Question

This is a classic case dealing with freedom of expression. The City of Peterborough had passed a bylaw prohibiting the posting of any material on city property. The bylaw prohibited the posting of “any bill, poster or other advertisement of any nature,” on any “tree . . . pole, post, stanchion or other object . . .” within the city limits. Ramsden put up advertising posters on several hydro poles to advertise an upcoming concert for his band. He was charged with committing an offence under the bylaw. It is not disputed that he posted the bills on the hydro pole.

Question:

Indicate what defences he might have to the charge and the arguments for both sides and likely outcome.

Answer 1

When the government passes a law to not stick posters it is not prohibiting people from expressing themselves but ensuring that the surroundings are neat because we can see posters everywhere from small ads to big campaigns. Some have permission while some do not even take permission from the authorities . Ramsden can appeal that his rights are being suppressed but the authorities can also argue that while Ramsden has right to express himself it is not correct to disturb others and pollute the environment and the authority will win the case .