From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: 2 Sep 92 04:48:52 GMT
Organization: Elegant Communications Inc., Ottawa, Canada

In article <1992Aug31.193351.27896@ncar.ucar.edu> woods@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) writes:
>In article <3761@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca> clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
>>, no, they just keep coasting along, ebbing and flowing,
>>and killing people along the way.

>The killing is punishable, the speech is not, unless they are inciting
>someone to commit a crime, and that has been ruled *not* to be protected
>speech on numerous occasions by the courts.

We've finally come to the crux - both the Keegstra and Zundel laws
*are* anti-incitement laws - they're not laws *just* against specific
words strung together in a specific order, they are laws against speech
that is "likely" to lead to "non-trivial" harm.  Where both of which
have to be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt" to a jury (in addition
to several other requirements which differ slightly between the
two laws).  (The "likely" is from the laws themselves, the "non-trivial"
bit is the constitutional requirement needed to override a basic
right from the Charter of Rights.)

The differences between the US and Canada here are simply how
likely "likely" has to be, and the focus on criminal acts in
general rather than *specific* acts.

>>A reasonable anti-hate law
>>would have a better chance at keeping their numbers smaller.

>One thing that *is* sure is that
>giving the government the freedom to censor certain kinds of
>speech is a fatal mistake.

*Again*, the government does NOT have that power.  The courts and
juries do.  Besides, the law takes effect after the fact.  Neither
Zundel or Keegstra were muzzled.  The material taken in isolation isn't
itself illegal - much of it has been republished in the newspapers.

It isn't "classical censorship".

>Eventually it will get to the point where anyone
>that disagrees with the government will be prosecuted under these laws.
>If you don't believe me, look what has happened with the forfeiture laws,
>which were intended as ammunition against drug dealers and mobsters who
>could not be prosecuted through "due process" in the courts, but are now
>being used against innocent citizens by greedy police departments and
>prosecuting attorneys looking for a quick buck.

None of the laws in question, or individual charges are out of the reach
of the courts - in fact the Supreme Court has ruled the Zundel law
unconstitutional because of vagueness.  Any court in the series of
trials that occured could dismiss.  In contrast, seizures under the US
forfeiture laws aren't subject to the criminal courts.  The only redress
would be to sue the government.  And that isn't very easy.  Due process has
gone by the wayside in the US, but not in Canada.

>>I've always been in favour
>>of decriminalizing the softer drugs because the major harm is a result of
>>the criminalization, not the effects of the drugs themselves.

>Precisely my point. Criminalize "hate speech" and the effects of 
>criminalization will be worse than the effect of the speech itself.

Haven't seen any proof of that in these cases.  In fact, the
results of the trials seem to have been generally positive - the issues
are aired, many get to speak, and the drivel gets drowned out.

>Freedom of speech comes with a price. The price is that those you disagree
>with get to speak too. Even the KKK.

There's no problem with letting them speak.  But we draw the line at
when they start inciting violence or other criminal acts and when
there's good reason to believe that some of it will be acted upon.
-- 
Chris Lewis; clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca; Phone: Canada 613 832-0541
Psroff 3.0 info: psroff-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Ferret list: ferret-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca