Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watcgl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watmum!watcgl!dmmartindale
From: dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: How to start getting rid of porn
Message-ID: <1353@watcgl.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 23-Feb-85 12:47:07 EST
Article-I.D.: watcgl.1353
Posted: Sat Feb 23 12:47:07 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 26-Feb-85 20:17:00 EST
References: <1612@pur-phy.UUCP> <4716@cbscc.UUCP> <128@v1.UUCP> <774@utcsri.UUCP> <808@ames.UUCP>
Reply-To: dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale)
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 91

The following is a letter to the editor that appeared in a Toronto newspaper.
A bit of background: censorship of films in Ontario has been a fact of life
for many years, and the Ontario Censor Board has been noted for its literal
interpretation of its guidelines with little concern for the actual meaning
of the scenes it cuts or the artistic worth of the film as a whole.
(Which may, after all, be the only "fair" way for a government agency to
operate.)  The censor board is now being given the responsibility for
screening, classifying, and censoring video materials that are sold or
rented for home use, or shown to the public in places other than
commercial theatres (clubs, art galleries, etc.).  At the same time, its
name is being changed to the Ontario Film Review Board.  Public opinion
polls apparently show that a majority of people in Ontario approve of
censorship.

       "In enacting standards for the Ontario Film Review Board, the
    Government of Ontario amply demonstrates that it neither understands
    nor respects the free speech principle.

    The lack of understanding is perhaps curable.  Unfortunately, the
    Government's lack of respect is probably pathological.

    As a first-order complaint, the use of public opinion polls to support
    censorship criteria is patently offensive to the theory of
    constitutional protection.  The so-called fundamental freedoms
    generally, and the freedom of speech specifically, must be anti-
    majoritarian to be meaningful.  The very basis of the protection of
    speech is to permit the minority to present their ideas, to argue and
    cajole without interference from those who wield power in society.  The
    employment of opinion polls to establish stadards for expression
    clearly demonstrates the Government's disrespect for the underlying
    rationale of freedom of speech.

    [ paragraph on licencing deleted - dmm]

    Finally, the actual standards enacted are worthy only of derision.
    They are so overbroad as to be meaningless:  graphic or prolonged
    depictions of violence, torture or human degradation are unacceptable,
    as are explicit indignities to the human body.  Superfically, these
    standards may appear justifiable.  However, a film dealing with the
    horrors of the Holocaust would in all likelihood fall within the
    prohibition.  If this example seems absurd, consider the board's
    treatment of Not a Love Story, which was substantially censored despite
    its patently anti-pornograhpy theme.  [Not a Love Story was banned from
    being shown to the "public", and could only be presented at "private"
    screenings. - dmm]

    Consider two other standards that appear easily justifiable:  the
    prohibitions against representing persons under 16 in a suggestive
    sexual context, and the depiction of any explicit sexual activity.
    No sane person defends kiddie porn, but that is not what the former
    standard prohibits.  It is much broader than that: any representation
    of such activity is banned.  By this standard a realistic presentation
    of Romeo and Juliet is now prohibited in Ontario, since Juliet was
    merely 13 and did sleep with Romeo.

    With respect to other depictions of explicit sexual activity, the
    problem lies with defining sexual activity.  A passionate kiss on the
    lips is as much a sexual activity as intercourse.  The question is
    where the line is to be drawn.  No one can answer that question except
    for himself or herself.  It is clear, however, that it is extremely
    dangerous to permit the government to draw the line for you.

    The Ontario Government's position is indefensible and dangerous.  I am
    optimistic that the courts will again declare the legislation
    unconstitutional.  While this will solve the immediate problem of
    censorship, it unfortunately will do little to promote respect for
    fundamental freedoms in government circles or among the pro-censorship
    majority.

    John D. Wilson
    Assistant Professor
    Faculty of Law
    University of Windsor
    Windsor Ontario."

A few comments of my own:  Note that the prohibition of explicit sexual
activity, which is not qualified with respect to the circumstances in
which the activity takes place, will certainly cause erotica to be
censored as effectively as pornograhpy.  Perhaps this is the intent of
the law - it seems that many of the people who support censorship seldom
go to see films themselves, but want to regulate what others see.

If you are pro-censorship, is this the sort of censorship you want?
If not, how do you propose to ensure that you get the sort of censorship
you want and not something like this?  How much faith do you have in
a government agency to apply censorship standards with intelligence?
How much faith do you have that people who would prefer to censor anything
sexual will not have the standards reflect their views, instead of yours,
if censorship becomes established?

	Dave Martindale