Shea, VictorMohammadi, Monireh2023-12-082023-12-082023-12-08https://hdl.handle.net/10315/41773This dissertation critically examines the loopholes in Canada’s hate speech legislation and its adjudication processes within courts and tribunals. It argues that Canadian hate speech laws are founded on expansive notions of harm, creating a slippery slope where protected expressions can also face restrictions. This dissertation argues that the current hate speech legal framework in Canada overlooks speech as an exceptional social phenomenon that is inextricable from human creativity, which is inherently polysemous, versatile, and interpretive, especially concerning sociopolitical, ideological, and cultural viewpoints. The core argument of this dissertation is that given the characteristics and complexities of speech and the lack of evidence that can link an alleged hate speech to its harm, hate speech cases are adjudicated through a common sense or deference to legislative judgment approach, and not through deductive and evidence-based reasoning. By closely analyzing hate speech cases, this dissertation demonstrates that in Canada the adjudication of hate speech cases is excessively subjective and inconsistent. This dissertation examines the rippling effects of Canada’s hate speech legal regime by uncovering the intertwining of hate speech laws with politics, leading to the rise of a phenomenon termed ‘speech scare’ that imposes societal and cultural pressures on free expression, especially on controversial topics. Finally, the dissertation examines the discourse of online hate speech, revealing how excessive pressure for online communication moderation can have more detrimental effects on the right to freedom of expression and the right to privacy.Author owns copyright, except where explicitly noted. Please contact the author directly with licensing requests.LawPublic policySociologyElectronic Thesis or Dissertation2023-12-08Freedom of expressionFree speechHate speech legislationHate speech lawsThe Charter of Rights and FreedomsReasonable limitsHate speech adjudicationExcessively subjective adjudicationCommon senseLegislative judgmentChilling effectInconsistent judgmentsSlippery slopeSpeech scareOnline hate speechPublic sphereCorporate surveillanceOnline content moderationThe right to privacyThe dark webHate speech legal regimeHate speech politics