Regina v. Butler: The harms approach and freedom of expression

In Regina v. Butler the Supreme Court of Canada explicitly accepted the argument that obscenity law should be based on harm rather than morality. The court's opinion, and the view of certain feminists, depends heavily on social science research that shows exposure to some pornographic materials may have harmful effects. However, an analysis of these studies indicates that the findings encompass a wide range of stimuli and are not limited to pornography. Based on the research, the court's shift to a harms approach should logically include all presentations containing harmful messages, regardless of the degree of sexual explicitness. As such, this article argues that the court has not really abandoned its moral approach to obscenity. It has just disguised it by adopting the rhetoric of harmfulness.

Notes

Visiting Assistant Professor, Department of Telecommunications, Bowling Green State University.