u/Possible-Disk7716

Hi everyone!

As a Canadian with an undergraduate degree in both political science & criminal justice and public policy, and an MA in political science, I thought I might be able to help explain the iDubbz lawsuit situation a bit more. I am NOT a lawyer by any means though.

Freedom of Speech - U.S. vs Canada

In the U.S. there is the first amendment to the U.S. constitution, which states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (U.S. Const. amend I).

In Canada, we have freedom of expression as a guaranteed right according to S2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states:  "Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication." (Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982).

Both versions of freedom of speech have limitations (whether it was on private property, whether a means of violence was used as the form of expression, etc.) that can be applied by each country's respective supreme court. Moreover, due to things such as federalism, the provinces (Canada) and states (USA) do have different restrictions.

Where the countries really differ is in their limitations. In the U.S., freedom of speech is more absolute. In Canada, freedom of expression is subject to "reasonable limits" and bans hate speech and obscenity. The best example in difference I can think of currently would be that in Canada, if you called a Jewish person "inbred", you are not protected by freedom of speech whereas in the USA you are protected. I just want to reiterate that this does not mean that the USA is the wild wild west, there are still limitations, just A LOT less limitations.

Thus, it is easier to violate freedom of speech/expression in Canada than it is in the USA.

Defamation Laws - California vs Alberta

Federalism also plays a part here, as each province and state has their own defamation laws. In the U.S., there is no federal defamation statute. In Canada, defamation is mostly left to the provinces, however we do have "defamatory libel" in the Criminal Code of Canada (CCC).

In California, in order to claim defamation, you must establish a publication that is (a) false; (b) defamatory; (c) unprivileged; and (d) has a natural tendency to injure or causes special damages. Furthermore, public figures have a higher standard of proof, the lawsuit must be filed within one year of when the statement was made, and public figures must prove "actual malice" (the person who made the defamatory statements was aware they were false, or recklessly disregarded the truth). California also has an anti-SLAPP law which is designed to dismiss lawsuits that may be frivolous or lack merit.

In Alberta they have the Defamation Act (2000). The Defamation Act is VERY different from California defamation law. You still have to prove that the statement was published (spoken or written/recorded), false, and that it was referring specifically to the plaintiff. According to the Defamation Act, once libel has been proven, damages are presumed. Thus, you do not have to prove damage (economic loss) to the extent you have to in California.

It is MUCH easier to sue for defamation in Alberta than it is in California, as the standard of proof, elements to prove, and damages are less much intricate.

Now, I did mention defamatory libel in the CCC. I assume many of you will be interested because this is federal law and an indictable offence (AKA federal offence in the USA). As stated by the CCC, "A defamatory libel is matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published." (Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-3, s. 262). Defamatory libel is very rarely used, but applies to cases where libel is severe. This has a two year statute of limitations, which is slightly more forgiving than California's. There are no mandatory minimum sentences for defamatory libel charges, so for those of you who got excited, it is HIGHLY unlikely that iDubbz would be going to Canadian prison.

As of now, I am unsure if Ethan's lawyers would be seeking defamatory libel or just regular old libel, but I guess we shall see. I hope this was helpful for the non-Canadians or non-legal brain peeps! Love y'all! FAMILY!

P.S. I'm probably missing things so feel free to correct me or add to the info!