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!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-bartok!mahoney
From: mahoney@bartok.DEC
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Censorship in Canada (The Myth of the \"Slippery Slope\")
Message-ID: <1931@decwrl.DEC.COM>
Date: Thu, 27-Mar-86 12:01:31 EST
Article-I.D.: decwrl.1931
Posted: Thu Mar 27 12:01:31 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 29-Mar-86 09:46:40 EST
Sender: daemon@decwrl.DEC.COM
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 87


---------------------Reply to mail dated 21-MAR-1986 22:04---------------------


>In article <1725@decwrl.DEC.COM> mahoney@bartok.DEC writes:
>>...  I am still against the idea of the law but I am not as hardened
>>as I was before.
>>
>>   Brian Mahoney
> 
>   Ok. Brian, you're a born sceptic :-), but I'm going to try one last 
>time to convert you.
> 
>>   This is what I was trying to show [the danger of censorship] and 
>> my point is that to even start allowing the government this power 
>> is starting on the road to trouble.
> 
>   This comment is indicative of a "model" held by most posters to the
>net. I think that underlying your thinking is a conceptual model of how 
>democratic governments turn totalitarian. I'm not sure if you formally 
>recognize the model that you've based your arguements on but I think it 
>exists and I have a coarse understanding of it. 

[An excellent article follows this.  I will cut out much of it for brevity]

> 
>  In the "slippery slope" model democracy must keep a constant fight to 
>keep from slipping down this slope to the pit below. This model would 
>predict that *ANY* erosion of rights is a movement to the bottom.
> 

   This is exactly as I see it.  Your article has done a lot to change my mind.
I still think as responsible people we must watch our government but your many
points show it is not easy to slip and slide to dictatorship.

> 
>  I shall now try to justify why I believe my model is correct. Not having
>a strong background in history my evidence will be somewhat scant (more room
>for you to flame :-).

  I do have a strong background in history (I was a history major at one point)
and what you say has many merits. Your point on Germany I think fits into this
model perfectly since the German people did have a history grounded in 
totalitarian rule.

>  Another example is the McCarthy era. People were whipped up into a frenzy 
>about the "Communist threat", the political climate was very chilling and 
>the Soviets were doing some pretty nasty things in Europe. The society at 
>the time was responding to a perceived threat and the result was effectively 
>a suspension of some civil rights without even a question that the government 
>was "doing the right thing". (EOD) *end of digression*
> 
   This is were I fear that the law will be abused.  Say people right nice 
things about the Communists.  This can be seen as hate literature towrds 
capitalists and the US.  I know this is stretching kind of far but so didn't 
Joe McCarthy.

> 
>  So, how do I relate this to censorship in Canada? I'm glad you asked 
>that :-). It seems to me that the major objections held by most "netters"
>is not the intent of the law but the fear that it could open the door to
>government abuse and eventual totalitarianism. As you can see from my model,
>I don't believe that this could happen. This law is within the normal range
>of variation for a democratic society.
> 

   Can you show how this is true? If oyu can then I will have no problem
with supporting this law.

> 
>  I would welcome any comments about the above model. As it stands it's
>only an approximation, but I believe that we have enough evidence to 
>either prove or disprove the predictive value of the bistable model.
>I think that it's time we put the "Myth of the Slippery slope" to rest.

As a model I believe it has great merit.  I am more and more leaning towards 
some support of the law.  I have some many good arguments for it such as it
is more a slander law then anything else. That the government is stopping a
definable group from being slandered.  Your ideas need to be thought about and
present a good argument against the fears of turning into a dictatorship.

> 
>                                       Ken Hruday
>                                  University of Alberta


  Brian Mahoney