Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watlion.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!watnot!watlion!drsimon From: drsimon@watlion.UUCP (Daniel R. Simon) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: censorship in Canada Message-ID: <7591@watlion.UUCP> Date: Tue, 11-Mar-86 15:26:24 EST Article-I.D.: watlion.7591 Posted: Tue Mar 11 15:26:24 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 13-Mar-86 01:07:13 EST References: <6396@utzoo.UUCP> <514@kontron.UUCP> <1132@lsuc.UUCP> <7582@watlion.UUCP> <43@gilbbs.UUCP> Reply-To: drsimon@watlion.UUCP (Daniel R. Simon) Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 120 Summary: In article <43@gilbbs.UUCP> mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) writes: > >> 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). > This is a pretty tricky distinction. Let's explore it further: Nick Shyster distributes flyers on the local street corner announcing that authentic gold Swiss watches are on sale at his shop for five bucks a crack. Upon investigating, police discover that said watches are actually Lithuanian, and made of sheet metal. Hauled before a judge, Nick loudly protests that he is not committing fraud at all, and that the watches really ARE gold and Swiss-made. As evidence, he produces a letter, convincingly written in green crayon by a Mr. Bob Gonuv of Vilna, Lithuania, which asserts that the watches in question are, indeed, handcrafted in Zurich from twenty-four-karat gold. Presumably, the court may choose to believe that Mr. Shyster is honest, and has himself been duped, or that he is deliberately repeating falsehoods which he knows are false. In either case, however, Mr. Shyster is unlikely to escape punishment. In short, Mr. Shyster's intention might lessen the severity of his deed, but it does not change its essentially criminal nature. By making false statements (which he reasonably OUGHT to know are false, whether he does or not), in a manner that, were everyone allowed to do likewise, would severely hurt society (without deterrence of fraud, commerce would surely grind to a halt--there is NO other justification for outlawing fraud, as opposed to simply letting "caveat emptor" prevail), our hypothetical ripoff artist has committed a crime, regardless of the honesty of his intent. >>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. > Norm Nutcase distributes flyers on the local street corner announcing that a bomb will go off at 3 PM today in City Hall to protest society's mistreatment of zucchini. Hauled before a judge, he asserts that he saw a brown rat climb to the top of the stairs of his apartment building and squeak three times, and that this was certain proof to him that just such a bombing would be carried out. It was, he argues, just an attempt to warn people, as well as to open their eyes to the predictive power of zucchini- casting, particularly if used in concert with brown-rat-gazing. Once again, the issue will not be whether Mr. Nutcase intended good or evil from his propagation of falsehoods, or even whether he knew that the falsehoods were false. The issue will be whether he ought to have known that his words were false, and to what extent his falsehoods would injure society if they were permitted. > > 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... Well, as I have said, if your name is Nick Shyster or Norm Nutcase, then society has ALREADY deemed your "opinions" a danger to society, and has ALREADY chosen to reserve the option of censoring your opinions, and of incarcerating you for expressing them. And you would probably grant that, in those cases, society is justified. The point is that you have recognized the very obvious dangers of allowing the above gentlemen to speak their minds, but you do not feel that the dissemination of hate literature carries similar dangers. Now, for another example: Ernst Zundel distributes flyers on a local street corner asserting that the Holocaust never happened, but that the evidence of its occurrence was cooked up by a worldwide conspiracy of Jews. As in the previous cases, the issues are: 1) Was he making false statements? 2) Ought he ("reasonably") have known that they were false? 3) To what extent is society endangered by his falsehoods? The first issue hardly needs to be discussed here. Frankly, I don't think the second needs any discussion either. The real question, therefore, is the last: is hate literature a danger to society? Certainly, the question is open to debate, but, as before, society must make that decision for itself. In Canada, we have decided that its effect is very serious indeed. > > > 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. This is an important issue. When does the prevention of damaging speech interfere with the ability of society to make democratic decisions, including those about what constitute damaging speech? We all more or less agree that outlawing fraudulent misrepresentation of goods will not significantly reduce the free flow of ideas necessary for democratic decision-making; does the criminalization of hate propaganda against particular racial or ethnic groups have a serious "chilling effect" on that flow of ideas? In Canada, we think not. I'm sorry you disagree. > >==================================== > >tom keller >{ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020 > Daniel R. Simon