CHARBONNEAU – The boundary between freedom of the press and of individuals has blurred

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION for the press and individuals is a relatively new concept.

In early Canada, Parliament was seen as the proper guardian of the people’s rights. Unrestrained freedom of expression would bring about the chaos of unchecked insult and misinformation.

Freedom of expression for individuals was limited because of the expensive technology involved. Only those with access to printing presses or broadcast licenses could reach a wide audience.

The role of Parliament was to restrain the uncontrolled impulses of the masses; to preserve peace, order, and good government. No institutional or private person’s right to expression could trump those of the public good – for which Parliament was the gatekeeper.

Institutional media (newspapers, radio, and television).were also self-regulated to avoid muckraking. Journalists were bound by professional ethics; subject to legal accountability such as libel laws and editorial standards.

The grip of Parliament on the freedom of expression was broken by a famous Quebec case.

The Roncarelli v. Duplessis (1959) case was one of the most important decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada in limiting the role of government.

The conditions that triggered the case resonate today with attempts by the American president to bully media into silencing crticism.

Premier Maurice Duplessis of Quebec ruled with an iron fist. His authoritarian grip on society, with the blessing of a strictly conservative Catholic Church, led to a period that Quebecers call the “Great Darkness.”

Duplessis was known for using state power to suppress dissent, particularly against groups seen as defying the Church or provincial authority.

Frank Roncarelli, a Jehovah’s Witness, was a restaurant owner in Montreal. At the time, Jehovah’s Witnesses were heavily persecuted in Quebec for distributing religious pamphlets critical of the Catholic Church.

When hundreds of Jehovah’s Witnesses were arrested for distributing their literature, Roncarelli bailed them out.

Duplessis personally retaliated and ordered the Quebec Liquor Commission to revoke Roncarelli’s liquor licence, effectively destroying his restaurant business.

The Premier publicly justified this by saying Roncarelli had supported “a group that was subversive of public order.”

The court ruled in favour of Roncarelli, laying the groundwork for the idea that government cannot punish individuals for exercising lawful expression or association.

The grip of Parliament to censure individuals was broken.

But then the monopoly of institutional media was broken by the internet.

Freedom of the press has expanded beyond institutional media to anyone with an internet connection through blogs, YouTube, X (Twitter), TikTok, or podcasts. Millions around the globe can publish and distribute information.

I can put a desk in my basement with a sign saying “Eye View World,” sit behind the desk and start broadcasting.

The boundary between freedom of the press and freedom of expression for individuals has blurred. It democratizes expression of opinion but also blurs the line between professional journalism and personal opinion.

In earlier times, freedom of the press was about the right of the few to inform the many. Today, freedom of expression means the right of the many to inform (and misinform) each other.

David Charbonneau is a retired TRU electronics instructor who hosts a blog at http://www.eyeviewkamloops.wordpress.com.