Committee Report on Crime Games Recommends Broad Ban
Jennifer Clarke Wilkes
I have had the opportunity to review the Justice Committee's
report on proposed legislation to ban "crime cards and games."
There are one or two items of good news contained in it, but
largely the document is quite unsettling.
The committee noted that "there was general agreement that these
products do not have a pervasive presence in the Canadian
entertainment market." As it turns out, the assistance of Customs
was required to obtain any sample. Only 13 sets of cards had ever
been intercepted at the border, and of those, only one was
prohibited entry. The game had never been seen, and had to be
obtained from the US distributor.
Despite acknowledging that there has been no conclusive link
established between portrayals of violence and social violence,
the committee accepted that it is a contributing factor. "...The
undue exploitation of cruelty, horror or violence...has no social
or cultural redeeming value. Although it is difficult to
establish a cause and effect relation between such material and
anti-social attitudes and actions, the Committee has reasonable
grounds to beleive that there is at least a correlation between
these social phenomena."
However, the committee rejected the draft legislation as it was
presented, noting that it was overly narrow in its application --
both in the types of media targeted and in the audience -- and
that there were inadequate safeguards to stand up to a Charter
challenge. It relies on the Butler decision of 1992 to support
the current "obscenity" provisions of the Criminal Code and
recommends that a third category -- "undue exploitation or
glorification of cruelty, horror or violence" -- be added.
Alternatively, a new section dealing with such material could be
drafted following the model of the recent child pornography law.
One bit of good news is that the committee recommends the repeal
of the "crime comics" provisions, which have been in place since
1949 and have not been enforced since the 1950's. It noted that
concentrating on the medium rather than on the characteristics of
the communication was not the best approach. On the other hand,
the committee also recommends adding a preamble to any new
legislation, that includes the following paragraph:
Crime cards and board games exploit, glorify and trivialize
brutal violent crimes. Allowing the crime cards and board
games to be sold as entertainment in the Canadian market
will contribute to a culture of violence in our society,
corrupt children and youth, and infringe the right of all
Canadians to security of the person. Crime cards and board
games are only the most recent media which glorify and
exploit horror, cruelty and violence, with no redeeming
cultural or social value.
Finally, the committee recommends that certain safeguards be
built in to cover situations in which apparent exploitation may
have a "higher" purpose. They recommend special defences based on
"artistic merit," "news gathering and dissemination" and "public
controversy." Needless to say, no form of entertainment or "low"
art is going to survive an "artistic merit" defence, and the
other categories do not apply. However, it will still be legal
for a tabloid to exploit a sensational murder in the name of
"news gathering and dissemination" while a card drily describing
the activity would be a forbidden item.
Finally, the committee recommends that the provincial attorneys-
general give consent before any prosecution is commenced. "A
measure of this kind would ensure that criminal prosecutions are
undertaken for substantive public policy reasons and not used as
a technique in a frivolous or vexatious way to harass and
intimidate those whose actions have no substantial deleterious
effect on the community." This is a good thing, but unfortunately
certain provinces are much more likely to stop material than
others. Ontario in particular is a hotbed of activist groups
pressuring government to ban violent entertainment.
In its dissenting opinion, the Bloc QuＣＤois noted that, in
light of Canadian and foreign case law on freedom of expression,
the recommended broadening of the definition of "obscenity" might
well not withstand a court challenge. They ask: "Is it necessary
to amend the Criminal Code to eliminate a social evil which in
many ways appears to have been exaggerated?"
It is heartening that the Minister of Justice, in responding to
questions in the House, has expressed reservations on the very
broad application of the recommended legislation. It is important
to let him know just how broad the implications can be. Write to:
The Honourable Allan Rock, P.C., M.P.
Minister of Justice
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6
--
Jennifer Clarke Wilkes || "One cannot make men good by an
|| Act of Parliament."
"For all your game defence needs"|| Walter Bagehot, 19th-century English
---------------------------------|| political theorist.
Jeff Kesselman
Jennifer Clarke Wilkes <ae...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>
>
>Despite acknowledging that there has been no conclusive link
>established between portrayals of violence and social violence,
>the committee accepted that it is a contributing factor. "...The
>undue exploitation of cruelty, horror or violence...has no social
>or cultural redeeming value. Although it is difficult to
>establish a cause and effect relation between such material and
>anti-social attitudes and actions, the Committee has reasonable
>grounds to beleive that there is at least a correlation between
>these social phenomena."
>
Oh boy! Comics Code here you come. This is VERY reminiscent in the
nonsense that led to the comics code and 20 years of stifling of
free expression in US comic books.
('Course I understand from the rest of your post you alrady HAVE a Comics
Code like we used to...)
Jeff Kesselman
"Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it."
Diane Kelly
In article <jeffpkD0...@netcom.com>, jef...@netcom.com (Jeff
Kesselman) writes:
(Canadian govt findings about crime cards deleted)
|>
|>Oh boy! Comics Code here you come. This is VERY reminiscent in the
|>nonsense that led to the comics code and 20 years of stifling of
|>free expression in US comic books.
|>
|>('Course I understand from the rest of your post you alrady HAVE a
|>Comics
|>Code like we used to...)
|>
|>
|>Jeff Kesselman
|>
and crime in the 50s, determined that there was NO link. The comics
publishers themselves set up the Code in order to ban the use of "Fear,
Terror, Weird, Horror" and other such terms in comic titles. By a
curious coincidence, EC comics company was eating up the industry with a
line of titles using just those words.
The CCA was basically a scam by the big comics publishers to squash an
upstart. I'm surprised TSR hasn't jumped on the bandwagon, demanding an
end to RPGs using the terms "Vampire, Wraith, or Werewolf."
The point is, don't just worry about the Big Bad Government coming to
get you -- worry about the industry crippling itself.
Jim Cambias
They'll Take My RPGs When They Pry Them From My Cold Dead Fingers
Misusing My Wife's Internet Account
At Duke
Alexander von Thorn
our
gaming friends around the world that Canada is some sort of oppressive
dictatorship threatening the end of gaming as we know it.
First, the initial paragraphs from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
"The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and
freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed
by
law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
"Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of
conscience
and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression,
including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c)
freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association."
Second, a legal explanation of what this whole thing is about:
One of the "reasonable limits" on "freedom of the press" that has been
established by federal courts is obscenity. There are five or six things
explicitly covered by this, the most important being explicit depictions
of
sexual violence and explicit depictions of child pornography.
I have spoken to people at Customs. There is not one single item in my
store that would be banned under the proposed legislation. The only
purpose
of the legislation is to treat games the same way the government
currently
treats print and video materials.
One may argue that any form of censorship is wrong. I leave that issue to
civil libertarians and political philosophers. The proposed legislation
is
aimed at the "Serial Killer" game and a few sets of trading cards, in
which
players win by murdering innocent victims in a spree around the country.
There is no suggestion that games will be treated any differently than,
say, war movies or James Bond films, which are allowed into Canada
without
restrictions. Whatever one thinks of the reasonability of this sort of
censorship, I personally find it less arbitrary than the laws making it
illegal to defame certain vegetables in several states of the "land of
the
free."
Third, a comment about the origin of this report.
Ms. Wilkes speaks for the so-called "Committee for the Advancement of
Role-Playing Games", a radical anti-fundamentalist group. This group is
more interested in promoting its anti-religious agenda among gamers than
it
is in protecting anybody's civil liberties.
The "CARPGa" uses tactics of fearmongering and propaganda similar to that
of some of the worst televangelists that they oppose. They have no
interest
in coordinating with the game industry or the gaming community; on the
contrary, they devote considerable energy to attacking members of the
gaming community who question their extreme tactics.
They have attempted to close down Canada's largest game convention by
spreading malicious rumors to site managers, and they have attacked a
number of gaming clubs in several forums. The most notorious incident was
an attempt to persuade a convicted murderer to perjure himself before the
parole board in an attempt to discredit a gaming club which the felon had
no connection with. Fortunately, the criminal was a gamer himself and
faced
the prospect of genuine parole in the near future; he had no wish to hurt
the gaming community with his own unsavory reputation. The active
membership of this group numbers in the dozens, out of the million or
three
active gamers in North America; most of the members are not told about
the
more extreme tactics that are used.
Any genuine interest group relies on a broad membership, expert
resources,
and a savvy lobbying strategy based on compromise, not confrontation.
From
their tactics, it may be inferred that the CARPGa has no real interest in
altering government legislation; on the contrary, the phantom of a
repressive state provides this fanatic group with a cause to be used to
recruit the gullible.
In the final analysis, Canada remains an enlightened, peaceful, and
democratic society dedicated to diversity of interest and opinion, and
the
gaming community is not being subject to any unique or unusual form of
harassment or restriction.
The game industry in Canada does have some concerns about the proposed
legislation; our concerns are expressed through a variety of channels.
Our
credibility would clearly be harmed by association with this group of
US-based extremists. We would welcome the formation of a coalition to
promote the interests of gamers in Canada and elsewhere, but the CARPGa's
bizarre history makes it a wholly inappropriate partner in such an effort.
I, for one, would recommend that anyone with concerns on this issue read
the actual legislation and have some understanding of how Canadian law is
applied in related areas. It is my experience that Canadian politicians
tend to ignore misinformed protests about policies that are not actually
being implemented as the protester describes.
Alexander von Thorn
Manager, The Worldhouse (Toronto's oldest game store)
Steve Jackson
Alexander von Thorn <vont...@io.org> wrote:
>
>Ms. Wilkes speaks for the so-called "Committee for the Advancement of
>Role-Playing Games", a radical anti-fundamentalist group. This group is
>more interested in promoting its anti-religious agenda among gamers than
>it
>is in protecting anybody's civil liberties.
Excuse me? I have read their material. They, like Mike Stackpole, have
devoted a lot of effort to countering the poisonous nonsense spread -
sometimes through ignorance and sometimes for profit - by anti-gamers.
The great majority of the most virulent anti-gamers are loonies who
babble about Satan . . . so fundamentalist that most fundamentalists don't
like to sit near them. That doesn't make CARPGa "anti-religious."
>
>The "CARPGa" uses tactics of fearmongering and propaganda similar to that
>of some of the worst televangelists that they oppose. They have no
>interest
>in coordinating with the game industry or the gaming community; on the
>contrary, they devote considerable energy to attacking members of the
>gaming community who question their extreme tactics.
Excuse me? The CARPGa is clearly unprofessional and pathetically
underfunded. But I've had quite a bit of correspondence from them over
the years. They seem quite wistfully eager to coordinate with the game
industry . . . the trouble is, there's not much in the way of an effective
game industry body to coordinate with. (Yeah, I know about GAMA. Sigh.)
>They have attempted to close down Canada's largest game convention by
>spreading malicious rumors to site managers, and they have attacked a
>number of gaming clubs in several forums. The most notorious incident was
>an attempt to persuade a convicted murderer to perjure himself before the
>parole board in an attempt to discredit a gaming club which the felon had
>no connection with. Fortunately, the criminal was a gamer himself and
>faced
>the prospect of genuine parole in the near future; he had no wish to hurt
>the gaming community with his own unsavory reputation.
I haven't heard any of these stories. Not to say they're not true -
just that I never heard of them. But it sure sounds like some kind
of local fan feud, with each side trying to paint the other as Not
True Gamers.
What I've seen from this group has been intelligent, painfully earnest,
even naive. None of their newsletters has mentioned "Nya-ha-ha! The
Canadian branch of our wicked conspiracy has scored another success
against the righteous fans there!" I think you're demonizing CARPGa,
quite unfairly, because you, or someone you know, has problems with
some local members.
>The active
>membership of this group numbers in the dozens, out of the million or
>three active gamers in North America
Which, if true, would still make them one of the largest non-local
gaming organizations. We are not a well-connected bunch. Shoot, if
GAMA had a few dozen ACTIVE members, it would be a lot better off.
> most of the members are not told about the more extreme tactics that
> are used.
(shakes head) Somebody sure has a mad-on for these people.
>Alexander von Thorn
>Manager, The Worldhouse (Toronto's oldest game store)
I've known Alex for years, and this rant is out of character. Alex, has
somebody cracked your account, or did you really post all that?
Mark W Brehob
: In article <3bk8gn$o...@ionews.io.org>,
: Alexander von Thorn <vont...@io.org> wrote:
: >
: >Ms. Wilkes speaks for the so-called "Committee for the Advancement of
: >Role-Playing Games", a radical anti-fundamentalist group. This group is
: >more interested in promoting its anti-religious agenda among gamers than
: >it
: >is in protecting anybody's civil liberties.
: Excuse me? I have read their material. They, like Mike Stackpole, have
: devoted a lot of effort to countering the poisonous nonsense spread -
: sometimes through ignorance and sometimes for profit - by anti-gamers.
: The great majority of the most virulent anti-gamers are loonies who
: babble about Satan . . . so fundamentalist that most fundamentalists don't
: like to sit near them. That doesn't make CARPGa "anti-religious."
: >
: >The "CARPGa" uses tactics of fearmongering and propaganda similar to that
: >of some of the worst televangelists that they oppose. They have no
: >interest
: >in coordinating with the game industry or the gaming community; on the
: >contrary, they devote considerable energy to attacking members of the
: >gaming community who question their extreme tactics.
Just a side note, there was (and still maybe) a small gaming group in
Roselle IL called Mad About Gaming Ignorance. (with the big pun
being that the officers were the Staff of the MAGI)
This was a mainly high school group, and they did a good amount,
including a local newspaper letter, and a "mass mailing" to
some of the anti-gaming folks. Also had a number of very
religious folks involved. I had hoped that they would
evolve into a power. sigh.
Mark
Bertil Jonell
Jennifer Clarke Wilkes <ae...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote on the latest
anti-game insanities.
So, if the ban becomes law, how will that affect game companies/
authors in Canada? What about Columbia Games, and what about Ed Greenwood?
-bertil-
--
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
exercise for your kill-file."
Lazlo Nibble
> ('Course I understand from the rest of your post you alrady HAVE a
> Comics Code like we used to...)
The Comics Code Authority still exists in the US, but they have virtually no
power anymore. Too big a portion of the comics business goes through the
direct market nowadays, and the the comics shops don't really care whether or
not a given book is Code-approved.
--
::: Lazlo (la...@rt66.com)
::: Use the Internet Music Wantlists to find rare records and CDs.
::: Email want...@rt66.com with HELP on a line by itself in the message.
David L Evens
: In article <CzzJt...@freenet.carleton.ca>,
: So, if the ban becomes law, how will that affect game companies/
: authors in Canada? What about Columbia Games, and what about Ed Greenwood?
Ed sold the Forgotten Realms to TSR lock, stock, and barrel (as the old
innkeeping saying goes), according to my information, so his problems
would ammount to, essentially, creating something that would be illegal
to publish (maybe). He, of course, could always vacate the country (and
take his money with him). Columbie Games would have a rather larger problem.
--
* O L D I M P R O O V E D . S I G *
w i t h
* W E D N E S D A Y S P A C I N G * ( t m )
-----------------+------------------------------------------------------------
'Trial by stone.'| The aggreagate inteeligence on this planet
'Trial by stone!'| is a constant. The population, however,
'Trial By Stone!'| is growing.
'TRIAL BY STONE!'|
-----------------+------------------------------------------------------------
"O K , s o h e ' s n o t t e r r i b l y f e a r s o m .
B u t h e c e r t a i n l y c a u g h t u s b y
s u r p r i s e !"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Why is it the Old Improved .Sig? I've been using it for a couple weeks!)
Alexander von Thorn
> In article <3bk8gn$o...@ionews.io.org>,
> Alexander von Thorn <vont...@io.org> wrote:
> >
> >Ms. Wilkes speaks for the so-called "Committee for the Advancement of
> >Role-Playing Games", a radical anti-fundamentalist group. This group
> >is more interested in promoting its anti-religious agenda among
> >gamers than it is in protecting anybody's civil liberties.
>
> Excuse me? I have read their material. They, like Mike Stackpole, have
> devoted a lot of effort to countering the poisonous nonsense spread -
> sometimes through ignorance and sometimes for profit - by anti-gamers.
> The great majority of the most virulent anti-gamers are loonies who
> babble about Satan . . . so fundamentalist that most fundamentalists
> don't like to sit near them. That doesn't make CARPGa
> "anti-religious."
Mike Stackpole does excellent work. The original goals of the CARPGa
sounded reasonable enough.
But from what I've seen and heard, some of the CARPGa people have gotten
so fanatical in their opposition to the anti-gaming groups that they
have gone right over the edge themselves.
> >
> >The "CARPGa" uses tactics of fearmongering and propaganda similar to
> >that of some of the worst televangelists that they oppose. They have
> >no interest in coordinating with the game industry or the gaming
> >community; on the contrary, they devote considerable energy to
> >attacking members of the gaming community who question their extreme
> >tactics.
>
> Excuse me? The CARPGa is clearly unprofessional and pathetically
> underfunded. But I've had quite a bit of correspondence from them over
> the years. They seem quite wistfully eager to coordinate with the game
> industry . . . the trouble is, there's not much in the way of an
> effective game industry body to coordinate with. (Yeah, I know about
> GAMA. Sigh.)
I've never heard of them trying to contact anyone in the game business
in Canada regarding the proposed legislation.
American interest groups may have success with confrontation tactics,
but that just doesn't work in Canada. Canadian political activity is dry
and technical, as anybody who follows the news here at all knows.
