cs2532aa@unm-cvax.UUCP (04/29/85)
In article <> clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: > . . . Examples of lack of "totally free speech" in the U.S. . . . > > 2) The GENUS II edition of Trivial Pursuit is banned in the > U.S. for the question: > How many months "gone" was Nancy Reagan when she > walked down the isle? > (answer: 2 or 3 (I expect a visit from the NSA/CIA any > time now)) > > . . . It is? I was at a party playing it just last night. (I concede that it was the "U.S. Edition" . . . perhaps that question was removed. And it seemed to me that there were QUITE a few answers that were wrong . . . followups to net.games.trivia, which I don't follow so apologies if this has come up before . . .) .rne. ----- Real World . . Ernie Longmire / 311 Don St. SE / Los Lunas, NM 87031-9405 UUCP . . . . . {{purdue,cmcl2,ihnp4}!lanl,ucbvax}!unmvax!unm-cvax!cs2532aa ----- Greatness is attainable only when it is not sought. --B. Banzai
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (04/30/85)
> In article <> clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: > > . . . Examples of lack of "totally free speech" in the U.S. . . . > > > > 2) The GENUS II edition of Trivial Pursuit is banned in the > > U.S. for the question: > > How many months "gone" was Nancy Reagan when she > > walked down the isle? > > (answer: 2 or 3 (I expect a visit from the NSA/CIA any > > time now)) > > > > . . . > I believe that question appeared in the Canadian Genus version. Even the British Genus version only shares about 50 % of the questions witht the North American versions. -Ron
eric@osiris.UUCP (Eric Bergan) (05/01/85)
> > In article <> clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: > > > . . . Examples of lack of "totally free speech" in the U.S. . . . > > > > > > 2) The GENUS II edition of Trivial Pursuit is banned in the > > > U.S. for the question: > > > How many months "gone" was Nancy Reagan when she > > > walked down the isle? > > > (answer: 2 or 3 (I expect a visit from the NSA/CIA any > > > time now)) > > > > > > . . . > > > I believe that question appeared in the Canadian Genus version. > Even the British Genus version only shares about 50 % of the questions > witht the North American versions. Actually, the question appeared in the Canadian version of "Baby Boomers". All the versions have come out in Canadian and American versions, mostly so that they can "americanize" the questions, and not ask trivia questions about Canadian government, TV, etc. The other classic change was the definition of SNAFU changed from the Canadian Genus edition (which I have) and the American version. Guess they wanted to keep it a kids game!? -- eric ...!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!osiris!eric
ccs020@ucdavis.UUCP (Kevin Chu) (05/08/85)
> > . . . Examples of lack of "totally free speech" in the U.S. . . . > > > > 2) The GENUS II edition of Trivial Pursuit is banned in the > > U.S. for the question: > > How many months "gone" was Nancy Reagan when she > > walked down the isle? > > (answer: 2 or 3 (I expect a visit from the NSA/CIA any > > time now)) > > > > . . . > > This has bothered me since I saw it. Could someone explain just how it is > possible to ban such a thing? Thanks. > -- > Joe Arceneaux > > Lafayette, LA > {akgua, ut-sally}!usl!jla I don't beleive the game was 'banned' by any government agency. Selchow, the distributer, took the question out of the US version of the game on their own. They may have changed some other questions as to keep in tune with the American public. Kevin Chu ucbvax!ucdavis!vega!ccs020 /ex
george@mnetor.UUCP (George Hart) (05/09/85)
> > > . . . Examples of lack of "totally free speech" in the U.S. . . . > > > > > > 2) The GENUS II edition of Trivial Pursuit is banned in the > > > U.S. for the question: > > > How many months "gone" was Nancy Reagan when she > > > walked down the isle? > > > (answer: 2 or 3 (I expect a visit from the NSA/CIA any > > > time now)) > > > > > > . . . > > > > This has bothered me since I saw it. Could someone explain just how it is > > possible to ban such a thing? Thanks. > > -- > > Joe Arceneaux > > > > Lafayette, LA > > {akgua, ut-sally}!usl!jla > > I don't beleive the game was 'banned' by any government agency. Selchow, > the distributer, took the question out of the US version of the game on > their own. They may have changed some other questions as to keep in tune > with the American public. > > Kevin Chu > ucbvax!ucdavis!vega!ccs020 > > /ex Actually, according to a published interview with the authors of the game (who are Canadian), the US distributor (which may well be Selchow) asked them to remove the question because they were afraid of the reaction in the Bible Belt. Your're right however in that lots of questions were changed, about 50-60% in each edition (except possibly Sports and Silver Screen). -- Regards, George Hart, Computer X Canada Ltd. {cbosgd, decvax, harpo, ihnp4}!utcs!mnetor!george
clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (05/09/85)
In article <165@ucdavis.UUCP> ccs020@ucdavis.UUCP (Kevin Chu) writes: >I don't beleive the game was 'banned' by any government agency. Selchow, >the distributer, took the question out of the US version of the game on >their own. ... >/ex You're probably right - sorry for the (probably gross) oversimplification. Though a point can be made that commercially- imposed censorship is not necessarily any better than state-imposed, this was a very poor example. A better example is: the movie "If You Love This Planet" was banned (in spite of the fact that it got an Academy Award for "Best Foreign Documentary" (or some such)) and that Farley Mowat was denied entry into the States to promote one of his books. He is (last I heard on the news) considered to "consort with known Communists" because he refused to be "debriefed" by the RCMP and U.S. agencies after his six month visit to the USSR to get material for his book "Sibir" (sp?) which was written over 15 years ago. I hardly think that you can consider Farley Mowat a communist! Have you noticed that these examples are all "originated in Canada, banned in the States"? Interesting, but probably simply a matter of our own news media's biases and my own interests. Anyways, since I didn't get torched like I thought I might be, it seems fairly clear that the U.S. has not got "totally free speech" as the original poster (re: Europe dropping net.politics) claimed (oh so much holier-than-thou) once he saw that Canada and Europe has some restrictions. -- Chris Lewis, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321
