# Is being informed a civil right? > The US, Canada, and Europe draw the lines of free speech in different places, yet none of them treat being informed as a civil right. How the First Amendment, Canada's Charter, and Europe's Article 10 handle the right to receive information, and where each one stops. Source: https://informed.now/blog/is-being-informed-a-civil-right By Chuck Black · November 1, 2026 · Perspectives *This is Part 1 of the forthcoming 2-part Perspectives series by [informed.now](https://informed.now)'s Contributing Author [Chuck Black](https://informed.now/chuck). Part 1 examines historical context on the right to be informed while Part 2 argues whether such a right should exist.* **Summary:** The US protects access to information, even information that's false. Canada and Europe protect access too, but limit what they define as harm. None treat being informed as a civil right. Most of us outside the United States aren't American. But when we talk about "free speech" and "civil rights," we mostly default to the American model. Free speech in the US is a "negative" liberty enforced with laws focused on restricting government censorship of ideas. Compared with most other democracies, the American model is unusually protective of offensive, hateful, or controversial speech and skeptical of government power to define or suppress "harmful" ideas. That's the model most people around the world invoke when they talk about free speech, even if their own legal systems operate differently. ### What does the First Amendment protect? America's free speech model is rooted in the [First Amendment](https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript), which reads "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." This is the core of the US approach to free speech: "Congress shall make no law" to limit or interfere with the free flow of ideas, including religiously inspired ideas. The First Amendment originally limited only Congress, but a later amendment extended it: - [The 14th Amendment](https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment) was adopted after the Civil War to secure citizenship and equal civil rights for formerly enslaved people; Courts apply its Due Process Clause to hold state and local governments to the standard of the First Amendment The right to receive information is a "civil liberty" under the First Amendment, and the Supreme Court has reaffirmed this right: - [Martin v. City of Struthers](https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep319/usrep319141/usrep319141.pdf) (1943) noted that freedom to distribute literature necessarily protects the right to receive it - [Stanley v. Georgia](https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep394/usrep394557/usrep394557.pdf) (1969) reaffirmed the right to receive information and ideas, including the private possession of material the state deems obscene - [Board of Education v. Pico](https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep457/usrep457853/usrep457853.pdf) (1982) held that school boards may not remove library books to suppress ideas they dislike Each case turned on a "negative" right: Whether governments could restrict the free flow of information. Under US law, governments mostly can't. As of today, no US law creates a "positive" duty to keep the population informed. Nor does the Constitution contain a broad "right to know" that forces the disclosure of records or requires public or private information to be accurate. ```cards > The Right to Receive Information in the US US Law Guards a Negative Right, Not a Positive One ## !Negative Right: Protected : Government may not block information from reaching you - Handing Out Literature | Martin v. City of Struthers, 1943 - Reading What You Like at Home | Stanley v. Georgia, 1969 - Keeping Books in School Libraries | Board of Education v. Pico, 1982 ## Positive Right: Not Guaranteed : Government must make sure you're informed - No Press Access Beyond the Public's | Houchins v. KQED, 1978 - States Can Limit Records Requests | McBurney v. Young, 2013 - No Duty to Keep Information Accurate | No federal law requires it ``` ### Does the US guarantee access to information? The US does have access to information laws, such as the federal [Freedom of Information Act](https://www.foia.gov/) and state open-records laws, which require the release of some government records on request or after a period of time has elapsed. But US courts have held that the First Amendment grants no general right of access to government information. The Supreme Court, in [Houchins v. KQED](https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep438/usrep438001/usrep438001.pdf) (1978), ruled the press has no First Amendment right of access to a county jail beyond what the general public has, and in [McBurney v. Young](https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep569/usrep569221/usrep569221.pdf) (2013) upheld the State of Virginia's right to limit public records requests to its own citizens. In First Amendment theory, the core protection is against government control of the information environment that may prevent people from forming their own judgments. Censorship, [propaganda](https://informed.now/blog/what-is-propaganda) monopolies, and viewpoint discrimination by private companies mostly fall outside the First Amendment, which only restrains the government. American political theory treats an informed citizenry as a precondition for self-government and the "consent of the governed," yet no law requires citizens to be informed. US law doesn't give a general right to be shielded from: - False, misleading, or biased private speech. The traditional remedy is more speech, criticism, and competition, not official rulings on what's true. - Private editorial choices or platform moderation. These choices are themselves protected speech, subject to limited exceptions such as fraud, defamation of private figures, or actual threats. Private online platforms in the US enjoy broad immunity from liability for what their users post, under [Section 230](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCODE-2023-title47/USCODE-2023-title47-chap5-subchapII-partI-sec230) of the Communications Decency Act, passed in 1996 to update the [Communications Act of 1934](https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf). This hands-off legal approach relies on the "marketplace of ideas" approach, rooted in Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' 1919 dissent in [Abrams v. US](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/250/616). It posits that the best test of truth is its ability to win acceptance in a free and open market of competing thoughts. However, debates continue over whether concentrated ownership, [algorithmic amplification](https://informed.now/blog/curated-news-vs-algorithmic-feeds), or coordinated private censorship can limit access in ways that undermine the "marketplace of ideas" rationale. Consistent with the prevailing spirit, those concerns have continued to be addressed through competition, transparency, [media literacy](https://informed.now/blog/news-literacy), or statutory disclosure rules rather than direct content regulation, precisely because American law treats government "protection from bad information" as the greater threat to the right to be informed. Other democracies put less faith in that "marketplace of ideas." ### How does Canada regulate free speech? Canadian law gives more weight to protecting people from information the government judges harmful. But being informed isn't a