It's actually pretty easy to get a hearing. The problem here is that
when a politician here says, "but that's not at all what we're doing,"
that ends the discussion as far as they are concerned. They just stop
listening.
So to make a representation in concert with this group would be to agree
with its tactics, which the government just isn't going to listen to. To
make a separate representation would be to show a rift in the gaming
community. Since the CARPGa won't talk to anybody else or moderate their
tactics to something that might actually work, the only option left to
the rest of us is to keep our heads down and hope this blows over. I'm
not happy not being able to do anything, but we can neither work with
nor around this group. I wish they'd stop raising the stakes and
eliminating any middle ground.
Since the legislation is not designed to suspend the constitution, it
can only restrict the kinds of information the courts allow to be
restricted in other media. Specifically, things that portray explicit
sexual violence, extremely violent crimes, or child pornography in a
positive light.
The question of whether this kind of censorship is reasonable is
irrelevant; this kind of censorship is already accepted under Canadian
law, and the gaming community is not going to change that. What might be
feasible would be to say that games are different from snuff films or
the other things that Customs restricts, but no effort has been made to
make that distinction.
Personally, I'd rather allow the snuff films, kiddie porn, hate
propaganda, etc. than restrict them, though I would say it is a
complicated question. But my personal opinion is beside the point.
"Freedom" and "censorship" simply do not have the same emotional
connotations in Canada that they do in, say, Texas. The general law up
here is well established for other media. Like it or not, we have to
live with the general definitions, so the effective thing to do is to
argue within the government's logic (such as it is).
> >They have attempted to close down Canada's largest game convention by
> >spreading malicious rumors to site managers, and they have attacked a
> >number of gaming clubs in several forums. The most notorious incident
> >was an attempt to persuade a convicted murderer to perjure himself
> >before the parole board in an attempt to discredit a gaming club
> >which the felon had no connection with. Fortunately, the criminal was
> >a gamer himself and faced the prospect of genuine parole in the near
> >future; he had no wish to hurt the gaming community with his own
> >unsavory reputation.
>
> I haven't heard any of these stories. Not to say they're not true -
> just that I never heard of them. But it sure sounds like some kind
> of local fan feud, with each side trying to paint the other as Not
> True Gamers.
>
> What I've seen from this group has been intelligent, painfully
> earnest, even naive. None of their newsletters has mentioned
> "Nya-ha-ha! The Canadian branch of our wicked conspiracy has scored
> another success against the righteous fans there!" I think you're
> demonizing CARPGa, quite unfairly, because you, or someone you know,
> has problems with some local members.
Personally, I think trying to conspire with a convicted murderer goes a
little beyond a typical "fan feud." I've seen that letter.
It might just be a small group, even one person, in the CARPGa that has
gone beyond the pale. It would be nice to think so. Unfortunately,
they've been given several opportunities to apologize for past excesses
and make a clean slate. So far, we haven't heard anything.
It is, in fact, their refusal to repudiate past attacks on other gaming
groups that leads me to my conclusions. If they put a quarter of the
energy they put into attacking gaming groups and conventions into
promoting the hobby, they might have a shred of credibility. But that's
not the choice they make.
> >The active membership of this group numbers in the dozens, out of the
> >million or three active gamers in North America
>
> Which, if true, would still make them one of the largest non-local
> gaming organizations. We are not a well-connected bunch. Shoot, if
> GAMA had a few dozen ACTIVE members, it would be a lot better off.
I agree that GAMA has room for improvement. I would say the RPGA gets a
little snobby at times. The Camarilla is a little on the weird side.
None of this compares in a quantitative or qualitative way with the
venom the CARPGa uses in its dealings with anybody who is not in 110%
agreement with their somewhat nebulous and far-fetched goals.
I would much rather deal directly with an anti-gaming protest than have
the CARPGa "protect" me; we just don't need "friends" like that.
> > most of the members are not told about the more extreme tactics that
> > are used.
(shakes head) Somebody sure has a mad-on for these people.
> >Alexander von Thorn
> >Manager, The Worldhouse (Toronto's oldest game store)
>
> I've known Alex for years, and this rant is out of character. Alex,
> has somebody cracked your account, or did you really post all that?
(If you think back to the days when I could afford CompuServe, you'd
remember that long posts were a specialty of mine. Maybe even a bad
habit I've been trying to cut back on, but this thread was just going on
too long to go without comment.)
You just don't know what these people have been up to in the past. This
crap poisons all the Toronto-area gaming BBSes (a scene I don't follow
personally), until the sysops kick the CARPGa crackpots out after a
while.
Part of me is tempted to get a copy of Pierre Savoie's letter to Saul
Betesh and distribute it. But the reason I don't do so is I don't want a
copy falling into the hands of the anti-gaming groups. If one ever
wanted evidence that gaming made a person crazy and dangerous, that
letter would be the smoking gun. I can just picture it being read on the
700 Club. Even following the "any publicity is good publicity"
guideline, this stuff would be *bad*.
What most of us have learned to do is just to ignore them. It's only
when they start slandering my adopted country that I felt obliged to say
something. Ms. Wilkes' posts could easily give Americans the impression
that something very bad is going on up here, but that's just not the
case. The people I've spoken to who work in the prohibited importations
unit at Customs have told me that similar laws for other media are
designed to apply to only the really disgusting filth that crosses the
border.
Maybe they are a diverse group with only a few bad apples; perhaps there
are different spins that could be put on their efforts. It's just that,
we've found in the past that if you give them an inch for their
reasonable efforts, they take a mile for the really strange behavior. A
moderate response to these people has been shown to be simply
counter-productive.
What I would *really* like them to do is say that they've made mistakes
in the past, that it was wrong to contact Ryerson to try to get them to
shut down Canada's largest game convention in 1993, that it was wrong to
get involved with people in Kingston Penitentiary. If they'd admit their
past mistakes, I'd be happy to relegate them to the "unprofessional,
underfunded, naive" category, though it would be a long time before
anybody around here trusts them. It is even possible that Ms. Wilkes is
merely somewhat uninformed about the organization's past, and that her
current campaign is being taken on advice from Americans who really
don't understand how Ottawa works.
But so far, on the basis of past behavior, they really don't warrant the
benefit of the doubt.
In fact, I would invite Jennifer to come to Toronto next month to
Pandemonium 12 to talk to people, maybe to mend a few fences. It would
seem the logical place for her to gain support for whatever she is
trying to accomplish regarding the legislation. If my original
impression is correct, however, we won't see her. If I'm right, her
group is not really interested in changing the legislation or in talking
to people who understand how the system actually works, let alone in
cooperating with other game-related clubs or businesses. I'd like to be
proven wrong, but I am not hopeful.
My phone number is in the book, 416-408-GAME. Anybody who really wants
to know more about this can call me, or they can call my housemate, Dave
Simpson, at 416-597-1934, who has been more directly involved in things
as an organizer of past Pandemoniums.
Actually, I am truly not interested in cluttering up the newsgroup with
an extensive debate. I will gladly discuss it via email. (Send it to
vont...@io.org; I have to send some money {or, more specifically, find
a stamp since I've bought the money order} to cover the worl...@io.com
account.)
Alex von Thorn
Manager, The Worldhouse
p.s. (When is INWO coming out? I could use the cash to buy a new hard
drive.)
Jeff Kesselman
Lazlo Nibble <la...@mack.rt66.com> wrote:
>jef...@netcom.com (Jeff Kesselman) writes:
>
>> ('Course I understand from the rest of your post you alrady HAVE a
>> Comics Code like we used to...)
>
>The Comics Code Authority still exists in the US, but they have virtually no
>power anymore. Too big a portion of the comics business goes through the
>direct market nowadays, and the the comics shops don't really care whether or
>not a given book is Code-approved.
>
I agree with you except that I think almost ALL retialers stopped caring
abotu the code as soon as the independants showed that adult-comics had a
market. It took the majors a whiel to catch on, though.
(Anyoen remember what the FIRST non-code Marvel comic was? It came out
while I was in college and if I had half a brain, I would have bought
an extra copy and bagged it.)
Jeff kesselman
David L Evens
: (Anyoen remember what the FIRST non-code Marvel comic was? It came out
: an extra copy and bagged it.)
Spiderman, back in about '72. About 2 years before the celebrated Green
Lantern/Green Arrow (from DC) cover with drug use on it. The Spidy issue
was the one where Spidy learned that his best buddy Norman Osborne was
using one of the more potent mind-altering drugs, and that this was the
reason for his second existence as the Green Goblin. I can look up the
number and exact title in my capsule compilation thing that marvel put
out covering that period of that spidy title if you want.
Jeff Kesselman
David L Evens <dev...@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
>Jeff Kesselman (jef...@netcom.com) wrote:
>: (Anyoen remember what the FIRST non-code Marvel comic was? It came out
>: while I was in college and if I had half a brain, I would have bought
>: an extra copy and bagged it.)
>
>Spiderman, back in about '72. About 2 years before the celebrated Green
>Lantern/Green Arrow (from DC) cover with drug use on it. The Spidy issue
>was the one where Spidy learned that his best buddy Norman Osborne was
>using one of the more potent mind-altering drugs, and that this was the
>reason for his second existence as the Green Goblin. I can look up the
>number and exact title in my capsule compilation thing that marvel put
>out covering that period of that spidy title if you want.
>
Are you sure? I ask because this is not what I remembered, though it
sounds like about the same time period. I THOUGHt the first non-code
comic was the Spidy where they introduced Cloak and Dagger. This was
also an illegal-drug story. (I'm pretty darn sure that the Cloak and
Dagger limited run series was the first non-code marvel series.)
Jeff Kessleman
David L Evens
: In article <3bqnf6$2...@nermal.cs.uoguelph.ca>,
The comics codes was ammended to allow the showing of drug use in the
manner shown in Cloak And Dagger after the Green Lantern/Green Arrow
cover mentioned above had no discernible effect on sales. The Comics
Code Authority realised that nobody gave a damn about the code as it
existed then, so they revamped it to keep themselves in business. As
well, Cloak And Dagger came out in the early '80s. If you want, I'll dig
out my copies of the original limited seiries and post the copyright
date. (This requires that I actually find the books, you see. They
aren't here with me as I write, and they aren't in any sort of order on
my shelves. This is not intended to sound flipant.)
Scowling Jim Cowling
Bertil Jonell <d9be...@dtek.chalmers.se> wrote:
>In article <CzzJt...@freenet.carleton.ca>,
>Jennifer Clarke Wilkes <ae...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote on the latest
>anti-game insanities.
>
> So, if the ban becomes law, how will that affect game companies/
>authors in Canada? What about Columbia Games, and what about Ed Greenwood?
It won't. Columbia Games recently moved to the US, and Ed Greenwood's stuff
is all published in the US.
This whole thing is blown completely out of proportion. The ban is supposed
to stop the sale of trading cards and games with serial killer themes (such
as Serial Killer, the board game, which got a lot of press here in Canada).
It won't affect role-playing at all -- unless someone makes a game so
phenomenally evil that customs has no choice but to seize it at the border,
in which case I certainly don't want to carry it in my store.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
......The Rev. "Scowling" Jim Cowling......scowling@angmar.dataflux.bc.ca......
...Moderator: rec.arts.comics.info....FAQKeeper: rec.arts.comics.marketplace...
You know how dumb the average person is? Half of the population is even dumber
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scowling Jim Cowling
Gary McGath <gmc...@condes.mv.com> wrote:
>In article <3bk8gn$o...@ionews.io.org>, vont...@io.org (Alexander von
>Thorn) wrote:
>
>> One of the "reasonable limits" on "freedom of the press" that has been
>> established by federal courts is obscenity. There are five or six things
>> explicitly covered by this, the most important being explicit depictions
>> of sexual violence and explicit depictions of child pornography.
>
>what is not, and to prohibit what it calls obscene?
What makes it reasonable for a citizen of one country to condemn the
customs or laws of another country?
James Nicoll
>: In article <CzzJt...@freenet.carleton.ca>,
>: Jennifer Clarke Wilkes <ae...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote on the latest
>: anti-game insanities.
>
>: So, if the ban becomes law, how will that affect game companies/
>: authors in Canada? What about Columbia Games, and what about Ed Greenwood?
>
>Ed sold the Forgotten Realms to TSR lock, stock, and barrel (as the old
>innkeeping saying goes), according to my information, so his problems
>would ammount to, essentially, creating something that would be illegal
>to publish (maybe). He, of course, could always vacate the country (and
>take his money with him). Columbie Games would have a rather larger problem.
Columbia Games has a US address these days (Check any box-game) and
access to a market 9 times the size of Canada. I think they'll survive --
it's a bit like worrying about a company associated with Hong Kong, but
doing most of its business in China, being able to survive not being able
to survive idiocy in the city they used to be based in.
IMS, back during Prohibition in Canada, while it was illegal to
produce booze for domestic use, producing it to export to other countries,
even when importation was illegal in those countries, was legal in Canada.
One wonders whether this might not be true of obscene materials as well.
James Nicoll
--
"I'm glad I saw the galaxy, but I want to die in Brooklyn."
David L Evens
: IMS, back during Prohibition in Canada, while it was illegal to
: produce booze for domestic use, producing it to export to other countries,
: even when importation was illegal in those countries, was legal in Canada.
: One wonders whether this might not be true of obscene materials as well.
Unfortunately, no. Under the revisions to the conspiracy provisions in
the Criminal Code of Canada, it is a crime to plot anything which is a
crime in the place you plan to do it. As well, the creation or
possession of obscene materials is a crime in Canada.
David L Evens
: In article <3bnrjr$3...@nyheter.chalmers.se>,
: Bertil Jonell <d9be...@dtek.chalmers.se> wrote:
: >In article <CzzJt...@freenet.carleton.ca>,
: >Jennifer Clarke Wilkes <ae...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote on the latest
: >anti-game insanities.
: >
: > So, if the ban becomes law, how will that affect game companies/
: >authors in Canada? What about Columbia Games, and what about Ed Greenwood?
: It won't. Columbia Games recently moved to the US, and Ed Greenwood's stuff
: is all published in the US.
: This whole thing is blown completely out of proportion. The ban is supposed
: to stop the sale of trading cards and games with serial killer themes (such
: as Serial Killer, the board game, which got a lot of press here in Canada).
: It won't affect role-playing at all -- unless someone makes a game so
: phenomenally evil that customs has no choice but to seize it at the border,
: in which case I certainly don't want to carry it in my store.
The laws already in place make it a crime for an adult to play and RPG
with a minor.
Scowling Jim Cowling
>
>I take it then that you approve of Customs stopping literature at the
>border and subjecting it to value judgements. I do not. The Customs Tariff
Well, I certainly do. Let's take violence against women, for example --
literature which depicts or advocates such should be stopped, seized, and
destroyed. And yes, of course, it's a value judgment.
Hate literature, which is similarly legislated against, should also be
stopped, seized, and destroyed. Yet, the definition of such is a value
judgment.
>relies on s. 163 of the Criminal Code to stop "obscene" material and this
>definition will broaden their considerable powers. Talk to Glad Day and
>Little Sister's about "reasonable limits."
Should the Customs Flunkies have the power to judge the stuff? Yes, they
should. When a conflict arises, taking the government to court is the
ultimate solution -- and such solution worked well for Little Sisters.
>Neither of which is any longer in print; neither of which was ever sold to
>children; neither of which was present in any significant number in
>Canada. Why do we need such broad-ranging legislation to address a
>non-existent problem?
(Re: The Serial Killer boardgame et al)
We don't, obviously. The bill was drawn up originally several years ago
due to the large amount of press the game and trading cards got, and it
stuck in the craws of a few politicos. So what? It's not going to affect
any role-playing game currently on the market should it pass, and I'd much
rather see the politicos waste my money on something like this than decide
how much money they're going to give in aid to some third-world backhole.
As I've said before, any game which would be stopped by legislation is a
game that neither I nor any reasonable game store would carry. Imagine if
you will:
BITCHSLAP: The Violence Against Women Game
Yeah, there's a game I'd carry. And, guess what? Such a game would be illegal
to sell or publish in Canada, and it would be denied entry into Canada (it
would actually be stopped, seized, and destroyed). It would be a judgment
call on the part of the Customs officials, too. And all under existing
legislation (the Violence Against Women act). The same is true about hate
literature, which has been legislated against. And the same would be true,
according to the failed legislation, for literature which advocated mass
murder or infanticide, including games and trading cards. The word is
*advocate*, not *describe*. You can still buy any newspaper and see all
of the above described, but never advocated.
>him to desist. Since he did not, CAR-PGa has taken the unprecedented step
>of revoking his membership. We did not do this gladly, for he had done
>excellent work in the past. His loss of perspective and increasing
>harassment tactics, however, left the BoD no other choice.
Blah, blah, rhubarb etc., lots deleted.
Political infighting as described above is the primary reason why I don't
join groups composed of fans (of any stripe).
>Infighting does not advance the cause.
You got that right.
Alexander van Thorne writes:
>>their tactics, it may be inferred that the CARPGa has no real interest in
>>altering government legislation; on the contrary, the phantom of a
>>repressive state provides this fanatic group with a cause to be used to
>>recruit the gullible.
This I wholeheartedly agree with. It's a phantom issue, a non-issue, and
anyone who believes otherwise is wasting time that could be better spent
dabbling in watercolours or somesuch.
