Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site decwrl.DEC.COM
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-bartok!mahoney
From: mahoney@bartok.DEC
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Censorship in Canada, Freedom of Speech and Zundel
Message-ID: <1725@decwrl.DEC.COM>
Date: Mon, 17-Mar-86 15:26:05 EST
Article-I.D.: decwrl.1725
Posted: Mon Mar 17 15:26:05 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 20-Mar-86 18:01:28 EST
Sender: daemon@decwrl.DEC.COM
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 63


---------------------Reply to mail dated 14-MAR-1986 04:46---------------------
Parts of this I will cut out.  I hop in my editing I do not cut anything
important.


>>
>> numerous excellent examples of the abuse of censorship
>>
>  Brian, your cases of Galileo, Copernicus, and the Scopes "monkey trials" 
>are all excellent examples of the abuses and dangers of censorship. However,
>what you intended to prove by them is somewhat obscure. In fact, your 
>examples seriously misrepresent the case and law, under which Zundel was 
>charged.  To recap his case we should recall that the prosecutor had to 
>prove that the content of his pamphlets was false. In addition, it had to 
>be shown that he was capable of knowing them to be false and that his 
>intent was to arouse hatred against a particular group. The prosecution
>failing on any one of these points might have acquited Zundel.
  
  I was not tring to misrepresent the law if that is what came out I 
apologize.  All I was trying to show was that it is very difficult I would
say almost impossible to clearly and irrefutable say something is the truth and 
something is a lie. 
> 
>                                                                     Your
>three cases prove only that censorship has a great potential for harm and
>I have to agree that in nearly all cases it is harmful. But that doesn't 
>mean that it is always harmful in all possible cases.
> 
   This is what I was trying to show and my point is that to even start 
allowing the government this power is starting on the road to trouble.

>  Time for a digression.
   I agreed with your digression. Censorship is a symptom of a problem but the
problem will not go away because you censor.  The problem will more likely
grow like a cancer.

>  In another vein, let me pose a question to you. Do you believe that 
>it is wrong for someone to impose restrictions on civil liberties (namely 
>your right to persue happiness and to freedom of movement)? Prisons are 
>full of people who have had their liberties deprived them and this is all 
>done in the name of "punishment" or "rehabilitation". Yet the constitution 
>should guarantee them the right to live where they like and to come and 
>go as they please. Clearly this principle has been compromised. Why? One 
>answer is that these people had abused their freedoms by using them 
>irresponsibly. Everyone should have "all" possible human rights but
>what happens when these rights are abused? What do we do then?
> 
  These people where arrested for actions and not thoughts.  I feel there
is a big difference between saying I want to rob someones house and actually
doing it.  As I stated (or think I did) the government has the right to stop
someone from actually going through with their plans but not from expressing
them.
> 
>                                                Ken Hruday
>                                          University of Alberta


    Thank you very much for your thoughtful response.  It has started me 
thinking.  I am still against the idea of the law but I am not as hardened
as I was before.

   Brian Mahoney