From: mcb@foucault.postmodern.com (Michael C. Berch)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: 18 Aug 92 05:57:59 GMT
Organization: Postmodern Consulting, San Francisco, California USA

In the referenced article, clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
> mcb@foucault.postmodern.com (Michael C. Berch) writes:
> [...]
> >I've stayed out of this so far, but I don't think you understand how
> >offensive I (and others) find the above paragraph.  I have absolutely
> >no interest in any cooperation, no matter how slight, with any form of
> >state censorship.  I believe that censorship is not merely evil but Evil, 
> >and if your government gives you problems about that, I think you
> >should oppose them.
> 
> For a person who is usually relatively well informed, this is a remarkably
> *stupid* and insulting remark.

I could say the same about your original article as well.

> In case you missed it, Canada is not only a democracy, but these laws
> enjoy the overwhelming support of the entire country.  State censorship?
> Bullshit.  The state is us.  Evil?  You're calling the entire country evil.

Yeah, right.  Perhaps you've forgotten, but exclusion of Jews enjoyed
the overwhelming support of the German people in the 1930s.  Tyranny
of the majority is always a problem.  I know a fair number of
Canadians -- intelligent, well-educated people, all of them -- and
each of them find state censorship as offensive as I do, and are
embarrassed that their country would take such action in a misguided
attempt to prevent "harm". 

> And why should I, or anybody else bust their butt to "save" crap like
> this?  Crap who's only legacy is oppression, misery or even death [ie:
> Keegstra or Zundel].

Because free expression is inherent in the nature of a free society;
if Keegstra's and Zundel's words are suppressed because people
disagree with them or find them threatening, whose words will be next?
I think Keegstra and Zundel are scum -- but even scum should have the
right of free expression.  By denying the Holocaust they defend and
attempt to exonerate people who participated in the murder of my
relatives (I am a Jew of Eastern European ancestry).  Yet I would not
silence them, because I do not want to live in a society that
suppresses the free exchange of ideas.

> >I have no interest in giving even trivial respect
> >to Canadian laws that restrict freedom of expression.
> 
> How about a little respect for the desires, laws and traditions of
> other countries?

Human rights transcend sovereignty.  A majority has no more right to
be tyrannical in Canada than in the U.S. or elsewhere.  Believe me, I
am not defending the U.S. government's record with respect to freedom
of expression issues.  It is better than some, but objectively, it is
despicable.  

> >So if censorship (and pressures to resist it, i.e., by cross-border sites
> >that send you "illegal" material) gives you a problem, get on your
> >MLA's case.  Don't come whining to Americans telling us to cool it; I
> >think instead we should turn up the heat. 
> 
> So you have just gotta save us from ourselves.
> 
> Save us from evangelical Americans who simply cannot accept that there are
> ways, *viable* ways, other than theirs.

No.  Freedom of expression is too important a human rights issue to
allow politicians, censors, and their apologists to restrict it.  I
am not arguing from an "American" point of view -- I find the
situation here intolerable as well, and have contributed time, money
and energy to anti-censorship causes and publications.  In some ways
the situation here is worse, since we seem to pay lip service to
freedom expression as a Constitutional right, but it is so regularly
violated by everyone from the Supreme Court down to the Mothers for
Decency that it has become more of a sham than a right.  

> It's attitudes like this that make the term "ugly american" so appropriate.

Oh, please.  By the way, I am a first-generation American.  My parents
were both born in ... Canada.  (And I have spent considerable time in
Canada.)  

> MLAs?  More ignorance.  MPs.
> 
> MLAs are the term for some provincial politicians.  This issue is federal.

I am perfectly aware of the distinction. (Unless you are a politician,
lawyer, or happened to work in one, I think it is a fair bet that I
have spent more time in Canadian provincial legislative buildings than
you have, being related to a few MLAs here and there.  My experience is
limited to Manitoba and British Columbia, however.) My understanding is
that Canadian censorship laws are a mix of federal and provincial
enactments, and that one generally has better access to MLAs as they
are more numerous.

--
Michael C. Berch  
mcb@postmodern.com
Newsgroups: news.admin