>By all means, read the legislation. I can e-mail a copy to anyone who is
>interested. Be aware, though, that the legislation in its current form
>was rejected by the Justice Committee in favour of a much broader
>spectrum of restrictions.
Which is just a fancy way of saying "Hey, guys, this piece of paper is
too small to bother worrying about. Bring us something more tangible and
which weighs a bunch more and we'll look at it again". Odds are, it'll never
be brought back.
This can be considered the equivalent of a minor "private member's bill" --
few ever pass, because they're too narrow. And only rarely are they beefed
up and brought to Parliament again, and even then, few pass. They always
get the "broader view recommended" stamp on 'em.
>freedom. In the end, it is you, the hobbyist, who will decide whether or
>not to be concerned or to speak out. Perhps Mr. Van Thorne is right and
>there is no real danger. But you should inform yourself rather than be
>convinced by either of us.
There is no real danger. In my opinion, one of the worst things that could be
done would be for a fringe group like CARPGa to raise a stink and get in the
faces of the politicos -- doing such would almost guarantee that any proposed
legislation would include a broad ban on role-playing.
See, the only thing more annoying than a fanatic lobbyist is a fanatic
gamer. Put them both together and you get someone whom your average
politician will think is the result of plaing RPGs -- and the next thing you
know they'll be building institutions to keep gamers away from 'decent,
normal people'.
I don't think it's wise -- if legislation passes that would restrict
sales of role-playing games (and it won't) and such legislation causes any
product to be banned, then I'll raise shit, and I'll be more than happy to
fight, and win, a lawsuit like the one Little Sisters (in Vancouver, for
you Americans who don't know) won over 'obscene' literature with homoerotic
content.
This is a reasonable country; I don't think going off the deep end over a
phantom issue (thanks for the term, Mr. van Thorne) is either necessary or a
good idea.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
......The Rev. "Scowling" Jim Cowling......scowling@angmar.dataflux.bc.ca......
...Moderator: rec.arts.comics.info....FAQKeeper: rec.arts.comics.marketplace...
..Sales Manager and Internet Rep: Dragonstrike Adventure Shoppe, Victoria BC...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Martin Karakash
|>>In a previous article, ae062#freenet.carleton.ca (Jennifer Clarke Wilkes) says:
|>>
|>>I take it then that you approve of Customs stopping literature at the
|>>border and subjecting it to value judgements. I do not. The Customs Tariff
|>
|>Well, I certainly do. Let's take violence against women, for example --
|>literature which depicts or advocates such should be stopped, seized, and
|>destroyed. And yes, of course, it's a value judgment.
By that definition, all literature that has any woman
hurt in any way, should be banned. It's generalizations like this that
are one the best reasons against censorship. Huckleberry Finn was banned
because it talked about slavery. Real clever...
-john-
--
Jeff Scott Franzmann
>In article <gmcgath-0212...@condes.mv.com>,
>Gary McGath <gmc...@condes.mv.com> wrote:
>>In article <3bk8gn$o...@ionews.io.org>, vont...@io.org (Alexander von
>>Thorn) wrote:
>>
>>> One of the "reasonable limits" on "freedom of the press" that has been
>>> established by federal courts is obscenity. There are five or six things
>>> explicitly covered by this, the most important being explicit depictions
>>> of sexual violence and explicit depictions of child pornography.
>>
>>What makes it "reasonable" for a government to decide what is obscene and
>>what is not, and to prohibit what it calls obscene?
>
>What makes it reasonable for a citizen of one country to condemn the
>customs or laws of another country?
Personal opinion, apparently. When I was over on talk.politics.guns and
soc.culture.canada, I got hammered with flame after flame from US
citizens. Apparently, for daring to suggest that some form of Hate Crime
laws might be appropriate to prevent the incitement of hatred, I am a
'mindless, snivelling serf', a Nazi, a fascist and every other sort of
nasty thing that could possibly exist. Apparently, for some people, their
view of what is right is the only view of of what is right.
Sincerely,
Jeff Franzmann
--
Steve Jackson
Nobody could ask for a more reasonable invitation than that. Jennifer,
I hope you'll take him up on this. Whatevertheheck is going on here,
certainly CARPGa should make every effort to mend fences . . . and
though Alex has posted some strong opinions about your group, I'll
testify that he is NOT a loony. If he's that unhappy, something is wrong
somewhere and it should be dealt with. If you can't make that meeting,
I hope you'll call.
>
>
>Alex von Thorn
>Manager, The Worldhouse
>
>p.s. (When is INWO coming out? I could use the cash to buy a new hard
>drive.)
>
Fnord. Your distributor can ship it to you on Dec. 16. Or hand it to
you, if you make appropriate arrangements . . . It starts shipping
from the printers the day after tomorrow, but we put a uniform release
date on it to minimize the "I got it first and sold out, ha ha" hosing.
Scowling Jim Cowling
|>
|>Well, I certainly do. Let's take violence against women, for example --
|>literature which depicts or advocates such should be stopped, seized, and
|>destroyed. And yes, of course, it's a value judgment.
>
>hurt in any way, should be banned. It's generalizations like this that
>are one the best reasons against censorship. Huckleberry Finn was banned
>because it talked about slavery. Real clever...
I screwed up, and wrote "depicts or advocates" when I should have said
"advocates". Needless to say, gratuitous depiction of violence against women
is (absolutely) advocation thereof, and hence should be banned, etc. And,
thankfully, I live in a country where it *is* banned.
It's reasons like this that are the best reason *for* some forms of censorship.
And, in case you ask, I'm against virtually all forms of censorship. But not
all of them. I don't believe the right to information is absolute, and neither
does the government my fellow citizens have elected.
Huck Finn doesn't advocate slavery, of course, but only depicts it. Then again,
Canada has no law against advocating slavery, either. Whether or not that's
a positive thing is debatable.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
......The Rev. "Scowling" Jim Cowling......scowling@angmar.dataflux.bc.ca......
...Moderator: rec.arts.comics.info....FAQKeeper: rec.arts.comics.marketplace...
Scowling Jim Cowling
>
>The laws already in place make it a crime for an adult to play and RPG
>with a minor.
I don't see what this ha to do with the discussion at hand, but I'll bite.
Quote sources, please. I find this a laughable assertion. If this were true,
every game convention in Canada would have had police swarming all over it,
or at the very least, the organizers would have received stern warnings to
not pair minors with adults in games. Since this has never happened, I find
your claim incredible.
I've been retailing games for close to seven years, and my partner in crime,
err...business...has been at it for more than twenty. We keep up on the
appropriate legal questions in the industry, and have never heard anything
like this.
Please, prove your point.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
......The Rev. "Scowling" Jim Cowling......scowling@angmar.dataflux.bc.ca......
...Moderator: rec.arts.comics.info....FAQKeeper: rec.arts.comics.marketplace...
Donald J. Dale
>customs or laws of another country?
Gosh, I don't know; maybe morality, or a sense of ethics. You're
espousing moral relativism, which is not only foolish but
self-contradictory. By your logic, it was "unreasonable" for the Allies
in WWII to invade or even to condemn Hitler's regime in Germany, as the
Final Solution was German law, enacted by the German government.
Likewise, practices all over the world today of infanticide, female
genital manipulation and torture fall under the umbrella of "Laws and
Customs" and are thus immune to judgement on a moral basis.
Before flaming, please consider the statement "There are no absolutes."
Don
Rockerboy
: literature which depicts or advocates such should be stopped, seized, and
: destroyed. And yes, of course, it's a value judgment.
This goes in the shitcan with the 'corrupting our youth' whine. Been
there, seen it, got the t-shirt. It's a rant. You're just fishing for
knee jerk reactions, pal. Every RPG usually has some form of combat.
Clue: combat is violence against _someone_. Someone wnts to publish
games about violence against women, who cares? If the game gets
attention, if it attracts an audience, you really have to avoid the
ostritch game and say, "Gee! Why do people want to see this?"
Are you afraid of ideas you know are incorrect, Mr. Cowling?
: Hate literature, which is similarly legislated against, should also be
: stopped, seized, and destroyed. Yet, the definition of such is a value
: judgment.
My goodness. What would you propose next? Legislation mandating please
and thank you? Isn't it a precept of liberty that one can say whatever
he believes, without fear of punishment because he is stupid or brutish
or obnxious? If not, perhaps you have consider how your _own_ freedoms
are being eroded. I certainly do.
Every day.
: Should the Customs Flunkies have the power to judge the stuff? Yes, they
: should. When a conflict arises, taking the government to court is the
: ultimate solution -- and such solution worked well for Little Sisters.
Thanks for your vote of confidence in my capacity to judge for myself
what is obscene and is not obscene. Or, perhaps, you simply consider it
your duty to make such decisions for others?
: We don't, obviously. The bill was drawn up originally several years ago
: due to the large amount of press the game and trading cards got, and it
: stuck in the craws of a few politicos. So what? It's not going to affect
: any role-playing game currently on the market should it pass, and I'd much
: rather see the politicos waste my money on something like this than decide
: how much money they're going to give in aid to some third-world backhole.
The hell it doesn't affect them. It may not _today_. Tomorrow, some
other crackpot will decide something _you_ value is unacceptable. I
suspect that any number of people would like to force you to live
according to their ideas of seemliness. What will you do when they burn
_your_ books, Mr. Cowling? What will you tell your children when you're
carted off to prison? You think I'm bullshitting? Here in California, a
couple was recently arrested on charges of obscenity. Their crime?
Running a bulletin board with adult graphics. But they _weren't_
arrested in California. Their BBS was a legitimate business here. They
were endeibted in _Tenessee_. A Postmaster in Tenessee called their BBS,
obtained an account, downloaded material, and presented it to authorities
in _Tenessee_. I understand that they husband received a sentence of 38
months in prison, his wife 30, and forfieture of all their computer and
video equipment, i.e., their _business_.
How firm do you feel, Mr. Cowling? How safe _are_ you?
: As I've said before, any game which would be stopped by legislation is a
: game that neither I nor any reasonable game store would carry. Imagine if
: you will:
: BITCHSLAP: The Violence Against Women Game
How convenient of you to classify yourself among reasonable businessmen.
Remember, Mr. Cowling, the sysops of AA BBS thought they were reasonable,
too. They had a legitimate business.
Ask yourself where they are.
: Yeah, there's a game I'd carry. And, guess what? Such a game would be illegal
: to sell or publish in Canada, and it would be denied entry into Canada (it
: would actually be stopped, seized, and destroyed). It would be a judgment
: call on the part of the Customs officials, too. And all under existing
: legislation (the Violence Against Women act). The same is true about hate
: literature, which has been legislated against. And the same would be true,
: according to the failed legislation, for literature which advocated mass
: murder or infanticide, including games and trading cards. The word is
: *advocate*, not *describe*. You can still buy any newspaper and see all
: of the above described, but never advocated.
Once agin, this manifest fear of ideas. The only people who need fear
_ideas_ are those who want to maintain a stranglehold on power. You have
no right to silence people. Your only fair recourse is to present
countering ideas.
: Which is just a fancy way of saying "Hey, guys, this piece of paper is
: too small to bother worrying about. Bring us something more tangible and
: which weighs a bunch more and we'll look at it again". Odds are, it'll never
: be brought back.
Which is just a fancy way of saying, "Don't worry about it and it will go
away." Yeh, that's a sure fire solution.
: There is no real danger. In my opinion, one of the worst things that could be
: done would be for a fringe group like CARPGa to raise a stink and get in the
: faces of the politicos -- doing such would almost guarantee that any proposed
: legislation would include a broad ban on role-playing.
The only reason you could possibly be willing to take this position would
be that you don't consider yourself to be entirely clean. The fact is
that the gaming community at large has been run roughshod over by
lunatics and opportunists who need scapegoats. If you are content to be
labeled as a fringe element or shady character who bears watching, so be
it. But most people, when wrongly accused, feel it imperative not merely
to avoid punishment, to to be vindicated. Knitters and bingo players
don't get accused of worshipping the devil, corrupting youth, encouraging
violence against {insert pathetic victim description}, or any other such
nonsense. And you can bet that if they were, they would be outraged, and
rightfully so.
: See, the only thing more annoying than a fanatic lobbyist is a fanatic
: gamer. Put them both together and you get someone whom your average
: politician will think is the result of plaing RPGs -- and the next thing you
: know they'll be building institutions to keep gamers away from 'decent,
: normal people'.
The fact of the matter is that most gamers _are_ decent, normal people,
something you seem to be forgetting. The anti-gaming loonies are the
dangerous ones. They're the same people who burned witches and tortured
Jews. In my country, they're doing their damned level best to destroy
everything our founders held dear: personal liberty. Today, they
torment homosexuals and shoot doctors in cold blood. If you think you're
not dealing with people capable of terrorism, think again. Look across
the border before you play the self righteous ass.
: I don't think it's wise -- if legislation passes that would restrict
: sales of role-playing games (and it won't) and such legislation causes any
: product to be banned, then I'll raise shit, and I'll be more than happy to
: fight, and win, a lawsuit like the one Little Sisters (in Vancouver, for
: you Americans who don't know) won over 'obscene' literature with homoerotic
: content.
I find the literature pushed by the anti-gamers obscene. I'm sure quite
a few people agree with me. Since you seem all for censoring the
obscene, why not look into this, hmm? Or would that be violating _their_
rights.
: This is a reasonable country; I don't think going off the deep end over a
: phantom issue (thanks for the term, Mr. van Thorne) is either necessary or a
: good idea.
: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: ......The Rev. "Scowling" Jim Cowling......scowling@angmar.dataflux.bc.ca......
^^^
|
Could this little title here explain something about your reluctance to
stand up against something you know is wrong?
"In every nation, in every time, the priest has been the enemy of Liberty."
No, it wasn't me. Try a book of quotes.
--
'Sometimes what you have to say is going to get right in the faces
of the powerful people who really run this world. But you don't
care....It's your place to challenge authority...'
roc...@netcom.com (Rockerboy)
Rockerboy
: Personal opinion, apparently. When I was over on talk.politics.guns and
: citizens. Apparently, for daring to suggest that some form of Hate Crime
: laws might be appropriate to prevent the incitement of hatred, I am a
: 'mindless, snivelling serf', a Nazi, a fascist and every other sort of
: nasty thing that could possibly exist. Apparently, for some people, their
: view of what is right is the only view of of what is right.
What amazingly blind arrogance. You snivel about your treatment for
expressing you opinion, yet you advocate _silencing_ those with whom you
disagree. You haven't a leg to stand on. You spoke your views. So did
others. Be glad you have the right to be heard at all.
Bertil Jonell
Donald J. Dale <da...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> wrote:
>>What makes it reasonable for a citizen of one country to condemn the
>>customs or laws of another country?
>
>Gosh, I don't know; maybe morality, or a sense of ethics. You're
>espousing moral relativism, which is not only foolish but
>self-contradictory. By your logic, it was "unreasonable" for the Allies
>in WWII to invade or even to condemn Hitler's regime in Germany, as the
>Final Solution was German law, enacted by the German government.
It is easy to refute without invoking Hitler.
Hypothetic case:
He says that nobody should force their morals on others. I say
that I accept what he says, but that my morals allow me to force
my morals on others if I feel like it.
He says that I should stop doing that.
I tell him to follow his own morals, thus he should stop forcing
his morals (the ones that say that nobody should force their morals
on others) on me, and go away.
QED:)
>Don
Alec Habig
>to stop the sale of trading cards and games with serial killer themes (such
>as Serial Killer, the board game, which got a lot of press here in Canada).
>
>It won't affect role-playing at all -- unless someone makes a game so
>phenomenally evil that customs has no choice but to seize it at the border,
>in which case I certainly don't want to carry it in my store.
Ahh, herein lies the rub. Personally, I wouldn't trust random government
officials to make such a decision for me, I'd rather decide myself what I buy
(or what I would carry if I owned a store).
The law was designed with "Serial Killer" in mind. This game, if I remember
correctly, was a low budget board game from Ragnorak Games, which was a toungue
in cheek parody of "slasher" movies (ala "Friday the 13th") etc. How is this
so horrible? The movies themselves aren't banned, why should a parody be? And
what else? Would "Black Death" (the game wherein the players are diseases
ravaging medeival Europe) also be banned, for example?
You trust your border guards to decide for you what's appropriate for you to
sell. However, the prime example of the legislation is already something which
they appear to have messed up on.
Alec
--
Alec Habig, Indiana University High Energy Astrophysics
aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu
http://astrowww.astro.indiana.edu/personnel/ahabig/
Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns.
Ken Arromdee
Scowling Jim Cowling <scow...@angmar.dataflux.bc.ca> wrote:
>|>Well, I certainly do. Let's take violence against women, for example --
>|>literature which depicts or advocates such should be stopped, seized, and
>|>destroyed. And yes, of course, it's a value judgment.
>>By that definition, all literature that has any woman
>>hurt in any way, should be banned. It's generalizations like this that
>>are one the best reasons against censorship. Huckleberry Finn was banned
>>because it talked about slavery. Real clever...
>I screwed up, and wrote "depicts or advocates" when I should have said
>"advocates". Needless to say, gratuitous depiction of violence against women
>is (absolutely) advocation thereof, and hence should be banned, etc.
So who gets to decide what is gratuitous? (For that matter, who gets to
decide what is advocation?) Sure, _some_ cases are obvious, but the laws
don't just get applied to obvious cases.
--
Ken Arromdee (email: arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
"No boom today. Boom tomorrow, there's always a boom tomorrow." --Ivanova
Jeff Scott Franzmann
>Ahh, herein lies the rub. Personally, I wouldn't trust random government
>officials to make such a decision for me, I'd rather decide myself what I buy
>(or what I would carry if I owned a store).
In the particular case of Serial Killer, it was more public outrage than
a random government official that precipitated the decision.
>The law was designed with "Serial Killer" in mind. This game, if I remember
>correctly, was a low budget board game from Ragnorak Games, which was a toungue
>in cheek parody of "slasher" movies (ala "Friday the 13th") etc. How is this
>so horrible? The movies themselves aren't banned, why should a parody be? And
Uh...'Serial Killer' used dead baby tokens as counters. I mean, the
things actually looked like dead babies. Are you going to
tell me that this isn't one of the sickest little ideas to ever come out
of someones mind? There isn't anything creative about this...it's
exploiting tragedy to sell a product, something which is, IMHO, disgusting.
>what else? Would "Black Death" (the game wherein the players are diseases
>ravaging medeival Europe) also be banned, for example?
There is a difference, however, between portraying a disease (a non human
entity over which a human being has very little control, unless one is
conducting germ warfare), and portraying a serial killer (a human being
with a great deal of control over what they are doing). Personally, I
find nothing wrong with portraying a serial killer in an RPG...however,
when such a being is portrayed, he or she is not celebrated or acclaimed,
but hunted down and reviled.The only serial killer I ever used in a
campaign was brutal to the extent of Jeffrey Dahmer, and just as
remorseless. However, the PCs weren't laughing about it, and they
certainly weren't encouraging him to continue his murderous rampage. We
had fun, but we were by no means making light of a tragedy.
>You trust your border guards to decide for you what's appropriate for you to
>sell. However, the prime example of the legislation is already something which
>they appear to have messed up on.
If Customs Canada messes up, they pay for it in court. I have yet to see
an example of where they made a bad decision that wasn't overturned in a
court of law.
Sincerely,
Jeff Franzmann
--
Jeff Scott Franzmann
>>What makes it reasonable for a citizen of one country to condemn the
>>customs or laws of another country?
>
>Gosh, I don't know; maybe morality, or a sense of ethics. You're
Interesting, though, that you would choose this particular area in which
to push the morals and sense of ethics argument in terms of Moral
Relativism. In Canada, the idea seems to be that people should be free
from hatred and the incitement to hatred, which, on a pure moral basis,
is a sound argument. However, you seem to be taking the approach below of
comparing 'censorship' to moral atrocity. No one is going to argue that
the exploitation of children in pornography is wrong. No on is going to
argue that the glorification of the brutalization of women is wrong.
These materials are banned in Canada for just that reason. Then you
approach the more nebulous areas of morality...and here, Canada has fared
well. When Customs Canada tries to make a moral decision in these grey
areas (as in the Little Sisters incident), they get hauled into court,
and more often than not, lose.
>espousing moral relativism, which is not only foolish but
>self-contradictory. By your logic, it was "unreasonable" for the Allies
>in WWII to invade or even to condemn Hitler's regime in Germany, as the
>Final Solution was German law, enacted by the German government.
And by your logic, you should invade Canada and put a stop to the
atrocity against free speech taking here. You're taking a moral
absolutist view, which is just as wrong as taking a moral relativist
view.
>Likewise, practices all over the world today of infanticide, female
>genital manipulation and torture fall under the umbrella of "Laws and
>Customs" and are thus immune to judgement on a moral basis.
Would you instead ban the practices outright, and potentially destroy the
cultures which practice them? Better instead to educate those within the
culture about the dangers of these practices, and allow them to change
them from within. Experience has shown that imposing our moral view upon
someone else without taking their culture into consideration time and
again leads to disaster, even with the best of intentions in mind. Real
change doesn't come overnight.
>Before flaming, please consider the statement "There are no absolutes."
Something you should consider as well.
Sincerely,
Jeff Franzmann
--
Greg Mohler
>>What makes it reasonable for a citizen of one country to condemn the
>>customs or laws of another country?
>
>espousing moral relativism, which is not only foolish but
>self-contradictory. By your logic, it was "unreasonable" for the Allies
>in WWII to invade or even to condemn Hitler's regime in Germany, as the
>Final Solution was German law, enacted by the German government.
>
>
Hello all. Just felt the urge to jump in and give my two cents.
I don't have a problem with moral absolutes. Indeed, as Don points out,
people who argue from relativism have essentially dug themselves into a very
deep hole, as they must inevitably start justifying torture and nazism, etc,
as being no worse and no better than love and kindness.
My problem with Don's answer is that he uses examples where it is obvious
whether something is absolutely morally evil. It is safe to say that torture
is a bad thing. However, the original question could be rephrased as:
What makes it reasonable for any one person or people to decide what is an
absolute moral evil, especially as it applies to such murky areas such as
free speech and censorship?
I say that until something occurs to justify a truth as being absolute,
we will have to struggle along as best we can. I strongly doubt that
those who would censor others have any better grasp of absolute truth
than the rest of us.
greggo of the Erratic Sig
Jeff Scott Franzmann
>The Justice Committee recommended on Nov 16 that the ban be significantly
>broadened by expanding the definition of "obscenity" to include
>things not invlolving sex, but including: "undue exploitation of horror,
>cruelty, or violence". This would include things like: music, videos,
>computer games, etc.
The problem being, they are going to have a hard time pushing the
measure through parliament, especially considering the recent incident
concerning the pieces of art which were confiscated and literally
put on trial. It all depends on how they define 'undue exploitation'.
I'm personally hoping that the Commmittee gets it's act together
and begins pulling in some actual data to support some of their
recommendations...otherwise those recommendations will never get
beyond the status of just that...a recommendation (which in many
cases will be a Good Thing (tm)...some of their recommendations
are simply foolish).
>The Committee wants to move beyond "killer cards and board games"
>because these are "just the tip of the iceberg".
Hopefully, they won't move much beyond the truly disgusting stuff.
There is a place for serial killers and depraved maniacs in role
playing, even in the position of protaganist. I don't see any
place at all in role playing for the actual glorification of a
serial killer. There is a world of difference between glorification
and portrayal. Silence of the Lambs was portrayal...there was
nothing glorifying about Hannibal Lector...he may have been
charismatic, but he was by no means a 'hero'. "Serial Killer"
seemed to me, at least, to have crossed the line...the collection
of dead baby tokens as a measure of success doesn't strike me
as anything beyond disgusting.
Sincerely,
Jeff Franzmann
--
Neal Sofge
(Jeff Scott Franzmann) wrote:
>Uh...'Serial Killer' used dead baby tokens as counters. I mean, the
>things actually looked like dead babies. Are you going to
>tell me that this isn't one of the sickest little ideas to ever come out
>of someones mind? There isn't anything creative about this...it's
>exploiting tragedy to sell a product, something which is, IMHO, disgusting.
Question for the net.audience (not just Mr. Franzmann, and yes I do realize
that UseNet is a global system):
Why single out the game, and not the slasher flicks which it's based on?
What is it about games that makes them especially hated?
Do we all have such a frail grip on reality that we're afraid a game made of
cardboard is actually going to take control of our minds and make us go out
and kill things? I've met some peculiar people in this hobby, but none of
them seemed that far gone.
And in the subset of games, why video games especially? I've seen more panic
over Mortal Kombat than over any other game (D&D included) ever created.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neal Sofge (Neal_...@rand.org) | Life is an RPG, run by an idiot,
These are my opinions, not RAND's. | Full of badly designed mechanics,
Home/FMG: ne...@aol.com (slow) | Signifying nothing.
David Jones
>to stop the sale of trading cards and games with serial killer themes (such
>as Serial Killer, the board game, which got a lot of press here in Canada).
The Justice Committee recommended on Nov 16 that the ban be significantly
broadened by expanding the definition of "obscenity" to include
things not invlolving sex, but including: "undue exploitation of horror,
cruelty, or violence". This would include things like: music, videos,
computer games, etc.
The Committee wants to move beyond "killer cards and board games"
because these are "just the tip of the iceberg".
dj
David R. Henry
>Are you sure? I ask because this is not what I remembered, though it
>sounds like about the same time period. I THOUGHt the first non-code
>comic was the Spidy where they introduced Cloak and Dagger. This was
>also an illegal-drug story. (I'm pretty darn sure that the Cloak and
>Dagger limited run series was the first non-code marvel series.)
Yes, the other person (not quoted here to save innocent electrons)
is sure. The Spider-Man story with Norman Osbourn, no Cloak and Dagger
in sight, is the most famous of the "first" non-Code Marvel comics.
--
David R. Henry - Rogue Fan Club / Damn the death threats, full pizza ahead
"All you of Earth are IDIOTS!"-P9fOS / What was the question? -- Kate Bush
dhe...@plains.nodak.edu * Evolution: Give it some time, it'll grow on ya.
Scowling Jim Cowling
>> It won't affect role-playing at all -- unless someone makes a game so
>> phenomenally evil that customs has no choice but to seize it at the border,
>> in which case I certainly don't want to carry it in my store.
>
>see somebody with little sense of proportion declaring it evil.
Actualy, Wargames West, our sholesaler and one of the US's largest
wholesalers, refuses to carry Vampire or Werewolf on moral grounds.
I simply found another wholesaler to order them from. I have no problem with
them.
Scowling Jim Cowling
Imperialist as our good friend Rockerboy here...
In a previous article, roc...@netcom.com (Rockerboy) says:
Subject: Re: Committee Report on Crime Games Recommends Broad Ban
>> Well, I certainly do. Let's take violence against women, for example --
>> literature which depicts or advocates such should be stopped, seized, and
>> destroyed. And yes, of course, it's a value judgment.
>
>This goes in the shitcan with the 'corrupting our youth' whine. Been
>there, seen it, got the t-shirt. It's a rant. You're just fishing for
>knee jerk reactions, pal. Every RPG usually has some form of combat.
No, it's not fishing for reactions. Up here, it's law. And it's a law I
agree with.
>Clue: combat is violence against _someone_. Someone wnts to publish
>games about violence against women, who cares? If the game gets
I don't care. I won't carry it, I won't play it, and I'll applaud should it
be found in this country, seized, and destroyed.
>Are you afraid of ideas you know are incorrect, Mr. Cowling?
Are you afraid of opinions that any reasonable individual knows are OK?
>> Hate literature, which is similarly legislated against, should also be
>> stopped, seized, and destroyed. Yet, the definition of such is a value
>> judgment.
>
>My goodness. What would you propose next? Legislation mandating please
>and thank you? Isn't it a precept of liberty that one can say whatever
>he believes, without fear of punishment because he is stupid or brutish
>or obnxious? If not, perhaps you have consider how your _own_ freedoms
>are being eroded. I certainly do.
Freedom is not absolute in my country, and I'm glad of it. Actually, it's
not absolute in your country, either, but that's irrelevant.
>> Should the Customs Flunkies have the power to judge the stuff? Yes, they
>> should. When a conflict arises, taking the government to court is the
>> ultimate solution -- and such solution worked well for Little Sisters.
>
>Thanks for your vote of confidence in my capacity to judge for myself
>what is obscene and is not obscene. Or, perhaps, you simply consider it
>your duty to make such decisions for others?
What *are* you talking about? I'm not making any such decision -- I'm saying
that I have no problem with the existing legislation (against violence
agsinst women and hate literature) and that I'd put good money on any
proposed legislation not affecting role-playing. And, if such a legislation
banned a game I currently carry (and I carry everything in any gievn
wholesaler's catalogue) I'd go to court to get the right back to carry such
a product.
I do not think anyone has an inherent right to own, read, publish, distribute,
or import hate literature in Canada. I agree with the Canadian government's
decision to take away the choice from its citizens. As should anyone.
>> any role-playing game currently on the market should it pass, and I'd much
>> rather see the politicos waste my money on something like this than decide
>> how much money they're going to give in aid to some third-world backhole.
>
>other crackpot will decide something _you_ value is unacceptable. I
>suspect that any number of people would like to force you to live
>according to their ideas of seemliness. What will you do when they burn
>_your_ books, Mr. Cowling? What will you tell your children when you're
Oh, please. Quit painting Canada as a totalitarian regime. If they try
to burn my books, I'll take them to court, and I'll win. Every single
civil proceeding involving Customs and obscenity has been found in the favour
of the plaintiff, not Customs. I'm not worried.
>couple was recently arrested on charges of obscenity. Their crime?
>Running a bulletin board with adult graphics. But they _weren't_
>arrested in California. Their BBS was a legitimate business here. They
>were endeibted in _Tenessee_. A Postmaster in Tenessee called their BBS,
>obtained an account, downloaded material, and presented it to authorities
Yep, read about it. Their own damn fault, for not reading up on interstate
wire transmission laws. Obscenity laws are federal, not provincial, in
Canada, but vary from state to state in the US, I'm told. This is, again,
irrelevant, as I'm not selling anything that's illegal to sell anywhere in
Canada. Nor do I need to worry about selling something by mailorder to
one of the American states which could land me in hot water; Canada's
extradition laws do not apply to obscenity charges, so assuming I *did*
run such a BBS, and someone from Tennessee *wanted* to prosecute me for
transmitting smut over state lines to that state, they couldn't.
Sorry, I just fail to see how your anecdote applies.
>How firm do you feel, Mr. Cowling? How safe _are_ you?
Real safe. Safer than you. After all, I don't have to worry about my
neighbours owning handguns.
>> BITCHSLAP: The Violence Against Women Game
>
>How convenient of you to classify yourself among reasonable businessmen.
>Remember, Mr. Cowling, the sysops of AA BBS thought they were reasonable,
>too. They had a legitimate business.
Nobody's ever gone to jail for 30 months in Canada for selling porn or
spouting hate. Tennessee's a whole different world. And whatever my opinion
of that case is, it doesn't matter -- it's not my home, so it's not my
concern.
>Ask yourself where they are.
See, I don't get your point -- importing (say) hate literature is illegal,
but doing so will not result in a jail sentence -- the offending stuff
is simply seized and destroyed. Suppose they do the same to (say) the
role-playing game Earthdawn. I go to court over it, suing the government.
I win, because every other previous similar case has ended up the same way.
I don't go to jail if I lose. All I lose is whatever I paid for the book.
I simply try again, since there's no way Customs can stop everything.
Believe me, I sold comics for enough years to know that if your X-rated
stroke-books got seized (as they often did) you just complained, got the books
back a couple of months later, reordered in the meantime. (This is not
to say that I sold a lot of stroke-books -- I didn't, but I know of many,
many retailers who had such experiences).
You just don't understand how things work up here, do you?
>> literature, which has been legislated against. And the same would be true,
>> according to the failed legislation, for literature which advocated mass
>> murder or infanticide, including games and trading cards. The word is
>> *advocate*, not *describe*. You can still buy any newspaper and see all
>> of the above described, but never advocated.
>
>Once agin, this manifest fear of ideas. The only people who need fear
>_ideas_ are those who want to maintain a stranglehold on power. You have
>no right to silence people. Your only fair recourse is to present
>countering ideas.
Don't say "you" as if you're talking about me personally. I'm just a citizen
with a vote like anyone else. I just happen to agree with the government's
stance that they *do* have the right to silence people in a few, specialised
circumstances.
You are, I'm afraid, wrong. Absolute freedom of speech doesn't exist,
not even in the US, and I'm glad it's true. Is it fear? No, it's not fear
of ideas. It's like a moderator of a newsgroup nuking postings which have
high noise and no signal. I moderate rec.arts.comics.info, for example.
You claim you have the right to say whatever you want, and should be able
to post free-speech rants there. I say you don't, and deny you that
privilege. End of story. There are no absolutes.
>> There is no real danger. In my opinion, one of the worst things that could be
>> done would be for a fringe group like CARPGa to raise a stink and get in the
>> faces of the politicos -- doing such would almost guarantee that any proposed
>> legislation would include a broad ban on role-playing.
>
>The only reason you could possibly be willing to take this position would
>be that you don't consider yourself to be entirely clean. The fact is
What do you mean, "clean"? I mean that my heart beats at 68 beats a minute.
I'm completely unworried. I have faith in the system that should it try to
fuck me over, I can push back and win.
>that the gaming community at large has been run roughshod over by
>lunatics and opportunists who need scapegoats. If you are content to be
Thing is, I've never had this experience. Never once have I had a fundie
psycho come into my shop and berate me for doing "the devil's work" or
somesuch. I guess we're just a lot more mellow in Victoria.
I know that such anti-gamer fundie sentiment exists, yes. I don't worry
about it because it hasn't affected me. You may now feel free to quote that
guy what said "Then they came for me and there was nobody left" all you
like. Fact is, such sentiment has never caused any government (provincial,
federal, or municipal) in Canada to ban D&D, and I am completely unconcerned
over whether such a thing has occured in the US. You guys handle your own
affairs, and we'll handle ours.
>labeled as a fringe element or shady character who bears watching, so be
>it. But most people, when wrongly accused, feel it imperative not merely
>to avoid punishment, to to be vindicated. Knitters and bingo players
>don't get accused of worshipping the devil, corrupting youth, encouraging
>violence against {insert pathetic victim description}, or any other such
>nonsense. And you can bet that if they were, they would be outraged, and
>rightfully so.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. I think it's
pointless to be pre-emptive about a non-issue.
>> See, the only thing more annoying than a fanatic lobbyist is a fanatic
>> gamer. Put them both together and you get someone whom your average
>> politician will think is the result of plaing RPGs -- and the next thing you
>> know they'll be building institutions to keep gamers away from 'decent,
>> normal people'.
>
>The fact of the matter is that most gamers _are_ decent, normal people,
>something you seem to be forgetting. The anti-gaming loonies are the
I'm not forgetting it at all. I'm saying that I don't want some fringe
gamer psychos like the more radical CARPGa members to get too uppity. I
think this will do more harm than good.
And, yes, I agree that CARPGa does a generally good job with their meager
resources. I'm just concerned that in this case, mouthing off to the politicos
would be a bad idea, not a good one.
>dangerous ones. They're the same people who burned witches and tortured
>Jews. In my country, they're doing their damned level best to destroy
No, they're not the same people. I doubt many of them are/were even related.
>everything our founders held dear: personal liberty. Today, they
Your founders, not mine, hence irrelevent to the topic at hand.
>torment homosexuals and shoot doctors in cold blood. If you think you're
And it's spread to Vancouver, too, which is pissing me off. Best guess by the
police is that it was an American who came up across the border to do it.
See? Customs can't even find all the guns which travel across the border,
and it is very illegal for an American to bring a gun into Canada for any
reason. So I'm not worried about them finding role-playing games.
>not dealing with people capable of terrorism, think again. Look across
>the border before you play the self righteous ass.
I am completely unconcerned about what goes on across the border. You have
your culture, I have mine, and I'm happy as hell that the two cultures
are different.
>> I don't think it's wise -- if legislation passes that would restrict
>> sales of role-playing games (and it won't) and such legislation causes any
>> product to be banned, then I'll raise shit, and I'll be more than happy to
>> fight, and win, a lawsuit like the one Little Sisters (in Vancouver, for
>> you Americans who don't know) won over 'obscene' literature with homoerotic
>> content.
>
>I find the literature pushed by the anti-gamers obscene. I'm sure quite
>a few people agree with me. Since you seem all for censoring the
>obscene, why not look into this, hmm? Or would that be violating _their_
>rights.
I've never seen such literature. Maybe it's a uniquely American or
eastern Canada thing. It's never been a problem here in BC. In any case,
such anti-gamer sentiment is not going to affect any proposed legislation in
the slightest. Hell, the Canadian National Toy Council regularly lists
D&D as a good choice, so there's existing government pro-game bias.
If someone comes along here and starts ranting about D&D causing mental
illness, I'll be first in line to flame the sorry son-of-a-bitch into
fondue. But I haven't seen it yet.
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ......The Rev. "Scowling" Jim Cowling......scowling@angmar.dataflux.bc.ca......
^^
|
>Could this little title here explain something about your reluctance to
>stand up against something you know is wrong?
Universal Life Church. You know, the one that people joined in the 60s and
70s to avoid th draft for Vietnam? It's patently bogus, naturally. I'm a
complete atheist, through and through.
Don't even think you know what I believe is right or wrong. I believe that
you, for the most part, are wrong. There are very few occasions where
the freedom to speak or publish should be curtailed, and in Canada, it's
been pretty much coverred where it's acceptable, and I agree with the
decisions made. There's some room for improvement -- that is, an increase
in the bans, but it had better not be too drastic. If such an increase
affects my livelihood, I'll bite back and win. But I'll put good money on
the bet that I won't ever have to call a lawyer about it.
>"In every nation, in every time, the priest has been the enemy of Liberty."
Not all of them, but certainly all the Catholic ones.
>No, it wasn't me. Try a book of quotes.
Wasn't in Bartlett's 15th edition.
Gnite, Rockerboy. Sleep tight. Ignore the gunshots in your backyard. Just
wrap yourself in the American flag and roll over.
Jeff Scott Franzmann
>In Article <3c2702$s...@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>, umfr...@cc.umanitoba.ca
>(Jeff Scott Franzmann) wrote:
>
>>Uh...'Serial Killer' used dead baby tokens as counters. I mean, the
>>things actually looked like dead babies. Are you going to
>>tell me that this isn't one of the sickest little ideas to ever come out
>>of someones mind? There isn't anything creative about this...it's
>>exploiting tragedy to sell a product, something which is, IMHO, disgusting.
>
>What is it about games that makes them especially hated?
The fact that in a slasher flick, you are a passive participant, while in
a game, you are an active one. I don't have time to go into the
psychological aspects of tacit, passive and active participation, but
suffice it to say, there is indeed a difference between WATCHING a flick
in which some psychotic dices and slices his way through a college dorm,
and participating in a game wherein the objective is to take the role of
said psychotic, and slash and hack your way to success.
>Do we all have such a frail grip on reality that we're afraid a game made of
>cardboard is actually going to take control of our minds and make us go out
>and kill things? I've met some peculiar people in this hobby, but none of
>them seemed that far gone.
Oh, I don't have any fears about this, actually. Maybe 1 out of 100,000
people possesses the thin grip on reality AND the murderous personality
necessary for such an occurence to take place. And these folks would be
set off by a bowl of jello in the first place. My concern is simply the
exploitative aspect of it. I see nothing wrong with the portrayal of
serial killers in film, book or even in RPG. I DO see something wrong
with the glorification or advocation of said killers. Can anyone honestly
say that a game in which the goal is to accumulate dead baby tokens as a
measure of success, and the more kills you garner measures your success
is something good? These aren't Orcs and Trolls or semi-mythological
cultists of Nyarlhotep (sic). This is the portrayal of the killing of
human beings, as a human being, and the glorification of it.
>And in the subset of games, why video games especially? I've seen more panic
>over Mortal Kombat than over any other game (D&D included) ever created.
Which I think is rather foolish. Again, Mortal Kombat (as dumb and
mindless as I find it) is a fantasy, and does little more than entertain
the easily entertained. Maybe 1 child in a 100 will play it too much and
get bad grades, maybe one kid in 100,000 will try ripping out someones
lung. However, the game is abstract reality. To my knowledge, the only
game that I have ever seen which I have objected to is Serial Killer. It
glorifies a real life tragedy, and attempts to make money doing so.
Vampire, Kult, and every other game which has found its detractors
doesn't meet the criteria set out by the Canadian Criminal Code, since it
all involves a level of fantasy or suspension of disbelief. Serial
Killers, unlike Vampires (maybe...) are a very real phenomenae. Point me
to another game which falls into the same Category as Serial Killer, and
maybe I'd change my mind, but I doubt it.
Sincerely,
Jeff Franzmann
--
Bertil Jonell
Jeff Scott Franzmann <umfr...@cc.umanitoba.ca> wrote:
>When I was over on talk.politics.guns and
>soc.culture.canada, I got hammered with flame after flame from US
>citizens.
Personally I love gun control, bans on paramilitary gear, bans on body
armour, bans on cryptography etc: They are great tools of the Referee
to harrass the PC's with.
:)
>Jeff Franzmann
Brian Allan Mitchell
for IBM-compats? If not, why not? If Hero Software had the foresight to
write it in C, then porting it should be trivial. I thought some of the
Hero Software guys used Amigas...maybe it was just a rumour.
Seth Finkelstein
>is sure. The Spider-Man story with Norman Osbourn, no Cloak and Dagger
>in sight, is the most famous of the "first" non-Code Marvel comics.
Yes. It was in _Amazing Spider-Man_ 96-98, dated 5,6,7/71.
Source: Overstreet Comic Book Price Guide.
But the point to take from this is how utterly limited an
"advance" it was - it was being allowed to say "Drugs are bad". Not to
have a plot questioning anything about the War on Some Drugs propaganda,
but just to use that for story purposes. Compare this to the
contemporaneous "counterculture" humor of something such as the
_Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers_, and it's evident how severely
restricted "mainstream" comics were (and still are), even with the
changes in the Code.
The Comics Code is not a dead letter these days, it just has a
lot less power than it once had. Whereas in 1954 it ruled perhaps 95% of
the material, it may be down to around 30% today. It was basically
unchallenged for 15 years, weakened but still dominant for another 15
years, and a lingering influence today. That's a significant record.
Even more important, the ghettoization it produced destroyed
much of the creativity in the medium, and fostered a public perception
that may never be undone. It's a very scary cautionary tale that
should be more widely known, and a refutation of considering "labeling"
to be harmless.
--
Seth Finkelstein se...@mit.edu
Disclaimer : I am not the Lorax. I speak only for myself.
(and certainly not for Project Athena, MIT, or anyone else).
Richard S. Ehrlich
if so, lemme know please!
thanks
cheers
"Hello, My Big Big Honey"
Love Letters to Bangkok Bar Girls and Their Revealing Interviews
ftp://ftp.supernet.ab.ca/pub/docs/bigbighoney
gopher: gopher.supernet.ab.ca
e-mail: bigbi...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca
David L Evens (dev...@uoguelph.ca) wrote:
: Bertil Jonell (d9be...@dtek.chalmers.se) wrote:
: : In article <CzzJt...@freenet.carleton.ca>,
: : Jennifer Clarke Wilkes <ae...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote on the latest
: : anti-game insanities.
: : So, if the ban becomes law, how will that affect game companies/
: : authors in Canada? What about Columbia Games, and what about Ed Greenwood?
: Ed sold the Forgotten Realms to TSR lock, stock, and barrel (as the old
: innkeeping saying goes), according to my information, so his problems
: would ammount to, essentially, creating something that would be illegal
: to publish (maybe). He, of course, could always vacate the country (and
: take his money with him). Columbie Games would have a rather larger problem.
: --
: * O L D I M P R O O V E D . S I G *
: w i t h
: * W E D N E S D A Y S P A C I N G * ( t m )
: -----------------+------------------------------------------------------------
: 'Trial by stone.'| The aggreagate inteeligence on this planet
: 'Trial by stone!'| is a constant. The population, however,
: 'Trial By Stone!'| is growing.
: 'TRIAL BY STONE!'|
: -----------------+------------------------------------------------------------
: "O K , s o h e ' s n o t t e r r i b l y f e a r s o m .
: B u t h e c e r t a i n l y c a u g h t u s b y
: s u r p r i s e !"
: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: (Why is it the Old Improved .Sig? I've been using it for a couple weeks!)
Timothy J. Miller
"When they came for the Communists, I said nothing. When they
came for the homosexuals, I turned away. When they came for the Jews, I
tried not to see. When they came for the Gypsies, I did not speak for
them.
"When they came for me, there was no-one left to speak for me."
-- Cerebus <t...@hrlib.brooks.af.mil>
"A proverb from the past for your perusal."
Kevin Maroney
Are there any such opinions?
The government which has the power to censor any book, any magazine, any
thought has the power to censor every book, every magazine, and every
thought.
The Canadian government has used obscenity laws to shut down at least one
pro-gay newspaper. Thanks to Canada's lack of prohibition against double
jeopardy (pressing charges for the same offense repeatedly), they can
bring criminal charges against the same publication repeatedly until the
publisher is bankrupted.
By the way, if I call you Hitler, will this damn thread curl up and die?
--
Kevin J. Maroney|k...@panix.com|Proud to be a Maroney|Proud to be a Yonker
At night, the ice weasels come.
Philip M. Hall
Just a few thoughts on wheter or not one should be concerned
when any government tries to decide on what is and is not good
for its citizens to read:
Scowling Jim keeps saying that he will win any court case that he
would be forced to file against Customs. If a law is well written
and the appropriate political atmosphere is present then winning a
lawsuit that has been won previously is not a given. It is a crap
shoot and most lawyers will tell you that. That is why there are
lawyers and courts.
Role playing games nearly bit the dust in the U.S. shortly after
D&D came out since the psychiatrists used role playing in therapy.
There was a movement afoot to prohibit it since it was a medical
treatment. As such it was extrapolated that if it could cure it
could also "uncure" causing mental abberation among suggestible
people and creating monsters. The most famous case is the U of
Michigan steam tunnel kid who disapperared and was thought to have
flipped out from RPGing. The thought seemed to be that the use of
a medical procedure by non-medical people should be outlawed. There
was also a case where a teenager in, I believe, Florida hanged
himself after his character was killed out in a RPG. I listened to
a radio talk show on which his father was attempting to end all RPG's
as the work of the devil.
Censorship is always dangerous and putting the ability into the hands
of even a benevolent government is always dangerous. It was no error
on the part of the founding fathers of the U.S. that the very first
amendment to the constitution was a right of free speech. The scary
thing is that we have a supreme court willing to believe that that
doesn't apply to all speech.
I'm also curious what the difference is in using dead baby counters
as a way of keeping score in a game and using counters representing
100s of men as a way of keeping score in a game. Both represent the
killing of human beings. If you are going to be outraged by one then
you should be outraged by the other. Keeping score of dead bodies is
keeping score of dead bodies be it from serial killer or the legal
military killer. This is a hair that I'm not sure non-gamers would
be willling to split.
Phil
--
Jeff Scott Franzmann
>In article <3c0io1$s...@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>,
>Jeff Scott Franzmann <umfr...@cc.umanitoba.ca> wrote:
>>When I was over on talk.politics.guns and
>>soc.culture.canada, I got hammered with flame after flame from US
>>citizens.
>
> Personally I love gun control, bans on paramilitary gear, bans on body
>armour, bans on cryptography etc: They are great tools of the Referee
>to harrass the PC's with.
>
>:)
Whoah...reminds me of a Megatraveller Campaign I was GMing a while back
:). The PCs were the typical collection of freelance 'we're so tough'
mercenaties that my campaigns tend to humble :). They booked a room at
the downport, and went to sleep.
The fear of whatever gods they believed in was instilled within them when
they awoke to the local paramilitaries executing the occupants of the
room next to theirs. Their crime? Breaking the local noise ordinances.
The PCs turned in their smuggled snub pistols very quitely the next day,
without any prodding on my part :). It was very interesting, all in all,
since I never intended them to go weaponless...I was just emphasizing the
fact that on this particular world, the law MEANT the law. Every crime
was either punished with death or, if it was just too much bother, left
alone. Drug addiction on the planet was horrendous, since the Special
Branch (the local law enforcement types) only intervened if the crime in
question was bothering another citizen. Thus. one could find oneself
executed for tossing a cigarette butt out of your air car (Littering is a
violation of the law, citizen), but one could cheerfully purchase any one
of a number of illegal substances and shoot up in the safety of ones own
home. It was rather an interesting campaign, all and all, and the PCs
breathed a RL sigh of relief when they made it offworld intact :). And it
was damn fun :).
Sincerely,
Jeff Franzmann
--
nwein...@mac.cc.macalstr.edu
> In article <neal_sofge....@nntp.rand.org> neal_...@rand.org (Neal Sofge) writes:
>>In Article <3c2702$s...@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>, umfr...@cc.umanitoba.ca
>>(Jeff Scott Franzmann) wrote:
>>
>>>Uh...'Serial Killer' used dead baby tokens as counters. I mean, the
>>>things actually looked like dead babies. Are you going to
>>>tell me that this isn't one of the sickest little ideas to ever come out
>>>of someones mind? There isn't anything creative about this...it's
>>>exploiting tragedy to sell a product, something which is, IMHO, disgusting.
>>
[snip]
>>Do we all have such a frail grip on reality that we're afraid a game made of
>>cardboard is actually going to take control of our minds and make us go out
>>and kill things? I've met some peculiar people in this hobby, but none of
>>them seemed that far gone.
>
> Oh, I don't have any fears about this, actually. Maybe 1 out of 100,000
> people possesses the thin grip on reality AND the murderous personality
> necessary for such an occurence to take place. And these folks would be
> set off by a bowl of jello in the first place. My concern is simply the
> exploitative aspect of it. I see nothing wrong with the portrayal of
> serial killers in film, book or even in RPG. I DO see something wrong
> with the glorification or advocation of said killers. Can anyone honestly
> say that a game in which the goal is to accumulate dead baby tokens as a
> measure of success, and the more kills you garner measures your success
> is something good? These aren't Orcs and Trolls or semi-mythological
> cultists of Nyarlhotep (sic). This is the portrayal of the killing of
> human beings, as a human being, and the glorification of it.
>
I see something wrong with it too. I would never buy such a game and
would be suspicious of anyone who would. But this does not mean I support your
right to impose your views regarding this game upon others. What is disgusting
to one person may not be to another. Governments simply do not have the right
to ban things because we consider them "disgusting".
>>And in the subset of games, why video games especially? I've seen more panic
>>over Mortal Kombat than over any other game (D&D included) ever created.
>
> Which I think is rather foolish. Again, Mortal Kombat (as dumb and
> mindless as I find it) is a fantasy, and does little more than entertain
> the easily entertained. Maybe 1 child in a 100 will play it too much and
> get bad grades, maybe one kid in 100,000 will try ripping out someones
> lung. However, the game is abstract reality. To my knowledge, the only
> game that I have ever seen which I have objected to is Serial Killer. It
> glorifies a real life tragedy, and attempts to make money doing so.
> Vampire, Kult, and every other game which has found its detractors
> doesn't meet the criteria set out by the Canadian Criminal Code, since it
> all involves a level of fantasy or suspension of disbelief. Serial
> Killers, unlike Vampires (maybe...) are a very real phenomenae. Point me
> to another game which falls into the same Category as Serial Killer, and
> maybe I'd change my mind, but I doubt it.
