“Whatcott” and Hate Speech: Re-thinking Freedom of Expression in the “Charter” Age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors examine the particular nature of political expression in the context of the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v. Whatcott. The novel approach they take is, instead of analyzing expression and its limits under s. 2(b) of the Charter, conceiving political expression as part of a division of powers analysis. With Whatcott, the time was ripe to subject restrictive speech laws, found in human rights codes, to an approach based on federalism. The paper outlines the background to Whatcott, the decision, and the distinct form of expression known as political expression. A federalism analysis of provincial hate speech laws is undertaken, and is then applied to Whatcott and political expression. The final claim is made that some constitutional free speech cases, such as Whatcott, might benefit from a more detailed constitutional review that includes federalism. In an era of rights-based jurisprudence under the Charter it is important to remember that the structure of federalism is also capable of protecting rights and freedoms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".