Section 2(b) of the Charter states that "Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: ... freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication." The section potentially could cover a wide range of action, from commercial expression to political expression; from journalistic privilege to hate speech to pornography. The jurisprudence of the Supreme Court (see links below) has largely been an attempt to carve out: first, the purpose of s. 2(b) (what values does it seek to protect, who should be entitled to its protection); and second, the scope of s.

2(b) (what is 'expression'?). Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of a functioning democracy. Freedom of expression promotes certain societal values, as noted by Professor Emerson in 1963: "Maintenance of a system of free expression is necessary (1) as assuring individual self-fulfillment, (2) as a means of attaining the truth, (3) as a method of securing participation by the members of the society in social, including political, decision-making, and (4) as maintaining the balance between stability and change in society." Our constitutional commitment to free speech is predicated on the belief that a free society cannot function with coercive legal censorship in the hands of persons supporting one ideology who are motivated to use the power of the censor to suppress opposing viewpoints.

The Canadian approach to freedom of expression allows for a wide conception of "expression" within s. 2(b). The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that a wide and inclusionary approach to the interpretation of the Charter's free expression guarantee is to be preferred (see Ford v. Quebec, and Irwin Toy). Thus, in Irwin Toy, Chief Justice Dickson explained that "'expression' has both a content and a form, and the two can be inextricably connected. Activity is expressive if it attempts to convey meaning. That meaning is its content." Not only is there a freedom of expression, there is also a freedom to not express. As Justice Beetz said in National Bank of Canada v. R.C.U. [p. 377 text], "all freedoms guaranteed by s. 2 of the Charter necessarily imply reciprocal rights: ... freedom of expression includes the right to not express."

There are of course limits to free speech and free press guarantees, as the Canadian Supreme Court is quite ready to point out (see CBC v. A.G.N.B., below). For example, even though the press enjoys core constitutional rights of access and publication, they do not have protection for all operational means and methods the press may choose to adopt. The press does not, for example, enjoy immunity if they run a pedestrian down in pursuit of a new story under the guise of "freedom of the press". Nor is a violent attack on someone (however dramatic the attack may be) considered to be expression. Understanding freedom of expression requires not only understanding its place in the Canadian constitution, but also, understanding it within the context of society and society's competing values.

This website fully supports the principles and decisions of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

It should be noted that, from time to time, CAUSS receives photos of offending junk advertising signs that visually pollute our city environment and/or violate the letter or spirit of city regulations regarding such abuses. These photos are carefully reviewed for authenticity before publishing. If any website viewer has reason to believe any photo posted does not represent a real situation or that the photo has been altered, other than reasonable cropping to fit the space allotted, he/she should notify CAUSS using the contact information located on the "Contact us" page. Additionally, it should be noted that CAUSS occasionally receives photos of persons in the act of breaking the letter or spirit of the law. It should be noted that the right to take such photos and publish them has been widely upheld under provisions of taking photos of a public place from a public place of scenes and/or persons in public locations or private locations clearly visible from public locations where there is no expectation of privacy. One example might be a surveillance camera taking photos of alleged illegal or suspicious activity and making those images available to law enforcement authorities and journalists.

Recently, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the concept of Fair Comment, allowing that comments and statements of opinion, for example, constitute Fair Comment if the comment is on a matter of public interest, a fair and honest expression of the author's opinion, based on known facts.