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laws, which are ludicrously out of date.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. Spraggecirby@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (((((C.Irby))))) (03/11/91)
In article <91069.234546SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>, SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (John G. Spragge) writes: >... 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 laws, which are ludicrously out of date. I don't know about *your* site, but most of the gifs I've seen have been 'porn.' Some of them *very* graphic... Canadian law would certainly grab some of these. > 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. Au contraire! All it takes is one blue-nosed 'anti-porn' person on your staff. They find a file that says something like 'hotsex.gif,' they open it up with a handy program (since most folks keep program and files in the same directory), they get offended, and they call the cops... > 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. I suppose that accounts for the recent censorship problem in those Canadian (Toronto) comic book shops? Read rec.arts.comics to follow that idea... Censorship is still with us. It's going to be a problem in the net. It's just not a major one. So far. -- |////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////| |\\\\\\| C Irby cirby@untvax cirby@vaxa.acs.unt.edu |\\\\\\| |//////| He frowns thoughtfully. "I wonder why the |//////| |\\\\\\| Fascists always have the best uniforms." |\\\\\\| |////////////////////////-Spy Magazine-//////////////////////////|