Section 2(b) Advertising Rights on Government Property:Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority, ANew Canof Worms and the Liberty Two Step?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

The Supreme Court's recent decision inVancouver Transportation is problematic for two reasons. First, the majority adopts an analytical framework for determining whether a claim triggers the positive rights Dunmore/Baier analysis, which means that policies restricting expressive rights based on groups rather than content could be less likely to fall within the scope of section 2(b). A better approach would be to characterize section 2(b) cases based on the nature of the claim rather than the nature of the restriction and to apply the positive rights Dunmorel Baier criteria only where the claim is for an audience with the government or access to government funding. Second, the Court's section 1analysis provides sparse and problematic guidance for addressing the now opened can of worms that is sure to arise from the government sale of private advertising in a legal context that draws the censorship line above controversial content but below offensive content.

Original languageCanadian English
JournalDalhousie Law Journal
Volume33
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - Apr. 1 2010

Keywords

  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • Vacouver Transportation
  • policy
  • rights
  • Dunmore/Baier
  • government
  • funding
  • advertising
  • censorship

Disciplines

  • Administrative Law

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Section 2(b) Advertising Rights on Government Property:Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority, ANew Canof Worms and the Liberty Two Step?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this