>
Has it occurred to you that one of the most important rights you have
exercised in writing this post is your right to make your own judgment about
this game? And that by approving of government intervention in this matter you
are imperiling that right, for yourself as well as others?
Nicholas Weininger
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility toward every form of
tyranny over the mind of man." -Thomas Jefferson
Lazlo Nibble
> Freedom is not absolute in my country, and I'm glad of it.
Yes -- the government *should* do people's thinking for them. That's why
we have governments, to keep "bad ideas" from permeating the mainstream of
society. If the majority disapproves of some idea you're trying to push
on them, you should be forbidden to express that idea, because people
should never be confronted with ideas that might result in someone being
harmed. Supressing them makes life much better for everyone.
Do you actually *believe* this dog vomit?
> You are, I'm afraid, wrong. Absolute freedom of speech doesn't exist,
> not even in the US, and I'm glad it's true. Is it fear? No, it's not
> fear of ideas.
So what's the rationale for banning the expression of ideas, if not the
fear of those ideas?
> I have faith in the system that should it try to fuck me over, I can push
> back and win.
And you're perfectly willing to defend the system's right to try to fuck
you over. That's fucking *weird*, Jim.
--
::: Lazlo (la...@rt66.com)
::: Use the Internet Music Wantlists to find rare records and CDs.
::: Email want...@rt66.com with HELP on a line by itself in the message.
Scowling Jim Cowling
>>scow...@angmar.dataflux.bc.ca (Scowling Jim Cowling) writes:
>> Freedom is not absolute in my country, and I'm glad of it.
>
>Yes -- the government *should* do people's thinking for them. That's why
>we have governments, to keep "bad ideas" from permeating the mainstream of
>society. If the majority disapproves of some idea you're trying to push
>on them, you should be forbidden to express that idea, because people
>should never be confronted with ideas that might result in someone being
>harmed. Supressing them makes life much better for everyone.
Mostly true. That's one of the reasons governments exist, to safeguard
its people, by whatever means its citizens accept. And censorship, including
press bans (voir dires and other), hate literature bans, etc., is one of
the means we use.
The government is not doing any thinking for anyone *except* for those who
*want* to publish hate literature. Those people can go hang.
>Do you actually *believe* this dog vomit?
Yes, I do. I also believe you think it's dog vomit. After all, you probably
grew up spouting the Pledge of Allegiance every morning before class. The
USA and Canada are different countries, with different cultures. Get used to
it. In many ways, they're *VERY* different cultures. Judging by the
responses I've received from fellow Canadians via e-mail, not only is the
view I hold typical of the average Canadian (if not, why haven't we elected
a government so conservative that such laws would never even have made it
past first reading?) but also typical of the average Canadian reader of this
newsgroup. And the woman from Ontario who started this thread is being quite
alarmist, and certainly does not espouse a view held by most Canadians.
Hell, get ten Canadian anti-censorship fanatics in one room, and I'll bet
you good cash that nine out of ten of them agree that banning hate lit is
a good thing, and five out of ten of them agree that press bans are a good
thing, and that *all* of them agree that banning media which advocate violence
against women is a good thing.
Obscenity laws reflect the views of the majority; the majority want the
above banned. The *vast* majority, except in the case of the press bans,
where it's a simple majority. Banning role-playing games would *not* be
the preferred view of the majority of Canadians, which is why I see any law
attemting to do so failing. I'm just not worried about it. And if it
happens, then a mistake will have been made. I'll simply fight it in court.
But I see that necessity being as remote a possibility as me being hit
by a falling cornice while walking to work.
You were brought up under the US Constitution, which is supposed to guarantee
you the right to absolute freedom of expression. My country's Charter of
Rights and Freedoms does not guarantee the same -- it grants limited rights
to freedom of expression. I think ours is better thought out. It's also
a lot more recent, and so better reflects modern thinking -- no amendments
to it, as has been necessary time and time again in the US.
Get used to the idea that Canadians are *happy* with the way things are up
here. If we weren't, do you think that UNESCO would keep ranking Canada as
the best place in the world to live, while the US barely makes the top 5?
Canada and the US have radically different cultures -- the US is a "melting
pot", while Canada is a "cultural mosaic". One of the few things we have in
common is the fact we speak the same language with similar accents. You
only have to read a Canadian newspaper or read a couple of Canadian novels to
see this.
See, I know a lot about US culture -- after all, I can pick up all the
Seattle TV stations, plus CNN, read USA Today, and any of a thousand
different American magazines. Your tirade only helps to prove how ignorant
Americans are about Canada.
>So what's the rationale for banning the expression of ideas, if not the
>fear of those ideas?
Not fear -- concern. I worry that if hate literature were not banned, we'd
end up with more Jim Keegstras. You cannot honestly tell me that you can
think of any good reason for hate literature to exist. Not one.
>> I have faith in the system that should it try to fuck me over, I can push
>> back and win.
>
>And you're perfectly willing to defend the system's right to try to fuck
>you over. That's fucking *weird*, Jim.
When the system doesn't work, it gets changed. See, maybe in the States,
where the worldview of each of the parties in your two-party system are
so close that you need a straight razor to find the difference, it doesn't
occur to you that you can change your system of government. here, we have
five parties, each with radically different views on governing. When one
fails, we change it. This happened recently when the Conservatives went from
a majority government to two (2) seats. We have the recall system, where
we can bring our representatives back home if we think they're screwing around.
Basically, you just don't understand how things work up here. I
am quite willing to let my government make mistakes and then try to rectify them
afterwards, rather than second-guess them and get all worked up about
something which may not even happen. This is probably why there are so few
lobyby groups up here, as opposed to down there -- we have a lot more faith
that our government won't screw us over. When they do, *then* we do
something about it.
Fucking weird? Maybe to you, but certainly not to me.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
......The Rev. "Scowling" Jim Cowling......scowling@angmar.dataflux.bc.ca......
...Moderator: rec.arts.comics.info....FAQKeeper: rec.arts.comics.marketplace...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey J. Mancebo
: Is there an Amiga version yet? Are there any versions other than the one
: write it in C, then porting it should be trivial. I thought some of the
: Hero Software guys used Amigas...maybe it was just a rumour.
No Kidding!! I'd LOVE to see Hero Maker come out for the Amiga! I have
at least 8 friends who would instantly buy it if it did! For that matter,
I'D buy a second copy just to have it on my Amiga! It's an incredibly
usefull program.
boojum the brown bunny
Bertil Jonell
David L Evens <dev...@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
>Unfortunately, no. Under the revisions to the conspiracy provisions in
>the Criminal Code of Canada, it is a crime to plot anything which is a
>crime in the place you plan to do it.
Even if that place is abroad? So if someone scans in some passages
from Rushdie, and plans to mail them (surface) to the Government of
Iran, they are guilty of a crime in Canada, supposing distributing
the copies is illegal in Iran?
(Ignoring for the moment the copyright violation:)
Bertil Jonell
Lazlo Nibble <la...@mack.rt66.com> wrote to scow...@angmar.dataflux.bc.ca
(Scowling Jim Cowling):
>And you're perfectly willing to defend the system's right to try to fuck
>you over. That's fucking *weird*, Jim.
It is called the Stockholm Syndrome.
>::: Lazlo (la...@rt66.com)
Huw Leonard
>>phenomenally evil that customs has no choice but to seize it at the border,
>>in which case I certainly don't want to carry it in my store.
>
>officials to make such a decision for me, I'd rather decide myself what I buy
>(or what I would carry if I owned a store).
>
>correctly, was a low budget board game from Ragnorak Games, which was a toungue
>in cheek parody of "slasher" movies (ala "Friday the 13th") etc. How is this
>so horrible? The movies themselves aren't banned, why should a parody be? And
>ravaging medeival Europe) also be banned, for example?
>
>sell. However, the prime example of the legislation is already something which
>they appear to have messed up on.
First off, there is no legislation specifically controlling board games or trading
cards yet. The findings of a Commission have been released as a report, and they
make several recommendations about new legislation.
Secondly, the recommendations were not "designed" with the Serial Killer game in
mind. The Commission decided that the serial killer trading cards glorified vio-
lence, and as such should be somehow restricted from sale in Canada. They then
went on to say that the problem was likely to be wider-spread than just trading
cards, and any proposed legislation should not be restricted to cards.
The problem with letting Canada Customs decide what can and can't come into the
country is that they don't seem to have much regard for the laws of the nation,
or for any sort of even-handed treatment. They are notorious for seizing and re-
turning (to the originator) or destroying material that has been deemed by the
Supreme Court (and the Criminal Code) to be acceptable.
Here in Ontario, we've had similar problems, with police seizing "poronographic"
videos which have received approval from the Ontario Film Review Board.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huw Leonard, speaking only for himself unless you agree with him.
Carl M Kadie
[...]
>You were brought up under the US Constitution, which is supposed to guarantee
>you the right to absolute freedom of expression. My country's Charter of
>Rights and Freedoms does not guarantee the same -- it grants limited rights
>to freedom of expression.
[...]
.. and most of the rights it "grants" can, under Article 33, be
declared void by majority vote of Parliament or any provincial
legislature.
If you live in a country where the government can be trusted with the
power to override (by majority vote) fundamental freedoms, I envy you.
I don't live in such a country.
("Fundamental Freedoms" is how the Charter describes freedom of
expression, freedom of assocation, etc.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/charter.can">
law/charter.can
=================</a>
* Constitution -- Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- Full Text
From the Canadian Constitution Act 1982
=================
=================
If you have gopher, you can browse the CAF archive with the command
gopher gopher.eff.org
These document(s) are also available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.77.172.4), and then:
cd /pub/CAF/law
get charter.can
To get the file(s) by email, send email to ftp...@decwrl.dec.com
Include the line(s):
connect ftp.eff.org
cd /pub/CAF/law
get charter.can
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
= Email: ka...@cs.uiuc.edu =
= URL: <ftp://ftp.cs.uiuc.edu/pub/kadie/>
nwein...@mac.cc.macalstr.edu
>>>> One of the "reasonable limits" on "freedom of the press" that has been
>>>> established by federal courts is obscenity. There are five or six things
>>>> explicitly covered by this, the most important being explicit depictions
>>>> of sexual violence and explicit depictions of child pornography.
>>>
>>>What makes it "reasonable" for a government to decide what is obscene and
>>>what is not, and to prohibit what it calls obscene?
>>
>>What makes it reasonable for a citizen of one country to condemn the
>>customs or laws of another country?
>
> laws might be appropriate to prevent the incitement of hatred, I am a
> 'mindless, snivelling serf', a Nazi, a fascist and every other sort of
> nasty thing that could possibly exist. Apparently, for some people, their
> view of what is right is the only view of of what is right.
>
No, that's not what we're arguing- that's what *you're* arguing. By
advocating "Hate Crime" laws you're saying that society has the right to decide
that certain ideas constitute "hatred", and to declare that those ideas are
criminal and it is criminal to advocate them, no matter what individuals may
think of them. You are elevating the idea of non-hatred to the status of a
universal, unchallengeable truth- the only view of what is right.
I don't think you're a Nazi or a snivelling serf. A lot of otherwise
intelligent and well-intentioned people have helped lead the descent into
tyranny. I'm sure a lot of the people who participated in the original
construction of the Soviet state were acting with the best of intentions,
according to the dictates of their own consciences.
Ken Arromdee
>you good cash that nine out of ten of them agree that banning hate lit is
>a good thing, and five out of ten of them agree that press bans are a good
>thing, and that *all* of them agree that banning media which advocate violence
>against women is a good thing.
In the context of a law, _how_ do you ban media which advocate violence
against women? While not banning anything else? You can't, really, because
any law you make will be interpreted by someone else.
--
Ken Arromdee (email: arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
"No boom today. Boom tomorrow, there's always a boom tomorrow." --Ivanova
David Jones
Carl M Kadie <ka...@hal.cs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>something about the "killer card" legislation and free speech ...
ELECTRONIC FRONTIER CANADA --- PRESS RELEASE
(For immediate release --- December 7, 1994)
PROPOSED BAN TOO BROAD -- FROM KILLER CARDS TO COMPUTER GAMES
Draft legislation that would ban "killer cards" is back from
the Justice Committee with recommendations that it be broadened
to cover a much wider range of communication. This has many
defenders of free speech alarmed.
In a report recently presented to Parliament, the Justice Committee
recommends changes to the legal definition of "obscenity" to include
"undue exploitation or glorification of horror, cruelty, or violence".
In addition to cards and games, the report names "music, videos, comics,
posters, and computer bulletin boards" as forms of communication that
need to be controlled by the government. Communication that falls within
this expanded definition and has "no redeeming cultural or social value"
would be prohibited.
"They apparently stopped short of advocating book-burning", grumbles
David Jones, a professor of Computer Science at McMaster University,
who is not happy with the report. "When they start talking about banning
computer games and communication on computer bulletin boards, that's
where they've crossed over into our domain" says Jones, speaking
for Electronic Frontier Canada (EFC), a group dedicated to protecting
rights and freedoms in cyberspace.
"New forms of communication and recreation made possible by new
technologies are no less worthy of Charter protection than the more
traditional media", says Jeff Shallit, another EFC member, who says
he's "been frustrated by the off-again, on-again censorship of electronic
communications at the University of Waterloo", where he is a professor
of Computer Science.
Asked about the general issue behind the new "killer card" legislation,
John Bryden, Liberal MP for Hamilton, said "I think they're in a
real minefield. It is very very difficult to draft legislation
to control that type of material that doesn't seriously infringe on
freedom of expression. Nobody likes to see killer cards, as they
call them, but these very same legislators probably aren't aware of
the fact for years down in Niagara Falls there's been a crime museum.
You pay your two bucks and you go in there and you see Jack the Ripper,
and so on."
Partly because of his background as a writer, Bryden said he was sensitive
to issues involving government control of communication.
"It's not practical in terms of what you're going to lose
versus what you might gain", said Bryden.
In what some say is an acknowledgement that the proposed legislation
is far too broad in its scope and open to abuse, the Committee recommends
certain "safeguards" so that prosecutions would not be "frivolous" and
would not be used to "harass or intimidate". Even though the proposed
ban would apply only to communication that has "no redeeming social value",
critics are still concerned. "There is a real social value merely in
being able express one's views", says Jones. "It's an important part
of the democratic process."
Despite all the hand-wringing concern over the "social evil" represented
by these controversial cards and games, the Justice Committee acknowledges
that actual instances of the objectionable material are very rare.
In fact, the Justice Committee had to actively import a foreign board game
into Canada because no objectionable ones were available in this country.
Several MP's have stated openly that they wonder how such a peripheral
issue was able to keep the Justice Committee busy for months, and that
they believe the Justice Committee "should concentrate on real violence
rather than conjectural violence."
-- 30 --
Contact Information:
--------------------
Electronic Frontier Canada
Dr. David Jones phone: (905) 525-9140 x24689 fax: (905) 546-9995
email: djo...@insight.mcmaster.ca
Dr. Jeff Shallit phone: (519) 888-4804 fax: (519) 885-1208
email: sha...@graceland.uwaterloo.ca
Dr. Richard Rosenberg phone: (604) 822-4142 fax: (604) 822-5485
email: ro...@cs.ubc.ca
Electronic Frontier Canada, online archives:
Gopher: gopher://gopher.ee.mcgill.ca/11/community/efc
World-Wide-Web: http://www.ee.mcgill.ca/efc/efc.html
Anonymous FTP: ftp://insight.mcmaster.ca/pub/efc
--
John Bryden,
Liberal MP for Hamilton-Wentworth
phone: (905) 627-3934
phone: (613) 995-8042 fax: (613) 996-1289
--
Allan Rock
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
(613) 992-4621 -- Ministerial Office
(613) 947-5000 -- Parl. Hill Office
(613) 990-7255 -- Ministerial Office Fax
--
Jennifer Clarke Wilkes
Director for Canadian Association for Role-Playing Games
(also opposes the draft legislation)
email: ae...@freenet.carleton.ca
phone: (613) 741-2629
fax: (613) 745-5569
--
Bloc Quebecois MPs who wrote dissenting opinion
to Justice Committee recommendations
Pierrette Venne, MP for St-Hubert
Pierre de Savoye, MP for Portneuf
Francois Langlois, MP for Bellechasse
--
Warren Allmand,
MP for Notre-Dame-de-Grace
Author of the controversial Justice Committee Report.
----------------------------
Documents available on-line:
The following documents are available in electronic form
to anyone with an Internet connection.
1. Proposed amendments to Criminal Code and Customs Tariff (re: killer cards)
2. Comments by Jennifer Clarke Wilkes made during Justice Committee hearings.
3. The full report of the Justice Committe (16nov94)
4. The Dissenting Opinion (Appendix A of the report)
These can be accessed in two ways:
Gopher: gopher -p "1/community/efc/events/killer-cards" ee.mcgill.ca
Anonymous FTP: ftp insight.mcmaster.ca, look in /pub/efc/events/killer-cards
John Cooper
>Uh...'Serial Killer' used dead baby tokens as counters. I mean, the
>things actually looked like dead babies. Are you going to
>tell me that this isn't one of the sickest little ideas to ever come out
>of someones mind? There isn't anything creative about this...it's
>exploiting tragedy to sell a product, something which is, IMHO, disgusting.
I find it rather tasteless as well, but I neither need nor want you
or my government deciding that for me. Tyranny begins when a governmental
body decides not to let citizens think or choose for themselves.
