Final Speech Case Study Analysis
Analysis of Pridgen V. The University of Calgary, 2010 ABQB644 Case (Group Work Powerpoint Material) Case Preview The 2010 case of Pridgen V.
The University of Calgary is a complicated case in the sense that the free expression of opinion/speech by the students Steven and Keith Pridgen depicted that they exercised their rights to freedom of speech. As a matter of personal opinion, the University of Calgary's General Faculties Council Review Committee (UCGFCRC) and Dean Tettey were more obliged to make an example of the students rather than make amends over the issue. The decisions made thereafter was an infringement of the student’s rights. Nevertheless, the Pridgen brothers were not the only students involved in the wall discussion on facebook, neither were they the only students who expressed their dissatisfaction about prof. Mitra's competency. If dean Tettey was aware of the fact that prof. Aruna Mitra was teaching the course for the first time (Pridgen v. The University of Calgary, 2010 ABQB644), then he would have understood the student's position in the light of their complaints. Regardless, the students had every right to complain about an academic staff’s incompetence, and no professional or personal injuries were inflicted in this case.Implications of the Case on Freedom of Speech in Canada Some of the implications associated with the 2010 case of Pridgen v. The University of Calgary was the delineation of the charter scope for universities. Another is the protection of freedom of speech rights guaranteed by the Canadian charter of Rights and Freedom, section 32. According to Hanson (2012), the application of this Charter is limited to only federal government, the parliament, and provincial government in Canada. Another clear implication was that the 2010 case of Pridgen v. The University of Calgary led to a judicial interpretation of the charter and its application limits. The question as to whether universities are applicable to Charter and/or can attract Charter scrutiny was answered after Justice Strekaf reviewed the Alberta’s Post-secondary Learning Act, SA 2003, c P-19.5, and concluded that the university is not a Charter free zone (Hanson, 2012). This implies that the universities decision to place the Pridgen brothers on probation for their actions was an infringement of their right to freedom of speech and association. The 2010 case of Pridgen v.
The University of Calgary serves as a judicial landmark of justice, which reaffirms that freedom of speech is a right granted, guaranteed, well protected, and prioritized in Canada. According to Richard Moon (n.d), the legal restrictions of speech freedom within the university is not elaborate or strict enough for a variety of reasons. Some of which may include the character and manner of some expressions, limitations on threatening and intimidating speech. Furthermore, (Moon, n.d.) noted that the freedom of expression is meant …