Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 Tandy Xenix 02/17/86; site gilbbs.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!ncr-sd!hp-sdd!hplabs!qantel!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020 From: mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Television coverage and censorship in Canada (in net.columbia??) Message-ID: <43@gilbbs.UUCP> Date: Fri, 7-Mar-86 05:15:36 EST Article-I.D.: gilbbs.43 Posted: Fri Mar 7 05:15:36 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 10-Mar-86 06:07:12 EST References: <6396@utzoo.UUCP> <514@kontron.UUCP> <1132@lsuc.UUCP> <7582@watlion.UUCP> Organization: Gil's Place, Santa Rosa CA Lines: 108 Summary: let's be more careful with our verbiage, filk... In article <7582@watlion.UUCP>, drsimon@watlion.UUCP (Daniel R. Simon) writes: > In article <556@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > > > >> Like other rights, freedom of speech can be abused to harm others. > >> A person who uses words to threaten physical violence to get money > >> is committing robbery, and thereby violating the rights of the victim, > >> every bit as much as if he said nothing and, instead, waved a weapon > >> and gestured at his victim's wallet. The criminal law makes this > >> and other abuses of freedom of speech illegal. > > > > > >Bullshit. If someone walked up to you and said, "Give me your money", but > >there was no way for them to injure you (for example, a police officer > >standing there, and the person making the threat was clearly unarmed, and > >physically incapacitated so as to be no threat with their fists), it > >would not be credible that they were robbing you. You would ignore > >them, and if you used force against them, YOU would be in trouble. > > > There's a fellow in New York who might want to talk to you about this > --name is Goetz, I believe... > > Seriously, there are myriad examples of words (particularly false words) > which are understood to be injurious to others or to society, and are therefore > illegal. Perjury is the crime of swearing to statements in a court of law > which are lies--no action is involved here, just words, including the oath. *WRONG*. the crime is in misrepresenting the truth, *NOT* in the words spoken. Additionally, under most such laws, the crime would consist of failing to adhere to the legally binding promise of presenting only truthful information. Again, the crime is not in speaking, but in misrepresentation and failure to adhere to a contract. > Similarly, fraud can be committed merely through the verbal misrepresentation > of, say, a product as something it's not--again, the sale of such an item is > not, of itself, an illegal act; what is illegal is the fraudulent > misrepresentation of it. Again, although your statement is correct, your intent is not. It is, in in fact, the misrepresentation of the truth which is criminal here, not the words that are said, or the act of speaking them (or writing them). >And, of course, there's the classic "shouting 'fire' > in a crowded theatre" example. False bomb threats, made by telephone, are > mere words--nothing more. Should they be legal? No, nor are they. However, again, its the misrepresentation which is illegal , not the utterance of words. In each case, it is the intent to cause havoc, which in turn has the potential to cause loss of life and limb, or property, which is considered harmful, not the utterance of the words themselves. > Of course, there are many countries which abuse this notion of the danger of > words by defining any words critical of the government as false, and using > "slandering the state"-type laws for the purpose of suppression of political > dissent. However, absolute freedom of speech, like absolute freedom of action, > is ALREADY a myth, as I have established, and somehow, our freedoms, by and > large, have been preserved quite well. Frankly, if absolute freedom of speech, > including freedom to purjure, defraud, and engage in public mischief (not to > mention to disseminate hate propaganda), is ever established in my country, I'm > going to start packing, just as surely as if anti-government protest is > outlawed. I suspect that most people would agree with me. So in other words, if one group's opinions are judged by society to be "hateful" (I wonder if you could accurately and specifically define the criteria under which "hatefulness" is to be judged?) then they haven't the right to voice their opinions? *gee*, does that mean that if I publish, or otherwise disseminate information that makes hateful claims about Nazis, I am in violation of the law? Does this mean that if my opinions manage to offend a suffciently large number of people, that they can judge my opinions to consititute a danger to society, and incarcerate me, and censor my opinions? Sounds very Orwellian to me... > > In other words, we are all, whether we like it or not, on the "slippery slope" > between freedom of speech and controlled speech; we are on that slope out of > necessity, because any kind of ordered society requires some kinds of > limitation to free speech. Whether the restriction on the distribution of hate > literature is or is not too far "down the slope" towards suppression of free > speech is open to debate, and has been discussed quite thoroughly here in > Canada because of the Zundel and Keegstra cases. But the issue requires a > careful comparison of the positive and negative effects of a given limitation > of free speech on a democratic society--not an unthinking promotion of free > speech as always harmless and beneficial. > > Daniel R. Simon It seems to me that censorship is wrong, period. The problem with censorship is that once we grant the government the right of censorship, we can no longer control it. Who is to decide what the limits are to be? If those who oppose those limits are censored, then the issue cannot be debated freely. No, I am sorry, but you are wrong. Government censorship is unacceptable. If you wish to ensure that the "ignorant masses" don't fall prey to the hate-mongerers (and yes, I despise the Nazis, and many other groups, as well), then go out there and push a more reasonable point of view. Be vocal. Picket their meetings, passing out your own propaganda countering theirs. But do *NOT* censor them! This is a major error. -- ==================================== Disclaimer: I hereby disclaim any and all responsibility for disclaimers. tom keller {ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020 (* we may not be big, but we're small! *)