[bit.listserv.ethics-l] The Global View

John G. Spragge <SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> (03/11/91)

Just a hop over the border in Canada, the situation is thus.
Restrictions on freedom of speech are justified on two grounds:
that the speech may damage one person, and that the speech may
cause widespread harm. The first case is the free-press/fair
trial conflict. In Canada and Britain, the law comes down hard
on the side of a fair trial, so that editors who runs, say,
comments claiming that defendants in ongoing criminal trials are
obviously guilty risk having their papers shut down by the courts.
In this case, however, Canadian newspapers are allowed to carry
accounts of US trials, complete with commentary that would be
illegal if used in reporting a Canadian trial. In such cases,
the law of the originating jurisdiction is allowed to determine
what is permitted, since the citizens of the originating country
will be the ones affected.

In the other case, where the speech complained of is alleged to
cause widespread harm, Canada has two methods for dealing with
allegedly harmful material: one is the customs regulations, which
are intended to stop "bad stuff" at the border (customs inspectors
have no idea what a .gif file is). The other is the obscenity
laws, which are ludicrously out of date. How these laws could
be brought to bear on computers is unclear, but it is unlikely
the relevant law enforcement agencies would ever hear about the
offending material.

In the end, I suspect, the enforcement of pornography/obscenity
statutes is pretty much a dead issue, at least in the North
American culture. What the Saudis do may, of course, be different.

disclaimer: Queen's University supplies me with computer services, not
            my opinions.

John G. Spragge