Comments on: Courts Hold that Media Corporations Should Prepare for Public Scrutiny http://www.thecourt.ca/2009/09/23/courts-hold-that-media-corporations-should-prepare-for-public-scrutiny/ The Court is the online resource for data and debate about the Supreme Court of Canada. Fri, 10 Feb 2012 22:34:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: John G http://www.thecourt.ca/2009/09/23/courts-hold-that-media-corporations-should-prepare-for-public-scrutiny/comment-page-1/#comment-156224 John G Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:37:05 +0000 http://www.thecourt.ca/?p=2101#comment-156224 This is definitely a fascinating case about the extent to which the Charter applies to private enterprises operating under a licence from the government. I think it is not accurate, however, to conclude as this comment does, by saying that the case will decide whether "Canadians" have the right to buy airtime under the same rules and conditions as "corporations". First, Canadians who happen to organize and act through a corporation are no less Canadian than those who do not use a corporation. Second, there is no evidence that corporations who buy airtime are not subject to the same kinds of objections that Adbusters encountered. (BTW, is Adbusters a corporation, even if without share capital?) I suspect that the objection to the proposed ads were that they would be offensive, either to the public or to other advertisers. The offensiveness does not depend on who submits the ad. This raises again the issue dealt with - also in BC, interestingly enough - for newspapers in Egale v ... who? Vancouver Sun? where the newspaper did not want to run an ad for a gay-rights organization. (One suspects that that publication decision would not be made today whatever the law allowed.) Which way did that case turn out? What is the difference with the TV cases - were the other ones before the Charter, or does the broadcasting licence permit a Charter argument that was not available for newspapers? This is definitely a fascinating case about the extent to which the Charter applies to private enterprises operating under a licence from the government.

I think it is not accurate, however, to conclude as this comment does, by saying that the case will decide whether “Canadians” have the right to buy airtime under the same rules and conditions as “corporations”.

First, Canadians who happen to organize and act through a corporation are no less Canadian than those who do not use a corporation.

Second, there is no evidence that corporations who buy airtime are not subject to the same kinds of objections that Adbusters encountered. (BTW, is Adbusters a corporation, even if without share capital?) I suspect that the objection to the proposed ads were that they would be offensive, either to the public or to other advertisers. The offensiveness does not depend on who submits the ad.

This raises again the issue dealt with – also in BC, interestingly enough – for newspapers in Egale v … who? Vancouver Sun? where the newspaper did not want to run an ad for a gay-rights organization. (One suspects that that publication decision would not be made today whatever the law allowed.)

Which way did that case turn out? What is the difference with the TV cases – were the other ones before the Charter, or does the broadcasting licence permit a Charter argument that was not available for newspapers?

]]>