The Canadian government can use coercion to regulate their citizens’ freedom of speech. In Canada, the Criminal Code outlines laws that people must abide by and when crimes occur, coercion limits the criminals’ actions for the protection of society. The citizens are politically obligated to the government as it serves as a father figure to its people, who depend on the state. Coercion can protect people from potential crimes through harmful speech. However, it raises an important question: is there a right to free speech? This paper will argue that free speech is a right given by the Canadian government for paternalistic interests. Paternalistic regulation of free speech will help protect vulnerable groups from criminal offenses, which results in these groups feeling triggered by hateful speech and experiencing stereotypical notions.
By paternalistic interests, I would argue that the Canadian government’s laws protect individuals from harm and coerce people to change their behavior for their own good to respect these vulnerable groups. Free speech includes a limitless range of expression, such as newspapers, plays, books, and political activism. Regulating free speech prevents further crimes as they detriment the citizens’ quality of life. Crime is a prevalent issue in Canadian society and the Canadian government’s intervention to protect people from experiencing criminal harm is needed for security.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
In regard to free speech, vulnerable groups are susceptible to experiencing hate crimes. Individuals in vulnerable groups are disadvantaged in society, which include women, visible minorities, the LGBTQ+ community, and much more. Free speech should be regulated by paternalism as it prevents further criminal offenses against these vulnerable groups, such as triggering hateful speech and stereotypical notions against them. By limiting individuals’ freedom of speech to protect these individuals, crimes against vulnerable groups can be further prevented in Canadian society.
Vulnerable groups, who may be further triggered by hateful speech or imagery, can be protected from them if free speech is regulated by paternalistic means. The Criminal Code in Canada has a provision that states it is an offense to promote hatred to identifiable groups in various forms of free speech, which these groups include individuals distinguished by color, race, ethnic origin, or religion. Although it is a crime to discriminate against others, hate speech continues to occur in society and it often targets vulnerable groups.
Sarah Conly, a paternalist, argues that people tend to have cognitive biases that prevent them from making rational decisions. People who engage in hate speech spread prejudice to people, especially those who are vulnerable to such biases. This increases the amount of hate crimes against these individuals.
For example, people who have trouble coping with mental illnesses can benefit from free speech being paternalistically regulated as it protects them from facing their triggers, in which hateful speech can evoke such feelings. In particular, young adults entering university experience high rates of mental illness and due to this, many university professors aim to avoid triggering students when discussing sensitive topics, such as racism and sexual harassment. Instead, professors are expected to alert “trigger warnings” to their students when discussing such subjects as it might distress or make students uncomfortable.
Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt’s article, ‘The Coddling of the American Mind’, addresses this concern, stating that universities are incorporating the idea of emotional well-being in campuses to protect students from psychological harm. Students are susceptible to experiencing mental health issues and in response, these universities aim to treat campuses as safe spaces for students to avoid topics that make some uncomfortable. This paternalistic coercion to regulate free speech in universities shows how people, while using their free speech, must have consideration and not cause psychological harm to vulnerable groups who may feel triggered, especially by hateful speech.
Accordingly, regulating free speech for paternalistic interests benefits vulnerable groups by protecting them from triggers that arise from such topics that contain hateful speech towards them. Some individuals project their biases through hate speech, which may further trigger vulnerable individuals when free speech is left unregulated. A paternalistic approach to regulating free speech protects vulnerable groups from feeling distressed by hateful speech and imagery.
Although it is valid that paternalistic regulation of free speech can protect individuals from the triggers that arise from hate speech, it does not address an opposing possibility: if people know they will be triggered by hateful speech, they have the choice to walk away from it. Freedom of speech becomes limited when it is paternalistically regulated and people would be unable to openly speak about social issues as they may cause discomfort to some individuals. Hate speech is difficult to remove in society and thus, people must learn how to walk away from things that offend and upset them.
John Stuart Mill, a utilitarian, proposes the theory of the Liberty Principle, which states that limiting a person’s freedom of expression can be justified only if they harm others’ interests. Regulating free speech paternalistically implies that the Canadian government could punish people who offend others but have not caused physical harm. Mill distinguishes the difference between offensive and harmful actions, in which offending people is not defined as harming someone. Offensive actions should not be considered as crimes and therefore, limiting a person’s freedom of speech has consequences because it prevents a person’s free will to openly discuss social issues.
In regards to Lukianoff and Haidt’s article, regulating free speech entails punishing individuals who offend and further trigger some students when discussing sensitive topics. This creates an environment where people must think twice before speaking or risk facing punishment for offending others through insensitivity, aggression, and other charges. Thus, students who have difficulty coping with mental illnesses should be taught how to deal with distortive thinking as it is harmful to their mental health. When paternalistic regulation of free speech shields these individuals from facing and overcoming their triggers, the students cannot fully cope with their mental illnesses.
Implementing a paternalistic way of regulating free speech limits people’s freedom of speech and they may face punishment when people become offended by their words. Therefore, people should be allowed to openly discuss topics, even if some individuals may feel uncomfortable with them. Hate speech cannot be easily removed from society and thus, people must learn how to protect themselves from things that can trigger them.
Although people are allowed to walk away from their triggers, this objection lacks depth and disregards the ever-present nature of the media in mind. The media is a powerful and unavoidable source of free speech that affects everyone. It includes the news, television shows, advertisements, and other forms of expression. Due to its recurring presence in people’s lives, some individuals may find difficulty avoiding the triggers that appear in such content.