jla@usl.UUCP (Joe Arceneaux) (05/10/85)
> . . . Examples of lack of "totally free speech" in the U.S. . . . > > 2) The GENUS II edition of Trivial Pursuit is banned in the > U.S. for the question: > How many months "gone" was Nancy Reagan when she > walked down the isle? > (answer: 2 or 3 (I expect a visit from the NSA/CIA any > time now)) > > . . . This has bothered me since I saw it. Could someone explain just how it is possible to ban such a thing? Thanks. -- Joe Arceneaux Lafayette, LA {akgua, ut-sally}!usl!jla
dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) (05/11/85)
> A better example is: the movie "If You Love This Planet" was banned (in > spite of the fact that it got an Academy Award for "Best Foreign > Documentary" (or some such)) and that Farley Mowat was denied entry > into the States to promote one of his books. The film in question was not "banned" in the US. It, and a film on acid rain, offended the Reagan administration which, in its typically inept way, chose to resurrect an old, unused law and require that (1) whenever one of the films was shown, an announcement be made to the effect that it was "foreign [i.e. Canadian] propaganda", and (2) a record be kept of the organizations exhibiting the film and the persons viewing it. Far from "banning" the films, the effect was to give them loads of free publicity and encourage their screening all over the place, including public television! Organizations went out of their way to openly disobey the law. I never heard of any prosecutions resulting from any of the numerous showings that violated these restrictions. So much for banned films. I disapprove of Mr Mowat's visa denial. Nevertheless, it should be noted that Mr Mowat's words are in no way restricted; his book is being sold and he has (if memory serves) been interviewed on US television. Furthermore, Col Qaddafi if Libya, who has been accused by the Reagan administration of plotting to assassinate the President, was permitted to address an American political conference via satellite, during which he called for the armed overthrow of the US government. No censorship was imposed and no punishment of the conference promoters ensued. So much for censorship of the unpopular political views of foreign nationals. > Anyways, since I didn't get torched like I thought I might be, > it seems fairly clear that the U.S. has not got "totally free > speech" as the original poster (re: Europe dropping net.politics) > claimed . . . An interesting breed of logic, there. I am not aware of anyone claiming that the US has totally free speech, just freer political speech than one is likely to find in most countries (including, alas, Canada, Britain, and France). In Canada (let us remember) it is illegal to differ with the official government line concerning certain historical events (in particular the Holocaust). The fact that the government's version of history in this instance is undoubtedly true is beside the point. Would you approve of the law in the (admittedly unlikely) event that a right-wing government took over Canada and promulgated its own version of, say, the history of Quebec? Furthermore, the banning of fruit-loop books claiming that the Holocaust was a hoax only serves to bring publicity to a nut group that would otherwise be ignored by everyone with an IQ outside the single digits. But let's not get into that again... -- D Gary Grady Duke U Comp Center, Durham, NC 27706 (919) 684-3695 USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
herbie@watdcsu.UUCP (Herb Chong [DCS]) (05/13/85)
In article <1233@ecsvax.UUCP> dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) writes: >In Canada (let us remember) it is >illegal to differ with the official government line concerning certain >historical events (in particular the Holocaust). at the risk of more flaming, how did the government enter into this? the charges were made by a private group. the wording of the charge mentioned the Holocaust, but the charge was equivalent to a libel suit (which happens a lot in the US, i hear). Zuhndel(sp?) was charged with publishing information which was known to be false. if he had singled out a single person and that person were alive, a libel suit would probably have resulted instead (and generated a lot less publicity). >The fact that the >government's version of history in this instance is undoubtedly true is >beside the point. the government happens in this case to make no statements about history. historians make statements on history. responsible historians present verifiable facts. the government, through the legal system, decides which side can present more verifiable facts (evidence) by letting a jury of people representing the community decide which evidence is stronger. sound familiar? >Would you approve of the law in the (admittedly >unlikely) event that a right-wing government took over Canada and >promulgated its own version of, say, the history of Quebec? no, but then the government has never done so before, and is unlikely to do so in the future because the government does not present any version of history to anyone, historians do. >Furthermore, the banning of fruit-loop books claiming that the >Holocaust was a hoax only serves to bring publicity to a nut group that >would