reveal a complex relationship with expressive freedom, balancing individual rights with societal interests across different eras and mediums.