For instance, social media changes the relationship dynamics between students and professors in universities according to Lukianoff and Haidt’s article. People use social media to openly express themselves in many ways. However, social media can negatively deteriorate an individual’s mental health, particularly young adults as the rates of mental illness in young adults are rising in recent decades. Thus, professors must ensure their students are coping with their mental health and not subject the students to things that may be harmful to their mental health.
The media plays an important role in peoples’ lives by enabling a platform for free speech and communication but its content may cause some individuals to feel uncomfortable facing their triggers in it. A paternalistic regulation of the media may help prevent individuals encountering their triggers but the media cannot be easily controlled. One must consider the psychological harm the media can bring to individuals as the media does not consistently warn people if its content is distressing for some viewers.
Furthermore, free speech contributes to stereotypical notions of certain groups or individuals. A paternalistic regulation of free speech prevents this from occurring and protects vulnerable groups from stereotypes. Unregulated free speech can result in harmful preconceptions of these individuals and these assumptions can be dangerously reinforced in crimes against vulnerable groups.
For example, explicit content such as pornography can be harmful to women as it forms negative stereotypes of them. Feminists assert that heterosexual relationships portrayed in pornography give wrong ideas about women by subjecting them to offensive imagery that degrades and objectifies who they are. Pornography misleads people’s understanding of what women desire, implying that all women experience sexual enjoyment from being hurt, raped, or mistreated as sex slaves. Pornographic content also shows women who verbally consent to engage in sexual activity but personally do not want to. These stereotypes of inferiority and passiveness may persuade viewers to treat women like such. Consequently, pornography is harmful to women as it sexualizes gender inequality and discriminates against women.
Essentially, paternalistic regulation can prevent further stereotypes that are targeted toward vulnerable groups and protect these individuals from harmful freedom of expression. Stereotypical notions mislead people’s perceptions and understanding of different groups. When free speech is unregulated, these assumptions towards vulnerable groups may manifest into harmful freedom of expression, which can lead to criminal offenses.
Although pornography can create stereotypical notions of certain groups or individuals, women in this case should have the choice to view explicit videos should they desire. Limiting their choice to do so restricts their individual freedom and opportunities to learn more about sexual activity and what they desire in such situations. Women should not be discouraged from viewing pornography as it is liberating and provides different ideas on sexual activity and interaction.
To demonstrate, some feminists claim that censoring pornography would stifle a woman’s sexual expression to access explicit videos for their own self-interests. Wendy McElroy, a feminist who defends pornography, argues that women should not be restricted from accessing pornography and should have the liberty to decide whether it is something they want to use. Pornography benefits women by showing extensive sexual possibilities, allowing viewers to experience and explore safe sexual alternatives as well as providing different information about sexual interaction from textbooks. Ultimately, women can view such explicit content to explore their emotional responses to certain sexual scenarios out of interest, and depriving them of that choice prevents them from seeking out their own sexual interests.
Even though women have the choice to view explicit videos, feminists need to take account of all women and not generalize their views on pornography. Some women may not wish to watch explicit content for various reasons. Paternalistic regulation of this free speech is therefore needed for their protection against stereotypes.
For example, some forms of pornography can be harmful to the participants. In hardcore pornography, actors could be physically harmed, coerced to perform acts against their will, or raped. These individuals could be mistreated and not taken seriously by the police due to the nature of their work. In particular, Linda Lovelace’s case on her filming of ‘Deep Throat’, a well-known pornographic film, describes how she was abused and forced to perform against her will. Such forms of pornography can be degrading to women and that can justify their choice to not watch it.
Additionally, visible minorities are often sexualized in pornography and this contributes to stereotypical notions of them. Pornography is discriminatory as it gives viewers false perceptions of these individuals and these ideas manifest in reality. As a consequence, this leads to crimes like sexual violence and rape.
For instance, the pornography industry creates a harmful notion that Asian women enjoy being dominated or serving for someone else’s pleasure. They are perceived as exotic and delicate, which projects false fantasies of how Asian women act and behave. As a result, these sexual stereotypes silence sexual violence towards Asian women.
Sexual stereotypes of visible minorities further give rise to criminal offenses against vulnerable individuals and groups. These stereotypes contribute to sexual offenses towards these individuals, which discriminates against their racial identity. Pornography of visible minorities misleads viewers by dehumanizing them through objectification, race generalization, and the loss of individualism.
In response to the question of whether there is a right to free speech, I assert that free speech is a right to paternalistically protect vulnerable groups from criminal offenses. These crimes take the form of hate speech that further triggers these individuals as well as stereotypes. Although some individuals can be protected from facing their triggers, it can restrict individual freedom of speech and punish people who may merely offend others, not harm them. However, this objection does not consider the nature of the media being an unavoidable source of free speech.
Additionally, free speech can contribute to stereotypes against vulnerable groups, particularly how pornographic content can pose harmful misconceptions about women. Women do have the choice to view pornography for their own interests but feminists need to consider all women as some are against it due to the potential harm inflicted on participants as well as the sexualization of visible minorities.
Given these points, free speech coerced by paternalistic interests protects vulnerable groups from crimes. However, its extent of limitations needs examination as it can restrict individual freedom of choice and expression. Therefore, the protection of vulnerable groups from criminal offenses prevents further harms that disadvantage and discriminate against these individuals in Canadian society.
Stuck on your essay?
