Adbusters

A Legal Action for Media Democracy

Adbusters Media Foundation has filed an appeal against the recent decision by the B.C. Supreme Court allowing Global Television and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to continue censoring citizen-produced TV ads.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JULY 18, 2008

VANCOUVER, B.C. – Adbusters Media Foundation has filed an appeal against the recent decision by the B.C. Supreme Court allowing Global Television and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to continue censoring citizen-produced TV ads. Adbusters claims that this refusal to sell airtime to citizens and NGOs violates our right to freedom of expression under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

"This case raises important questions regarding the nature and scope of freedom of expression on the Canadian broadcasting system," says Adbusters’ lawyer, Mark Underhill. "Parliament has confirmed in the Broadcasting Act that our broadcasting system is a publicly owned resource, but access to the system is controlled by private corporations. We intend to argue before the Court of Appeal that the broadcasters, including Global and the CBC, must remain as defendants in Adbusters' groundbreaking case because they play a critical role in ensuring that the public airwaves are open to a variety of viewpoints on matters of public interest. "

Kalle Lasn, the founder and editor-in-chief of Adbusters, says he’s committed to carrying the case forward all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada if necessary.

“Canadians should be able to walk into their local TV stations and buy 30 seconds of airtime under the same rules and conditions as corporations do. The CBC especially, should immediately stop blocking citizen-produced messages or stop calling itself our public broadcaster.”

For more information or interviews with Mark Underhill or Kalle Lasn email paul [at] Adbusters [dot] org.

EDITOR’S NOTES

For more information about Adbusters and the global media democracy movement visit .

[1] Canadian Media facts:

Four corporations (CanWest, Quebecor, Torstar and Gesca) control 72 per cent of the country’s daily newspaper circulation:

Five major media acquisitions in Canada have occurred or are currently in the making in the past two years: CHUM was purchased by CTVglobemedia for $1.4 billion, which then sold five CityTV stations to Rogers for $375 million; CanWest purchased Alliance Atlantis for $2.3 billion; Astral Media bought Standard Broadcasting for $1.2 billion; and Black Press and Quebecor are vying for the Osprey Media newspaper chain in a deal that will be worth more than $400 million.

[2] Facts about Media Democracy:

More than 30,000 people have signed the Media Carta to voice their concerns about the way information is distributed in our society.

In the past year a growing number of grassroots media activist groups have been formed in Canada to express their dissatisfaction with the continued consolidation of the country’s media:

END/

Adbusters 111 Cover

On Newsstands December 3

At last we’re in Winter. It’s the year 2047. A worn scrapbook from the future arrives in your lap. It offers a stunning global vision, a warning to the next generations, a repository of practical wisdom, and an invaluable roadmap which you need to navigate the dark times, and the opportunities, which lie ahead.

Subscribe to Adbusters Magazine

44 comments on the article “A Legal Action for Media Democracy”

Displaying 41 - 44 of 44

Page 5 of 5

PITT

Are you people seriously suggesting that a private broadcasting corporation should be forced to broadcast content that it, for what ever reason, deems to be not in its self interest?

PITT

Are you people seriously suggesting that a private broadcasting corporation should be forced to broadcast content that it, for what ever reason, deems to be not in its self interest?

Anonymous

Adbusters failed to post a link to the Court's decision, so we could all read the ruling against them. I think Justice Ehrcke wrote a perfectly good explanation as to why Adbusters' case is, to be honest, a little bit silly.

So I'll post the link:

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2008/2008bcsc71/2008bcsc71.html

And three cheers to Adbusters for letting me!

Would I ever say, however, that they're REQUIRED to let me? God no.

Anonymous

Adbusters failed to post a link to the Court's decision, so we could all read the ruling against them. I think Justice Ehrcke wrote a perfectly good explanation as to why Adbusters' case is, to be honest, a little bit silly.

So I'll post the link:

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2008/2008bcsc71/2008bcsc71.html

And three cheers to Adbusters for letting me!

Would I ever say, however, that they're REQUIRED to let me? God no.

Pages

Add a new comment

Comments are closed.