From: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: 21 Aug 92 15:01:22 GMT

I'm sure there will be other comments, but....I couldn't let this one slide.



In <3748@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca> clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:

>In article <_z#nw=l.adamsr@netcom.com> adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:
>>Thus spake clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis):
>>>
>>>The situation is no different than the US.  Where the Supreme Court
>>>can and does permit exceptions to the constitution, even though there
>>>are no explicit escape clauses.  One only need look at the exceptions
>>>that have resulted in the suspensions of due process in property seizures
>>>permitted under the anti-drug and anti-organized crime legislation,
>>>or the violations of two contitutional clauses by the seizure
>>>of Dr. Alvarez Machain.
...

>Secondly, if our country was so all-fired ready to suppress political
>stances "far removed from our government", why, at a time when America
>was arresting thousands of communists in the 20s, that members of the
>Canadian Communist Federation were not only tolerated, but were getting
>elected as federal and provincial members of parliament?  That even fringe
>communist groups such as the Marxist-Leninists have been tolerated all
>along?  Even during the McCarthy trials in the US?  That the CCF, now known
>as the NDP (New Democratic Party), forms the government in several
>provinces, including Ontario, and has a good chance at forming the next
>federal government?

Probably because the CCF wasn't "far removed from 'our' government."  1/2 :-)

...

>Perhaps "High Times" could (I have no idea, I've never seen one, but
>I have heard of it methinks) be considered in violation of the
>hate speech (Keegstra) or knowing false news/hatred (Zundel) laws.  But
>again, as Carl's quotes have shown, the American Supreme Court
>has indicated, time after time, that they *would* uphold bans
>of such material provided that the likelyhood of the material
>causing nontrivial harm was sufficiently high.  If there's a difference
>between Canada and the US here, it's only in how "high" "high" has
>to be.

I don't think there could be any legit basis for the ban, even under
Canadian law.  It's possible customs is impounding High Times because they
don't like it, rather than for any violation of law.
...

>Frankly, I suspect that if High Times is indeed being impounded
>it's not because of content.  You see, if High Times doesn't
>want to collect Canadian GST from Canadian subscribers then
>High Times can't mail it into the country.  And High Times
>is probably one of those rags that would rather rant about
>a political conspiracy rather than admit that they simply
>don't feel like collecting the tax.  [Yes, foreign GST collection
>is indeed silly, but it has nothing to do with free speech.]

You may be correct there.  (I am curious, though.  Does that mean that I,
as an (informal) software publisher, cannot sell my products mail-order to
Canada without collecting GST?  How about if I modem the software to a
Canadian purchaser after receiving payment?  How about shareware?)
--
Arthur L. Rubin: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (work) Beckman Instruments/Brea
216-5888@mcimail.com 70707.453@compuserve.com arthur@pnet01.cts.com (personal)
My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer.
My interaction with our news system is unstable; if you want to be sure I see a post, mail it.
Xref: sparky news.admin:6965 news.groups:16764 news.misc:1580