otherwise be ignored by everyone with an IQ outside the single >digits. but lying in public is not to be taken lightly when a group of people are offended and hurt because of those lies. libel, slander, and other such things exist for a purpose, and there is a time and a place for their proper application. if i took out an ad in the NY Times and called you various and sundry names, you would tell me to retract those statements publicly or be sued (a common thing in the US, i hear) since dueling is outlawed. along the way, i could drag your name through the mud, lying through my teeth every step of the way. it would be up to you to prove that i was lying, since i'm innocent until proven guilty. Zuhndel's primary defense was that he wasn't lying because he actually believed what he was publishing was true. Herb Chong... I'm user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble.... UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!water!watdcsu!herbie CSNET: herbie%watdcsu@waterloo.csnet ARPA: herbie%watdcsu%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa NETNORTH, BITNET, EARN: herbie@watdcs, herbie@watdcsu
clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (05/13/85)
In article <1233@ecsvax.UUCP> dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) writes: >> A better example is: the movie "If You Love This Planet" was banned (in > >The film in question was not "banned" in the US. It, and a film on >acid rain, offended the Reagan administration which, in its typically >inept way, chose to resurrect an old, unused law and require that (1) >whenever one of the films was shown, an announcement be made to the >effect that it was "foreign [i.e. Canadian] propaganda", and (2) a >record be kept of the organizations exhibiting the film and the persons My recollection was that it was indeed banned, and that after strenous protest, the ban was removed in favour of the "propaganda" disclaimer. >An interesting breed of logic, there. I am not aware of anyone >claiming that the US has totally free speech, just freer political >speech than one is likely to find in most countries (including, alas, >Canada, Britain, and France). The original poster did claim just that. I wouldn't have responded otherwise. Regarding "freer" than "Canada" etc. Maybe, but a good point can be made that this only applies domestically - what about US policies w.r.t. CIA covert activities in Chile? >illegal to differ with the official government line concerning certain >historical events (in particular the Holocaust). There is no "official government line" on the Holocaust or anything else. He was convicted of uttering statements that he *knew* were false intending to incite hatred. The jury was satisfied on all points (that they were "false", that he knew it, and that he was doing it to incite hatred). This was also brought out in another posting. You could do with some similar laws yourselves. If you still consider our law to be a violation of freedom-of-speech what about McCarthyism and the blacklists? That alone has ruined more lives than any restriction of freedom of speech that this country has ever had (except for the Japanese internment which the US had too). Wasn't being a member of the Communist party illegal during the 40's and 50's? > Would you approve of the law in the (admittedly >unlikely) event that a right-wing government took over Canada and >promulgated its own version of, say, the history of Quebec? No such law exists. Besides, the only right-wing government in a position to take over Canada is the States! (*grin*) On a more serious note, if through some fluke the Communist Party of Canada (CPC) or the Trotskyites or the Marxist-Leninists (or even the NDP!) or whomever ever managed to win a federal election in this country (or, if our country just did something that was sufficiently contrary to "US interests" like blocking off the St. Lawrence Seaway, Alberta Gas and Oil, or shipments of Canadian Bacon, CC, and Molsons/Labatts) what would your freedom-loving country do? The same thing as in Chile or worse (full-scale invasion)? Probably not - but the U.S.A. *has* done it before. >Furthermore, the banning of fruit-loop books claiming that the >Holocaust was a hoax only serves to bring publicity to a nut group that >would otherwise be ignored by everyone with an IQ outside the single >digits. But let's not get into that again... Absolutely true. Unfortunately, there seem to be a lot of single digit IQ's in both our countries. The KKK was ignored and see what happened - a lot of people were killed or were "deprived of their civil rights". How I love that phrase! It is quite amusing to see that charge when the charge should be "murder". -- Chris Lewis, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321
mupmalis@watarts.UUCP (M. A. Upmalis) (05/14/85)
In article <1233@ecsvax.UUCP> dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) writes: >In Canada (let us remember) it is >illegal to differ with the official government line concerning certain >historical events (in particular the Holocaust). The fact that the >government's version of history in this instance is undoubtedly true is >beside the point. Give me a break.. In a trial, using expert witnesses, whose accreditations were vetted by both prosecution and defence, testified to facts based on their knowledge on their explorations of the incidents of the holocaust. Opinions on both side were ventured and afterwords the court decided that the opinions ventured by thye accused were known to be false and made to incite hatred against a known group. This, akin to the american process, is a basic law that was applied by a court of law where the onus of proof was on the prosecution to show the intent of the accused. There is no bill ever passed that gives the official history of the holocaust. At least not in reality, and not in Canada. -- ~~ Mike Upmalis (mupmalis@watarts)<University of Waterloo>