And there is the slippery slope. Who picks what is inappropriate, under what criteria, and how do you exempt that from being abused or usurped by those who would tamper with the distribution of information for political gain or empowerment over the public?
In Canada the government picks what to remove from charter protection.
The criteria for the validity of this removal is the Oakes test. It requires a rational connection between legislation and pressing social need, a demonstrably minimal impairment of the corresponding rights, and the third one I always forget... proportionality between objective and results.
There are various levels where accountability on the Oakes test is supposed to kick in. New legislation is supposed to pass charter review by the government in power. Then the courts generally begin to interpret it and put it through rigorous contextual tests. The validity of these safeguards can only by assured if the courts are independent of the government and not merely an extension of it.
For a good overview of the process, read through R. vs. Zundel, which was in relation to Zundel's publishing of "Did six million really die?" in Canada. Read also the cited cases to get a good overview for the workings of the courts on these issues, especially Irwin Toy, I also reccommend Dolphin Delivery.