civil right either. The [Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-12.html)' Section 2(b) guarantees "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including ... of the press". However, Section 1 explicitly subjects all Charter rights to "such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." Courts determine what counts as a reasonable limit using the [Oakes Test](https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/117/index.do) in R. v. Oakes (1986). The test asks whether a law that limits a Charter right serves a pressing goal and limits the right no more than necessary. ```cards > The Oakes Test, R. v. Oakes (1986) in Canada 4 Questions Canada's Courts Ask Before a Charter Right Can Be Limited ## 1. Pressing Objective : Is the law's goal pressing and substantial? ## 2. Rational Connection : Is the limit logically tied to that goal? ## 3. Minimal Impairment : Does it restrict the right as little as reasonably possible? ## 4. Proportionate Effects : Do the law's benefits outweigh the harm to the right? = A limit has to pass all 4 ``` But Canadian courts' application of the Oakes test continues to be contested. For instance, John Carpay, founder and president of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, argues in his 2025 book "[Corrupted by Fear](https://www.jccf.ca/corrupted-by-fear/)" that the test was often misused and sometimes ignored in constitutional challenges to the lockdowns and restrictions implemented by various municipal, provincial, and the federal government during the Covid-19 pandemic of 2021-2022. Notwithstanding the criticism, Section 1 lets Canadian governments pass more proactive legislation than US law allows. Much of that legislation targets "hate speech." For example, Criminal Code's [Section 319(1)](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-319.html) now criminalizes the "public incitement of hatred" against an identifiable group (defined by traits such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, and gender identity). Section 319(2), which bans wilfully promoting hatred, was upheld as a justified limit in [R. v. Keegstra](https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/695/index.do) (1990). Since 2022, section 319 has banned promoting antisemitism by condoning, denying, or downplaying the Holocaust. In 2026, the Combating Hate Act added a definition of hatred: "an emotion of an intense and extreme nature that is clearly associated with vilification and detestation." The same law repealed the good faith religious opinion defence for some hate propaganda offences. Core political, journalistic, and artistic speech remains protected in law. Critics say debate over health care, immigration levels, and other contested topics now draws accusations of hate speech, though prosecutions have been rare. Canada has proposed and passed legislation aimed at content the government considers harmful: - The [Combating Hate Act (Bill C-9)](https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/c9/index.html) came into force on July 18, 2026, changing definitions in Criminal Code's [Section 319(1)](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-319.html) - The [Safe Social Media Act (Bill C-34)](https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/safe-social-media-act.html) (introduced in June 2026), is before Parliament with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association calling it "a blank cheque for the government to regulate" - The [Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography Act (Bill S-209)](https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/s-209) passed the Senate and is before the House of Commons; Critics cite privacy risks, a broad definition of restricted content, mandatory age verification that could mean tracking the online activity of every Canadian adult, and state-controlled internet filtering Critics argue that, taken together, these laws chill public discourse. ### How does Europe regulate free speech? The European Union (EU) and most of the rest of Europe operate under much the same legal concepts as Canada, although the specifics of the legislation often differ. For instance, [Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights](https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/convention_ENG) protects freedom of expression but states that its exercise "carries with it duties and responsibilities." Restrictions are permitted if prescribed by law, pursue a legitimate aim (such as prevention of disorder, crime, or infringement on the rights of others), and are necessary in a democratic society (a "proportionality test" similar to Oakes). National governments and courts decide what counts as "legitimate" and "necessary," subject to review by the European Court of Human Rights. States also have "positive obligations" to protect against hate and discrimination. This produces a far more proactive model than the one which exists in the US. Core differences fall into 5 areas: - **Constitutional structure:** The US text is nearly absolute against government abridgment, with narrow judicial exceptions. Canada and the EU embed limitation clauses, making content-based restrictions more justifiable when they're perceived as serving social goals. - **Hate speech:** Protected in the US (absent imminent harm or true threats). Criminalized or otherwise restricted in Canada and most of the EU as harming groups and democracy. - **Approach to regulation:** US is reactive and government-restraining. Canada and the EU are more proactive, using criminal law, human rights remedies, and (especially in the EU) platform duties. - **Platforms and online speech:** US largely leaves moderation to private companies. The EU's [Digital Services Act](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/2065/oj) and Canadian proposals impose or encourage proactive responsibilities regarding what they define as illegal or harmful content. - **Historical and philosophical roots:** American tradition emphasizes founding-era skepticism of government power over ideas. Canadian and European approaches more readily accept laws that protect people from hate speech and harmful content. ### Where does that leave the right to be informed? ```table > Free Expression in 3 Systems Different Rules, Same Answer on Being Informed | | United States | Canada | Europe | |---|---|---|---| | **Founding Text** | First Amendment, 1791 | Charter, Section 2(b), 1982 | European Convention on Human Rights, Article 10, 1950 | | **How Limits Work** | Narrow exceptions set by courts | Reasonable limits under Section 1, weighed with the Oakes test | Limits must be lawful, legitimate, and necessary in a democratic society | | **Hate Speech** | Protected unless it incites imminent lawless action or is a true threat | A crime under Criminal Code Section 319 | Restricted in most countries | | **Online Platforms** | Section 230 limits platform liability for user posts | Bill C-34, the Safe Social Media Act, before Parliament | The EU's Digital Services Act sets platform duties | | !**Being Informed** | Not a civil right | Not a civil right | Not a civil right | ``` The US, Canada, and Europe draw the lines of free speech in different places. None of them treat being informed as a civil right. The US protects access to information, even information that's false. Canada and Europe restrict access to information their laws define as harmful. **Should being informed be a civil right?** That's the subject of [Chuck Black](https://informed.now/chuck)'s next piece in this Perspectives series.