Free Expression in Two Democracies: An Exploratory Comparison of Constitutional Frameworks

Start Date

23-4-2026 12:00 AM

Description

The British Common law system was inherited by Canada and the United States; however, their constitutional frameworks have interpreted free expression differently. New York Times v. Sullivan entrenched a robust protection of speech under the First Amendment through the “actual malice” standard, whereas R. v. Keegstra upheld restrictions on hate speech under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These cases illustrate how different constitutional designs, judicial philosophies, and political cultures in the countries have shaped the boundaries of free expression in democratic societies. My study looks at the history of both countries and understanding how and why the countries' constitutions and charters have become what they are today. This is an important topic as every day people exercise their freedom of speech.

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS
 
Apr 23rd, 12:00 AM

Free Expression in Two Democracies: An Exploratory Comparison of Constitutional Frameworks

The British Common law system was inherited by Canada and the United States; however, their constitutional frameworks have interpreted free expression differently. New York Times v. Sullivan entrenched a robust protection of speech under the First Amendment through the “actual malice” standard, whereas R. v. Keegstra upheld restrictions on hate speech under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These cases illustrate how different constitutional designs, judicial philosophies, and political cultures in the countries have shaped the boundaries of free expression in democratic societies. My study looks at the history of both countries and understanding how and why the countries' constitutions and charters have become what they are today. This is an important topic as every day people exercise their freedom of speech.