>If Customs Canada messes up, they pay for it in court. I have yet to see
>an example of where they made a bad decision that wasn't overturned in a
>court of law.
I deplore laws that permit law enforcement agencies to routinely
violate the civil rights of its citizens, leaving litigation as the
only means of restitution. How about we just let individuals decide
for themselves what is "obscene" and "tasteless" and let the police
(and Customs) concentrate on _valid_ threats to the common good.
-John
+--------------------------+------------------------------------------+
| John R. Cooper | Internet: j...@vivitech.com, |
| Vivid Technologies, Inc. | jco...@world.std.com |
| Waltham, MA 02154 | AOL: JRCooper (jrco...@aol.com) |
+--------------------------+------------------------------------------+
| | GCS/O d H s g+ p? au>+ a- w v++ C++$ U-- |
| "Rub her feet." | P- L- 3- E N+ K++ W++ M++ V -po+ Y+ t++@ |
| - Long's Notes | 5 j R+++$ G' tv@ b+ D+ B--- e++ u** h--- |
| | f+ r++ n->+ y+++*>$ |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
David L Evens
: In article <3c06op$o...@nermal.cs.uoguelph.ca>,
: David L Evens <dev...@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
: >Unfortunately, no. Under the revisions to the conspiracy provisions in
: >the Criminal Code of Canada, it is a crime to plot anything which is a
: >crime in the place you plan to do it.
: Even if that place is abroad? So if someone scans in some passages
: from Rushdie, and plans to mail them (surface) to the Government of
: Iran, they are guilty of a crime in Canada, supposing distributing
: the copies is illegal in Iran?
: (Ignoring for the moment the copyright violation:)
According to the way that the law was explained to us in the law course I
took, this is indeed the intent. Isn't it wonderful? Canadian police
will arrest you for planning to rescue some people from Cuba! (Of
course, Canada doesn't allow refugees from Cuba, since Cuba isn't
considered to be an oppressive regime, the fact that the people getting
sent back get several years in prison for trying).
--
* O L D I M P R O O V E D . S I G *
w i t h
* W E D N E S D A Y S P A C I N G * ( t m )
-----------------+------------------------------------------------------------
'Trial by stone.'| The aggregate intelligence on this planet
Scowling Jim Cowling
Bertil Jonell <d9be...@dtek.chalmers.se> wrote:
>In article <3c67bk$f...@mack.rt66.com>,
>Lazlo Nibble <la...@mack.rt66.com> wrote to scow...@angmar.dataflux.bc.ca
>(Scowling Jim Cowling):
>>And you're perfectly willing to defend the system's right to try to fuck
>>you over. That's fucking *weird*, Jim.
>
> It is called the Stockholm Syndrome.
I think you're thinking of the Helsinki Syndrome, where hostages begin to
agree with their captors. Of course, you're wrong -- the only thing that
the Syndrome can be related to other than hostage situations is people who
follow Xtianity.
Sorry, just had to add more flamebait.
Scowling Jim Cowling
>affected by the Canadian governments foolishness although some
>Canadian contributors to the role-gaming apa ALARUMS AND EXCURSIONS have started
>to ask the rest of us to limit our writing about sexual matters lest
>their issues be taken and destroyed. Without appeal, without compensation. Still you have to
Completely incorrect. There are numerous forms of appeal. Know whereof you
speak before you begin typing.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
......The Rev. "Scowling" Jim Cowling......scowling@angmar.dataflux.bc.ca......
...Moderator: rec.arts.comics.info....FAQKeeper: rec.arts.comics.marketplace...
Scowling Jim Cowling
>>scow...@angmar.dataflux.bc.ca (Scowling Jim Cowling) writes:
>>
>>You were brought up under the US Constitution, which is supposed to guarantee
>>you the right to absolute freedom of expression. My country's Charter of
>>Rights and Freedoms does not guarantee the same -- it grants limited rights
>>to freedom of expression.
>
>declared void by majority vote of Parliament or any provincial
>legislature.
Good. I like to know that the laws are there to prevent loopholes.
Why "grants" in quotes? I hope you're not trying to say that such rights
are inaliable -- we're talking about a different country. Then again, maybe
that is what you mean. By that logic, everyone in the world automatically
has all the rights available to Americans. I shudder at the thought.
>If you live in a country where the government can be trusted with the
>power to override (by majority vote) fundamental freedoms, I envy you.
>
>I don't live in such a country.
My government can be trusted with the power. Maybe a second American
Revolution would be a good idea, if yours can't?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
......The Rev. "Scowling" Jim Cowling......scowling@angmar.dataflux.bc.ca......
...Moderator: rec.arts.comics.info....FAQKeeper: rec.arts.comics.marketplace...
Scowling Jim Cowling
>>In article <3c6d1j$9...@angmar.dataflux.bc.ca>,
>>Scowling Jim Cowling <scow...@angmar.dataflux.bc.ca> wrote:
>>you good cash that nine out of ten of them agree that banning hate lit is
>>a good thing, and five out of ten of them agree that press bans are a good
>>thing, and that *all* of them agree that banning media which advocate violence
>>against women is a good thing.
>
>against women? While not banning anything else? You can't, really, because
>any law you make will be interpreted by someone else.
Thank you for making my point for me.
See, you *can't* ban media with laws and officials -- it's a slippery
slope. A bad interpretation will be appealed, and the interpretation
overturned. Not all potential bans will occur, because of lack of
manpower.
(Now, the special difference between banning violence against women and other
bans is that when a sample of applicable media which falls under these
laws is *not* banned, you will often see complaints and appeals to *get*
it banned. That's how popular that law is up here.)
I don't see any role-playing game I would conceivably carry ever being banned.
I don't see any lobbyist *wanting* to ban anything I carry. I don't see a
problem, should the snowball's chance it become necessary occur, with
appealing a bad decision. Relent before my experience in this matter,
Ken, because I can keep this up all year...
I also think it important to mention something -- other people involved in
this discussion have stated (I'm paraphrasing):
"Government banning hate literature (etc) are violating your civil rights."
I'll just say again -- no, they're not. Not in Canada. Rights are not
universal. I'll use the old saw of gun laws -- in the US, you have the right
to bear arms. For government to pass laws which curtail your rights is
unconstitutional, generally (I'll ignore the militia aspect for the sake of
brevity). In Canada, we have no right to bear arms.
Now, how many of the Americans who (for some unexplainable reason) are
involved in this discussion also feel that the Canadian government is
violating my civil rights by telling me that I don't have the right to
own a handgun, or AK-47, or whatever? Any of you who put up your hand
please leave the room -- you've failed the basic understanding that Canada
and the US are different countries.
I mean, honestly, if rights were universal, then since university education is
free in Abu Dhabi, I shouldn't have to pay back $18,000 in student
loans.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
......The Rev. "Scowling" Jim Cowling......scowling@angmar.dataflux.bc.ca......
...Moderator: rec.arts.comics.info....FAQKeeper: rec.arts.comics.marketplace...
Bertil Jonell
>Bertil Jonell <d9be...@dtek.chalmers.se> wrote:
>>In article <3c67bk$f...@mack.rt66.com>,
>>Lazlo Nibble <la...@mack.rt66.com> wrote to scow...@angmar.dataflux.bc.ca
>>(Scowling Jim Cowling):
>>>And you're perfectly willing to defend the system's right to try to fuck
>>>you over. That's fucking *weird*, Jim.
>>
>> It is called the Stockholm Syndrome.
>
>I think you're thinking of the Helsinki Syndrome, where hostages begin to
>agree with their captors.
Stockholm Syndrome. Since the hostage situation in question took place in
a bank at Norrmalmstorg square in Stockholm it wouldn't make much sense
to name it the "Helsinki Synrom", does it?
>......The Rev. "Scowling" Jim Cowling......scowling@angmar.dataflux.bc.ca......
-bertil-
Donald J. Dale
>>we have governments, to keep "bad ideas" from permeating the mainstream of
>>society. If the majority disapproves of some idea you're trying to push
>>on them, you should be forbidden to express that idea, because people
>>should never be confronted with ideas that might result in someone being
>>harmed. Supressing them makes life much better for everyone.
>
>Mostly true. That's one of the reasons governments exist, to safeguard
>its people, by whatever means its citizens accept. And censorship, including
>press bans (voir dires and other), hate literature bans, etc., is one of
>the means we use.
Um, he was being sarcastic here, unless I'm gravely mistaken.
>Obscenity laws reflect the views of the majority; the majority want the
>above banned. The *vast* majority, except in the case of the press bans,
>where it's a simple majority.
Majority rule is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch.
No matter how large a majority approves, a law which infringes upon the
rights of even one person is morally wrong.
Regards,
Don
Paul Jackson
John Cooper <j...@vivitech.com> wrote:
> I deplore laws that permit law enforcement agencies to routinely
>violate the civil rights of its citizens, leaving litigation as the
>only means of restitution. How about we just let individuals decide
>for themselves what is "obscene" and "tasteless" and let the police
>(and Customs) concentrate on _valid_ threats to the common good.
I can't stand it anymore.
1) Canada is NOT the US. We don't believe in inalienable rights here, we
believe that rights are more or less mutually agreed on by society and its
institutions. We believe that this is an imperfect process, that it requires
intelligent interpretation of ambiguous laws, and that appeals to that
process have to be built in.
2) If the US really has all of these inalienable rights, please explain to
me how police forces in the US routinely confiscate property from people
without any legal process (the War on Drugs) and leave it to the people to
sue the government to get their property back. Or explain to me why it was
legal to beat up Rodney King. Or explain why it was legal to subject the
officers falsely accused of beating Rodney King (depending on your point of
view) to Double Jeopardy by trying them again for the same crime.
3) In my opinion, in theory people have more rights in the US (just look at
that lovely constitution). In practice, however, people have at least as many
rights and arguably more rights in Canada.
4) Even in theory, all of the US "inalienable" rights are in fact quite
alienable. For example, your right to free speech ends when it comes to
libel, threatening the President, yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, etc.
Your right to bear arms is hardly absolute (for example, convicted felons
don't have the right, minors don't have the right, one is restricted in
where one can carry weapons, etc).
This discussion is getting tedious. Can we go back to talking about rpg's?
--
Paul Jackson
john enzinas
>Mostly true. That's one of the reasons governments exist, to safeguard
>its people, by whatever means its citizens accept. And censorship, including
>press bans (voir dires and other), hate literature bans, etc., is one of
>the means we use.
>The government is not doing any thinking for anyone *except* for those who
>*want* to publish hate literature. Those people can go hang.
you are wrong. the government is trying to think for every one when they
impose a ban on anything. they are saying that they (and the pressure
group that convinced them tto make the decision) know what is best for us.
they feel that we are not mature and responsible to make our owne
decisions about what is right.
>it. In many ways, they're *VERY* different cultures. Judging by the
>responses I've received from fellow Canadians via e-mail, not only is the
>view I hold typical of the average Canadian (if not, why haven't we elected
>a government so conservative that such laws would never even have made it
>past first reading?) but also typical of the average Canadian reader of this
>newsgroup. And the woman from Ontario who started this thread is being quite
>alarmist, and certainly does not espouse a view held by most Canadians.
the view you hold is not necessarily the view of the tipical canadian. the
view you hold is only the opinion of you and the people that have told you
they agree with you. i do not and none of my friends do either.
you should also keep in mind that in canada a majority government could be
elected with only 26%of the population suporting it.
infact it is possibel to have one with less.
in addition why do you feel that a very conservative government wouldn't
impose bans?
>Obscenity laws reflect the views of the majority; the majority want the
>above banned.
obcenity laws reflect the views of a lowd pressure group that lobbied the
government for such a ruling.
The *vast* majority, except in the case of the press bans,
>where it's a simple majority. Banning role-playing games would *not* be
>the preferred view of the majority of Canadians, which is why I see any law
are you sure about this? how many average canadians either think that
RPG's are a tool of the devil or cause mental unstability and suicide?
how hard do you think that the Anti-RPG groups (especially the ones with
support from the states) would lobbie to have RPG'sa baned?
>>So what's the rationale for banning the expression of ideas, if not the
>>fear of those ideas?
>Not fear -- concern. I worry that if hate literature were not banned, we'd
>end up with more Jim Keegstras. You cannot honestly tell me that you can
>think of any good reason for hate literature to exist. Not one.
1: hwen something is banned it moves underground it gives the ideas
supporters a rallying point and something to fight for.
2: no one is allowed to look at it in the bright light of day and see
just how stupid an idea it is.
>Basically, you just don't understand how things work up here. I
>am quite willing to let my government make mistakes and then try to rectify them
>afterwards, rather than second-guess them and get all worked up about
>something which may not even happen. This is probably why there are so few
>lobyby groups up here, as opposed to down there -- we have a lot more faith
>that our government won't screw us over. When they do, *then* we do
>something about it.
that is your opinion. i see alot of different groups. (hell some of the
lobby groups in canada ARE political parties (quebec sepratists anyone?))
i do nt have faith that the government won't screw me over. i am very glad
that the government in my country can correct it's mistakes however i
would reaally like for it not to make those mistakes in the first place.
--
Disclaimer: I'm not sarcastic, it is just a speech impediment.
--911...@dragon.acadiau.ca
Mikko Kurki-Suonio
> Which I think is rather foolish. Again, Mortal Kombat (as dumb and
> mindless as I find it) is a fantasy, and does little more than entertain
> the easily entertained. Maybe 1 child in a 100 will play it too much and
> get bad grades, maybe one kid in 100,000 will try ripping out someones
> lung. However, the game is abstract reality. To my knowledge, the only
> game that I have ever seen which I have objected to is Serial Killer. It
> glorifies a real life tragedy, and attempts to make money doing so.
> Vampire, Kult, and every other game which has found its detractors
> doesn't meet the criteria set out by the Canadian Criminal Code, since it
> all involves a level of fantasy or suspension of disbelief. Serial
> Killers, unlike Vampires (maybe...) are a very real phenomenae. Point me
> to another game which falls into the same Category as Serial Killer, and
> maybe I'd change my mind, but I doubt it.
Just a thought: Suppose, just suppose for one moment that there is a
version of the Serial Killer called Demon Serial Killer. DSK is
*identical* to SK in all aspects bar ONE: players are supposed to be
demons/aliens invading our reality, instead of human killers.
Would that be enough fantasy to get it through your laws?
If not, what would? Who has the right to draw the line?
If yes, how does it *really* differ from, say, Vampire? Players are
monsters killing people to advance. What would be the necessary level
of fantasy to get it accepted? Is it enough that PCs are only
demon-controlled humans, not real material demons?
I agree that a game like Serial Killer is grossly tasteless, even
though it was probably done more tongue-in-cheek than with hate
mongering and killer glorification in mind. I'm still ready to give
others the right to judge it for themselves.
Before answering, take a peek at my address. I live in Finland, which is
in many ways similar to Canada. I know what it's like to live under the
watchful eye of the big brother. I know what it's like if you don't
conform to their standards. I've seen the swedes across the border ban a
Mattel video game because of mid-80's D&D hysteria (they also banned toy
guns, and in the light of the recent restaurant shootout in Stockholm,
what good did it do them? Zilch.) Think twice before lecturing me how my
goverment really knows better than I what I should be able to watch or
read or listen.
It's really funny watching these USA-Canada flamefests as an outsider.
The lines are always the same and always at some point the Canadians
pull out the gun issue.
How about if you go asking your Canadian IPSC shooters how they feel
about your magazine ban? How these law-abiding Canadian citizens,
sportsmen of international merit like your thoughtful government
protecting them?
I own several guns. I know my neighbors do so too, and this is an urban
setting. I even know of people who own illegal war trophy guns. Yet I
have never, *ever* heard a gunshot outside the shooting range or hunting
situation.
You're so keen on protecting the people from themselves that you seem to
forget or ignore the fact that people shoot people, not guns. You can't
solve the social problems by taking the guns away. If you have a group
of people who go around shooting other people, taking away the guns only
results in the said people resorting to knives and lead pipes.
If you feel safe because your neighbor doesn't have a gun, you must not
trust him very much. Then how come you don't feel threatened because he
can freely buy a knife, a chainsaw or a variety of other potentially
lethal instruments. If you feared your neighbor if he had a gun, how
can you open the door when he rings asking to borrow sugar? He might be
hiding a knife behind his back, intent on stabbing you to death.
Before you think I have a grudge against Canadians, I'll solemnly deny
that. Why, there's even a Canadian member in my shooting club. It just
pisses me off to see people steadfastly defending a social system to
the exclusion of all others (the US system included).
All systems have bad points. All systems even have respectful citizens
who don't like some aspects of the system. No system can ever be
perfect.
After reading posts like yours, all I can say is:
"I'm glad I don't live in your country."
--------
max...@swob.nullnet.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) | A pig who doesn't fly
Voice +358 0 8092681 | is just an ordinary pig.
Sweet Oblivion (+358 0 8092678, V.32bis 8N1) | - Porco Rosso
SnailMail: Maininkitie 8A8 SF 02320 ESPOO FINLAND |
Larry Smith
>are inaliable -- we're talking about a different country. Then again, maybe
I have to say that I have never seen anyone who seemed to so enjoy
living in a country where his rights could be abridged, abrogated,
bypassed, or simply revoked by the gov't without so much as a public
referendum. Tell me, Jim, what is it that gave you this boundless
faith that the gov't won't take away rights _you_ enjoy, just those
others you don't think people should have?
