He has free speech, he'd have the right to speak his mind because he wouldn't be jailed or fined for that even if it's regarded as morally wrong. I think it's more of a question as to whether or not the BC laws about profiting off the case apply to him. Even if the laws are applicable in this case, he still has free speech, he just wouldn't be able to "sell" his story or whatever.
It seems to me after some research (but I am not a lawyer) that the Canadian laws regarding profiting from criminal notoriety concern the criminal themselves (see
The law should ensure Pickton never profits from his horrific crimes - The Globe and Mail ). In addition, these types of “son of Sam” laws vary by state in the US and by province in Canada (eg in Manitoba -
The Profits of Criminal Notoriety Act)
The main thing I have found from my research relates to “Son of Sam” laws in the US. These laws have had many legal challenges and resultant changes to try to respond to legal rulings to make them constitutional and enforceable. This review starts off with an interesting case regarding a relative
(Feature: ‘Son of Sam’ Laws: How Much Does Crime Pay?)
“On July 11, 2010, after two years of evading authorities in eight states and three countries, the “Barefoot Bandit” was caught by police in the Bahamas. Nineteen–year–old Colton Harris-Moore, infamous for his shoeless crime sprees, is awaiting possible prosecution of more than 70 crimes committed during his two–year run. Allegations against him include theft of airplanes, luxury vehicles, and pleasure boats totaling more than $3 million.
On July 9, two days before authorities caught Harris-Moore, The Seattle Times reported that his mother, Pam Kohler, had hired an entertainment attorney to handle “entertainment” interests related to the case.”
The article describes the results of legal challenges to this case and others (eg legal challenges to OJs children getting the profits from a book he wrote).
I think, as others have posted, the suspect’s father may have
no legal restrictions and might, in the future, endeavor to tell his story in any way he can (including ways that might earn a profit). I think the various examples in the articles cited above show the limited ability to restrict any future commercialization of the story by the father or anyone else (except, I guess, those legal limitations that might relate to libel/defamation of living persons in published materials).
My thoughts are that social norms and ethical views about providing inside information by family and others (whether for profit or not) will be divergent as to whether it is appropriate or not. But whether I like the way it is done or not, the pressure is going to be to share info. I think the suspect’s father is an anomaly in how much he shares and the McLeod’s family may be an anomaly in how little they share - but both, from my perspective, are understandable and to be respected.