What do you think about the Court’s reasoning on this idea of harm, and its role in justifying limitations on freedom of expression?

Assignment Paper 1 – freedom of expression
In 1992 the Supreme Court of Canada gave us an important, precedent setting ruling in R v Butler. This ruling has shaped Canadian law on freedom of expression in important ways.
In Butler the Court declared that a ban on obscenity was constitutionally valid, even though it infringed on freedom of expression. Specifically, the court said that certain kinds of expression, those that did not pass the community standards test, and/or the “degrading and dehumanizing” test (or which involved children) could be prohibited (unless, of course, such expression were of a type protected by the “artistic defense”). Somewhat curiously, the effect of this ruling was to make pornographic material MORE available than before. In the 30 years since this ruling, a lot has changed. The most obvious development is the internet, and with it easy access to pornographic images, videos, etc.
Central to the analysis that the Court offered in Butler is the idea that there is a real risk of harm from having certain kinds of images, certain kinds of speech, publicly available. Specifically, the harm is the likelihood of violence and exploitation directed at women and children by persons exposed to (and motivated by) exposure to certain kinds of material. But the evidence of harm, the Court indicated, is controversial and not conclusive. Still, it said that on an issue that is so important, the Government should be given a certain latitude to help attenuate the risk of harm, and restrict freedom of expression in order to achieve that goal.
What do you think about the Court’s reasoning on this idea of harm, and its role in justifying limitations on freedom of expression? Did the Court get it right? Did it get it wrong? Is there something you would change?
In your paper, you will need to decide what answer you are prepared to give to the question. You will then have to decide what evidence supports your view (either way) – if you agree with the Court, explain why you agree with them. And if you disagree, then, again, explain why you disagree. Remember, the key to a good argument is a clear conclusion, supported by clear, convincing and reliable evidence. (I hold x to be true/right, because of reasons a,b,c….)
Your paper should be no more than 1000 words; this is about 4 pages, double-spaced, 12 pt Times font.
Your paper should be based primarily on your reading and analysis of R v Butler. You are free to read any secondary sources you like, but this is not necessary. Your job is really to decide whether the arguments presented in Butler make sense. But please remember, if you do use secondary sources, you MUST use proper citations and references.

Last Completed Projects