The nine judges of the Supreme Court of Canada are unanimous: " Consumers may share their concerns, worries or even anger with other consumers and try to warn them against the practices of a business. In this respect, simple means of expression such as posting signs or distributing pamphlets or leaflets or, these days, posting messages on the Internet are the optimum means of communication for discontented consumers. The media are still often beyond their reach because of the cost.
Unanimously, the nine judges of the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed on February 21, 2002, that "consumers also have freedom of expression, which sometimes takes the form of "counter-advertising" to criticize a product or make negative comments about the services supplied. In this respect, simple means of expression, such as posting signs, are the optimum means of communication for these consumers. Given the tremendous importance of economic activity in our society, a consumer's "counter-advertising" assists in circulating information and protecting the interests of society just as much as does advertising or certain forms of political expression.
On the other hand, "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication".
The judgement continue: " This Court attaches great weight to freedom of expression. Since the Charter came into force, it has on many occasions stressed the societal importance of freedom of expression and the special place it occupies in Canadian constitutional law. Very recently, McLachlin C.J. recalled the fundamental importance of freedom of expression to the life of every individual as well as to Canadian democracy. It protects not only accepted opinions but also those that are challenging and sometimes disturbing. This freedom plays a critical role in the development of our society. It makes it possible for all individuals to express their views on any subject relating to life in society".
"The ubiquitous presence of advertising is a defining characteristic of western societies. Usually, it attempts to convey a positive message to potential consumers. However, it sometimes involves comparisons and may even be negative. On the other hand, consumers also have freedom of expression. This sometimes takes the form of "counter-advertising" to criticize a product or make negative comments about the services supplied. Within limits prescribed by the legal principles relating to defamation, every consumer enjoys this right. Consumers may express their frustration or disappointment with a product or service. Their freedom of expression in this respect is not limited to private communications intended solely for the vendor or supplier of the service. Consumers may share their concerns, worries or even anger with other consumers and try to warn them against the practices of a business".
"In this respect, simple means of expression such as posting signs or distributing pamphlets or leaflets or, these days, posting messages on the Internet are the optimum means of communication for discontented consumers. The media are still often beyond their reach because of the cost. This Court stressed the importance of signs as an effective and inexpensive means of communication for individuals and groups that do not have sufficient economic resources".
Click here to see the complete judgment.
|
