From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: 29 Aug 92 04:57:38 GMT
Followup-To: news.admin
Organization: Elegant Communications Inc., Ottawa, Canada

In article <920826.1447507961@foucault.postmodern.com> mcb@foucault.postmodern.com (Michael C. Berch) writes:
>I have been asked by several people to move this discussion to
>alt.censorship; therefore followups are directed there.  --MCB

On the other hand, I don't get alt.censorship, so I'm going to cross-post
back.  If you want to keep it out of news.admin, I suggest you respond
by email.  (If this thread is still alive by the scheduled rmgroup for
news.admin, I'll just let it die.)

>   What I do object to, besides
>censorship attempts from both the right and the left, is the hypocrisy
>of those who wave the (U.S.) flag and talk about the "American Way of
>Life" and our cherished freedoms and all that and then support or vote
>for politicans who restrict these rights.

Funny, that's the main reason why I am posting.

>> People keep harping on "universal right to free speech".  The "freedom
>> of speech" you keep talking about is freedom of speech without responsibility,
>> freedom of speech bedamned with the body count.

>Really?  I guess I must have missed all those horrible victims of free
>expression.  Where are they?

I can think of about 60 million without trying very hard.  Nazi Germany
is an ideal example of where, long before Hitler came into power and
could *force* his views, what this type of speech could result in.
He didn't just appear out of thin air as Reichfuhrer - it was this
speech that got him his power.  And once he had his power, no German
law could contain his actions.

The KKK is another example.  Allowing their freedom of speech, no
matter what they say hasn't resulted in opposing speech causing it
to die out, no, they just keep coasting along, ebbing and flowing,
and killing people along the way.  The illegality of the actions
certainly doesn't stop them does it?  A reasonable anti-hate law
would have a better chance at keeping their numbers smaller.

>> If you want to tell us how to run our country, I suggest you clean up your
>> own problems *first*, then we might listen.  Like reducing your violent
>> crime rate by a factor of four - then you'll be at least in the same
>> ballpark as everybody else.

>See above.  Decriminalize drugs (you would probably not agree to that
>because it might "harm" someone) and then let's take a look at the
>violent crime rate.

How do you know what I'd not agree with?  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.

>> So now you're calling Canada fascist.  By tradition, comparing something
>> to Hitler or Nazi Germany usually ends the discussion.  Not.

>Perhaps the Nazi-baiting was of overkill, but it's the best
>example of tyranny of the majority that I know of.  Just because
>something is overwhelmingly popular does not make it right, nor is it
>a reason for suppression of a minority's rights.  

It's also one of the best examples of what unrestricted speech on the
part of a minority can lead to.

>> On the other hand, with a Keegstra or Zundel law, *maybe*, just *maybe*
>> Germany wouldn't have ended up as it did.

>So you would approve the suppression of political speech because you
>disagree with its content...with the justification that it might
>"harm" someone.  I think at least part of the problem is that you (who support
>censorship) don't seem to be able to draw the line between expression
>and action -- that expression of unpopular views (no matter how
>offensive or hurtful) is NOT the same as permitting violations of
>others' rights as a follow-on to that expression.  

I can't think of a worse way of describing my position.  There is much
speech that I disagree with or find personally offensive, that I have 
absolutely no desire to attempt to suppress, and would in fact speak
against its suppression.  There is some speech, however, where the
"risk" isn't just "might", isn't some theoretical vague remote possibility,
but where major harm is almost a certainty or can be established as
already happened - "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Holocaust denial *alone* doesn't qualify.  Keegstra and Zundel went *far*
beyond that.

>> Zundel's law was "knowingly spreading false news intended to incite
>> hatred towards an identifiable group".  They didn't really even have
>> to establish the "knowingly" and "false" part, because he did his own
>> photograph faking, but they did anyways.

>You can try to couch it in whatever palatable language you choose,
>whether legalistic, academic, or psychological, but it's still
>suppression based on offensiveness and disagreement.  I think the idea
>of "false news" is particularly odious, since it sets up the
>government as the arbiter of Official Truth.

You can twist the facts as much as you want, but what you say is a
lie.  The government does *not* determine the Official Truth any
more than my or your government determines the official truth
in any other criminal proceeding.  The courts do along with the
juries.  The speech must be shown false, "beyond a reasonable doubt",
shown knowingly false on the part of the utterer, "beyond a reasonable
doubt", and shown non-trivially harmful, "beyond a reasonable doubt".

If that is, in your mind, the government imposing its idea of truth,
you've just blown the criminal justice system completely out of the
water.  Now what would you replace it with?

I simply agree with the Supreme Courts of *both* our countries
that have stated time after time (and is explicitly stated in
our constitution) that there is *some* speech beyond the pale.
And to be beyond the limit, the risk of permitting the speech must
be obvious, non-trivial, very high, and demonstrable.  Both Keegstra's
and Zundel's juries said so.  That seems reasonable to me.

>I don't think I would
>trust any government -- American, Canadian, or whomever -- to decide
>matters of historicity.  (The assassination of John F. Kennedy is a
>good example of this.)

Only "think"?  I wouldn't.  But that's not the case here - the government
does *not* decide.

Mind you, the "false news" law is moot now.  Yesterday the Supreme
Court struck it down as being too vague.  Now we'll see if they
recharge him with the Keegstra law.

>> Neither Zundel nor Keegstra were really trying to exonerate anybody.
>> That was just a byproduct of their real intent - to incite violence
>> against jews, to oppress them and to kill them.

>> You still defend them?

>I defend their right to expression, yes.  Without reservation.  Their
>purposes and motives are irrelevant.

Are the *direct* results of their speech equally irrelevant?  You would
eliminate minimum age for drivers?  You would completely unrestrict
*all* weaponry and only take action when people get killed?

Stupid.

>"Oppressing" [by force or coercion] or
>"killing" are obviously not protected, and IF and ONLY IF free
>expresion turns to violations of others' rights, the illegal acts should
>be stopped.

Ie: you have to let them kill people before you can do anything.  Great.

Boy am I glad our constitution doesn't require that.
-- 
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
Newsgroups: news.admin