counter-speech does not enjoy absolute constitutional protection, nor is it inherently [124] In fact, counter-speech can even hinder the values underpinning our country’s commitment to free expression (C. F. Zwibel, “The Right to Protest and Counter-Protest: Complexities and Considerations”, in E. Macfarlane, ed., Dilemmas of Free Expression (2022), 111, at pp. 111 and 120-25). For example, counter-speech aimed at completely removing the initial expression from the public sphere appears to be inconsistent with the search for truth. Silencing contrary and unpopular views seems antithetical to our liberal, pluralistic and democratic society, which is committed to the free exchange of ideas in the pursuit of truth. [125] Indeed, the marketplace of ideas welcomes vigorous debates on divisive issues. Such confrontation helps shape, strengthen or even change people’s perspectives. After all, he “who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that” (J. S. Mill, On Liberty (1859 (reprinted 1978)), at p. 35). Truth is therefore arrived at by community members through the exercise of their agency and autonomous judgment, notably in the process of public discussion (R. Moon, “The Social Character of Freedom of Expression” (2009), 2:1 Amst. L. Forum 43, at p. 46; on the ties between freedom of expression and human dignity and autonomy, see also Ward v. Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse), 2021 SCC 43, at para. 59; T. M. Scanlon, The Difficulty of Tolerance — Essays in Political Philosophy (2003), at pp. 14-16). 2023 SCC 14 (CanLII) more valuable than the speech to which it responds.