concluding categorically that all deliberate lies are entirely unrelated to the values underlying section 2(6) of the Charter…. The first difficulty results from the premise that deliberate lies can never have value. Exaggeration – even falsification – may arguably serve useful social purposes linked to the values underlying freedom of expression. A person fighting cruelty against animals may knowingly cite false statistics in pursuit of his or her beliefs and with the purpose of communicating a more fundamental message, e.g ‘cruelty to animals is increasing and must be stopped.’ A doctor, in order to persuade people to be inoculated against a burgeoning epidemic, may exaggerate the number or geographical location of persons potentially infected with the virus. An artist, for artistic purposes, may make a statement that a particular society considers both assertion of fact and a manifestly deliberate lie;…All of this expression arguably has intrinsic value in fostering political participation and individual self-fulfillment.” I respectfully agree with these views. In my view by criminalizing satire, the Act impinges upon the freedom of expression more than is necessary in a practical sense in a democratic society. [19] (iii) Proportionally between the effects of criminalizing defamation and its curtailment of the freedom of expression. (a) Effects of Criminalizing Defamation in General. (i) Its deleterious effects on journalistic freedom of expression. Criminalizing defamation has a chilling effect on journalistic freedom of expression. Fear of potential criminal sanction for reputational incursion may result in media practitioners doing what is known as self-censoring. The
concluding categorically that all deliberate lies are entirely unrelated to the values underlying section 2(6) of the Charter…. The first difficulty results from the premise that deliberate lies can never have value. Exaggeration – even falsification – may arguably serve useful social purposes linked to the values underlying freedom of expression. A person fighting cruelty against animals may knowingly cite false statistics in pursuit of his or her beliefs and with the purpose of communicating a more fundamental message, e.g ‘cruelty to animals is increasing and must be stopped.’ A doctor, in order to persuade people to be inoculated against a burgeoning epidemic, may exaggerate the number or geographical location of persons potentially infected with the virus. An artist, for artistic purposes, may make a statement that a particular society considers both assertion of fact and a manifestly deliberate lie;…All of this expression arguably has intrinsic value in fostering political participation and individual self-fulfillment.” I respectfully agree with these views. In my view by criminalizing satire, the Act impinges upon the freedom of expression more than is necessary in a practical sense in a democratic society. [19] (iii) Proportionally between the effects of criminalizing defamation and its curtailment of the freedom of expression. (a) Effects of Criminalizing Defamation in General. (i) Its deleterious effects on journalistic freedom of expression. Criminalizing defamation has a chilling effect on journalistic freedom of expression. Fear of potential criminal sanction for reputational incursion may result in media practitioners doing what is known as self-censoring. The
Peta%20v%20Minister%20of%20Law%20%26%20Constitutional%20Affairs.docx