--
Larry Smith - My opinions only. lar...@zk3.dec.com/thes...@mv.mv.com/lar...@io.com
-
Necessity is the excuse for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument
of the tyrant and the creed of the slave. -- William Pitt, 1763
Lazlo Nibble
> Uh...'Serial Killer' used dead baby tokens as counters. I mean, the things
> actually looked like dead babies. Are you going to tell me that this isn't
> one of the sickest little ideas to ever come out of someones mind?
As far as I'm concerned, it barely twitches the needle on the Sick-O-Meter.
The idea that you have any business running other people's lives for them...
now *that's* a sick idea.
> There is a difference, however, between portraying a disease (a non
> human entity over which a human being has very little control, unless
> one is conducting germ warfare), and portraying a serial killer (a human
> being with a great deal of control over what they are doing).
What's the difference, outside of the player's imagination?
Lazlo Nibble
> ...you seem to be taking the approach below of comparing 'censorship' to
> moral atrocity.
The use of government power to control people what people are allowed to
think *is* a moral atrocity.
>> Likewise, practices all over the world today of infanticide, female
>> genital manipulation and torture fall under the umbrella of "Laws and
>> Customs" and are thus immune to judgement on a moral basis.
>
> Would you instead ban the practices outright, and potentially destroy
> the cultures which practice them? Better instead to educate those within
> the culture about the dangers of these practices, and allow them to
> change them from within.
So let me get this straight -- you support laws against pictures of people
fucking, but oppose laws against infanticide and torture?
nwein...@mac.cc.macalstr.edu
>>In a previous article, la...@mack.rt66.com (Lazlo Nibble) said:
>>>scow...@angmar.dataflux.bc.ca (Scowling Jim Cowling) writes:
>>> Freedom is not absolute in my country, and I'm glad of it.
>>
>>Yes -- the government *should* do people's thinking for them. That's why
>>we have governments, to keep "bad ideas" from permeating the mainstream of
>>society. If the majority disapproves of some idea you're trying to push
>>on them, you should be forbidden to express that idea, because people
>>should never be confronted with ideas that might result in someone being
>>harmed. Supressing them makes life much better for everyone.
>
> Mostly true. That's one of the reasons governments exist, to safeguard
> its people, by whatever means its citizens accept. And censorship, including
> press bans (voir dires and other), hate literature bans, etc., is one of
> the means we use.
>
> The government is not doing any thinking for anyone *except* for those who
> *want* to publish hate literature. Those people can go hang.
What about the people who don't *know* what to think about hate
literature, and can't get access to any in order to make their own judgment
because of the ban? Do they just have to take it on faith that the government
is right? Do your laws make any provision for open-mindedness at *all*?
>>Do you actually *believe* this dog vomit?
>
> Yes, I do. I also believe you think it's dog vomit. After all, you probably
> grew up spouting the Pledge of Allegiance every morning before class. The
> USA and Canada are different countries, with different cultures. Get used to
> it. In many ways, they're *VERY* different cultures. Judging by the
> responses I've received from fellow Canadians via e-mail, not only is the
> view I hold typical of the average Canadian (if not, why haven't we elected
> a government so conservative that such laws would never even have made it
> past first reading?) but also typical of the average Canadian reader of this
> newsgroup. And the woman from Ontario who started this thread is being quite
> alarmist, and certainly does not espouse a view held by most Canadians.
>
> Hell, get ten Canadian anti-censorship fanatics in one room, and I'll bet
> you good cash that nine out of ten of them agree that banning hate lit is
> a good thing, and five out of ten of them agree that press bans are a good
> thing, and that *all* of them agree that banning media which advocate violence
> against women is a good thing.
Possibly; I'm no expert on Canada. If so, they're all disastrously and
dangerously wrong. Perhaps because your government has so far been more benign
(or more seemingly benign) than ours, you have been lulled into trusting it to
too great an extent.
What will happen the first time your government does something really,
truly evil, and you haven't the tools to fight it because of the censorship you
have accepted? Don't say "that will never happen". It will, someday.
Governments are agencies that perpetuate the power of a relative few over the
many, no matter how democratic they are. All governments therefore have an
inherent propensity to do evil.
> Obscenity laws reflect the views of the majority; the majority want the
> above banned. The *vast* majority, except in the case of the press bans,
> where it's a simple majority. Banning role-playing games would *not* be
> the preferred view of the majority of Canadians, which is why I see any law
> attemting to do so failing. I'm just not worried about it. And if it
> happens, then a mistake will have been made. I'll simply fight it in court.
> But I see that necessity being as remote a possibility as me being hit
> by a falling cornice while walking to work.
I don't care how unworried you are, and I don't care how big a majority
agrees with you. The rights of one individual are more important than any
"collective interest"- because the individual is tangible, right here right
now, and the "collective interest" is a nebulous and subjective quantity. I
don't suppose you've ever read any John Stuart Mill.
> You were brought up under the US Constitution, which is supposed to guarantee
> you the right to absolute freedom of expression. My country's Charter of
> Rights and Freedoms does not guarantee the same -- it grants limited rights
> to freedom of expression. I think ours is better thought out. It's also
> a lot more recent, and so better reflects modern thinking -- no amendments
> to it, as has been necessary time and time again in the US.
What do you mean, "modern thinking"? Is tyranny now more justified
because the excuses for it have become refined over the years? What the US
Constitution reflects is the idea that governments are necessary
evils that must be properly restrained to guarantee the freedom of the people.
Considering the litany of atrocities committed by 20th century governments, I'd
say that's at least as true today as it was 200 years ago.
> Get used to the idea that Canadians are *happy* with the way things are up
> here. If we weren't, do you think that UNESCO would keep ranking Canada as
> the best place in the world to live, while the US barely makes the top 5?
So what? Singapore might someday get rated as a wonderful place to
live- very low crime, high living standards. But it is also an Orwellian
dictatorship. I don't know whether UNESCO's standards consider freedom of
conscience and expression; if they don't, they're a total fraud.
>>So what's the rationale for banning the expression of ideas, if not the
>>fear of those ideas?
>
> Not fear -- concern. I worry that if hate literature were not banned, we'd
> end up with more Jim Keegstras. You cannot honestly tell me that you can
> think of any good reason for hate literature to exist. Not one.
>
I can think of a number of excellent reasons.
1. In order to ensure that hate does not triumph, we need to be able to
argue clearly and cogently against it. In order to do this, we need to know
what it is we're arguing against- what the arguments for hate are. To do this
we must have free access to hate literature.
2. It is every person's choice to be hateful or non-hateful. If we do
not make hate literature available to our citizens, they will not have the
ability to choose between the full range of opinions out there. We will be,
effectively, controlling and stifling our citizens' minds. Banning an idea
because it is said to be "anti-social" or "worthless" is one of the oldest
excuses of tyrants.
Now, whether they choose to *act* on their hate is quite another
matter. If they do, they should be punished harshly. But the distinction
between thought and action is *extremely* important.
3. Thinking people will reject hate completely only if they can see it
in its full flower. If it is driven underground, many of us will become
curious- what *is* this that is so dangerous the government feels it must ban it?
Censoring things gives them a "forbidden fruit"-type cachet.
4. What if scientific data that at first appears to support the
arguments of haters, but upon further examination would turn out not to, gets
banned as hate literature? We will miss the chance to make that further
examination, and make ourselves intellectually poorer.
5. Hate literature can have important historical value. _Mein Kampf_ or
_The Protocols of the Elders of Zion_ might well fit into most people's
definitions of hate literature, but reading them might also be important to
understanding the motives behind historical anti-Semitic movements and the rise
of Nazism.
>>> I have faith in the system that should it try to fuck me over, I
can push
>>> back and win.
>>
>>And you're perfectly willing to defend the system's right to try to fuck
>>you over. That's fucking *weird*, Jim.
>
> When the system doesn't work, it gets changed. See, maybe in the States,
> where the worldview of each of the parties in your two-party system are
> so close that you need a straight razor to find the difference, it doesn't
> occur to you that you can change your system of government. here, we have
> five parties, each with radically different views on governing. When one
> fails, we change it. This happened recently when the Conservatives went from
> a majority government to two (2) seats. We have the recall system, where
> we can bring our representatives back home if we think they're screwing around.
>
But how can you bring representatives home on the basis of an issue you
can't debate because critical material about it is censored?
I agree, by the way, about your party system with respect to ours. The
similarity between the two wings of the Republocrat party is getting tiresome.
No one ever said the American government was anywhere near perfect.
> Basically, you just don't understand how things work up here. I
> am quite willing to let my government make mistakes and then try to rectify them
> afterwards, rather than second-guess them and get all worked up about
> something which may not even happen. This is probably why there are so few
> lobyby groups up here, as opposed to down there -- we have a lot more faith
> that our government won't screw us over. When they do, *then* we do
> something about it.
>
The problem is that those mistakes may lead eventually to the rise of
tyranny- and you as citizens may not be able to stop it if you don't have full
freedom of expression guaranteed.
If, by the way, most of your contact with individual Americans is
through the Net, and you think from that that America is full of libertarians,
you're getting a highly unrepresentative sample. Look at the positive response
to the caning of Michael Fay in Singapore. Look at the laws against sodomy,
flag-burning, "pornography", etc., etc., etc. that have prevailed across the
country. Look at the continuing erosion of our Fourth Amendment in the name of
the War on Drugs. Look at the campus hate-speech codes. America combines a
wonderful Constitution written by astoundingly foresighted people, an
ill-educated and easily manipulated populace, and a corrupt and drifting
government. Some of us want to protect the first of these from the last two, in
the name of preserving the highest of "American traditional values"- individual
liberty. Unfortunately, right now we seem to be a minority.
Steve Jackson
>
>>If Customs Canada messes up, they pay for it in court. I have yet to see
>>an example of where they made a bad decision that wasn't overturned in a
>>court of law.
Can you assure us that you have been personally overseeing Customs
Canada, that you KNOW about every bad decision they have made, and that
you also KNOW that in every case where they made a bad decision, the
victim had the time and money to take it to court?
I thought not.
It's nice that you have heard of cases where the courts eventually
repudiated seizures. Not everyone can afford court. When my office was
raided and my computers seized, I would not have been able to afford
any protection on my own; the EFF saved me. Can everyone in Canada
depend on angels like that?
I thought not.
Ian Carter
> In a previous message, Jim Cowling commented:
>>
>>>an example of where they made a bad decision that wasn't overturned in a
>>>court of law.
>
> Canada, that you KNOW about every bad decision they have made, and that
> you also KNOW that in every case where they made a bad decision, the
> victim had the time and money to take it to court?
>
> I thought not.
Obviously, Jim cannot. But the difference between your own outrageous
case and that of Little Sisters, a gay bookstore which has suffered
greatly due to Customs Canada, is that in the Little Sisters case, there
was no question of law, ultimately. It was outright bureaucratic
persecution, with little or no basis in the law invoked. You could change
the law, but as long as there is a Customs, they could do this kind of
thing. A legislator's work is only as good as the bureaucracy that
enforces it. So to use this as an argument against a particular law is
somewhat flawed. I have no profound problems with a democratic society
regulating its cultural content, though I see little need for it myself.
But I have a huge problem with a government institution making its own
policy with little or no relation to the democratic laws that should
govern it.
> > It's nice that you have heard of cases where the courts eventually
> repudiated seizures. Not everyone can afford court. When my office was
> raided and my computers seized, I would not have been able to afford
> any protection on my own; the EFF saved me. Can everyone in Canada
> depend on angels like that?
>
> I thought not.
One of the points that Jim has been trying to make seems to be a
tactical one: in Ottawa, 'sending it to committee' does not mean the same
as it does in Washington. In Washington, that is a step closer to law.
In Ottawa, that is more often a step closer to oblivion, which is where
this should be going. Bring attention to theconflict, amnd that might change.
Ian
--
Ian Carter
Intrepid Communications & Design
613-238-4064
CWM
>
>>affected by the Canadian governments foolishness although some
>>Canadian contributors to the role-gaming apa ALARUMS AND EXCURSIONS have started
>>to ask the rest of us to limit our writing about sexual matters lest
>>their issues be taken and destroyed. Without appeal, without compensation. Still you have to
>
>Completely incorrect. There are numerous forms of appeal. Know whereof you
>speak before you begin typing.
Back atcha, Jim, know whereof you speak. Sadly, it's not completely
untrue, it's only technically untrue. There are several cases on record
of retailers ordering publications from the US, having them siezed at the
border, and then before they exhausted their appeals (sometimes before
even beginning them) discovering that thier material had been
unilaterally destroyed. This is usually described as an "administrative
error," and that's probably what it is at least some of the time, but
there are enough of these situations to make the free-speach advocate
shake his head and wonder.
The main problem with the Canadian customs regs, once you put aside
questions of abstract morality (and, for the record, I'm a good loyal
American who thinks that the constitution is practically perfect and who
still optimistically hopes the USA might experiment with following it
some day) is that they're so often so STUPID about it. This is true with
both Parliament and the customs establishment.
Let's look at the case that started this all off. OK, the Serial Killer
game (which, as has been repeatedly pointed out, nobody ever actually
tried to import into Canada) is an obvious work of satire, but if the
Canadian govt. doesn't extend the same protections to satire that the US
does, I can live with that.
But what about those trading cards? Those were completely factual case
histories done by the same people who did the "Iran-Contra Trading Cards"
and in the same format. They were journalism, basically. Nothing at all
sensationalistic or made up, and nothing prurient beyond the horrible
facts of the cases themselves. In short, a completely responsible
examination of a horrible modern phenomenon - just done in a somewhat
unusual medium. Do you really think that it's a reasonable extension of
Canadian censorship principles to arbitrarily establish different
standards for different media? I don't think so.
As for the customs agents, read the Comics Journal. These goofballs are
grabbing shipments of comics almost every month, and if you follow the
pattern it becomes obvious that these seizures are completely random and
subjective, and furthermore that customs agents seem perversely attracted
to all the most challenging, intelligent and audacious work out there.
They're NOT confining their efforts to obvious and irredeemable porn, in
other words.
We might disagree on whether this kind of abuse is the result of problems
intrinsic to any system of government censorship, or just a need for more
training and clearer laws, but I think if you really studied the problem
you'd agree that there's a real and ongoing censorship PROBLEM in Canada.
--
Chris W. McCubbin / So I'm sitting there yelling, "Waiter,
C...@IO.COM/CWMF...@AOL.COM / there's a fnord in my soup," for, like, half
Freelance writer/editor / an hour . . . and the bum never even
games/comics/fiction/opinion / LOOKS at me!
Kodai
: In article <kadie.7...@hal.cs.uiuc.edu>,
: Carl M Kadie <ka...@hal.cs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
[snip]
: PROPOSED BAN TOO BROAD -- FROM KILLER CARDS TO COMPUTER GAMES
: Draft legislation that would ban "killer cards" is back from
: the Justice Committee with recommendations that it be broadened
: to cover a much wider range of communication. This has many
: defenders of free speech alarmed.
[snip]
I think everyone in the USA should take a moment and think of how lucky
we are to have the First Ammendment. Let's hope that that stops this
kind of thing from happening here.
ko...@icicle.winternet.com
Ko...@subzero.winternet.com
The wages of sin are death, but after taxes are taken out,
it's just a tired feeling - Paula Poundstone
Kevin Maroney
Paul Jackson <pa...@turing.toronto.edu> wrote:
>2) If the US really has all of these inalienable rights, please explain to
>me how police forces in the US routinely confiscate property from people
>without any legal process (the War on Drugs) and leave it to the people to
>sue the government to get their property back.
Because, although the rights are inalienable, idiots in government
uniforms are everywhere. Hysteria and madness do not change the source of
rights, only the degree to which they can be exercised.
> Or explain to me why it was
>legal to beat up Rodney King.
Because a jury ruled that no crime had been committed.
Or explain why it was legal to subject the
>officers falsely accused of beating Rodney King (depending on your point of
>view) to Double Jeopardy by trying them again for the same crime.
Because a different court tried the officers for a different crime (based
on the same acts). When a criminal does something nasty, he or she often
commits multiple crimes, and in the US, those crimes are often under
different jurisdictions. Thus, multiple trials can be held.
You might as well ask why Jeff Dahmer was tried in Ohio after he was
convicted in Wisconsin: different crimes.
But, I forgot, you can only read about Jeff Dahmer at the sufference of
your government.
>3) In my opinion, in theory people have more rights in the US (just look at
>that lovely constitution). In practice, however, people have at least as many
>rights and arguably more rights in Canada.
I'd argue with your terminology, but not with your intent: "In the US,
people have more acknowledged rights than in Canada, but in general
Canadians have few obstacles to expressing those rights." The US
government is, in practice, far from an exemplary institution.
>4) Even in theory, all of the US "inalienable" rights are in fact quite
>alienable. For example, your right to free speech ends when it comes to
>libel, threatening the President, yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, etc.
Libel has nothing to do with free speech, any more than fraud has to do
with free trade or riots have to do with free assembly. Libel is using
speech to harm, as is delivery of a threat (to anyone, not just the
President), or causing a panic.
>Your right to bear arms is hardly absolute (for example, convicted felons
>don't have the right, minors don't have the right, one is restricted in
>where one can carry weapons, etc).
Convicted felons and minors lack many of the rights of full citizens of
the US. I don't approve of some of those limitations, but they are there,
and they are consistent, and could be changed by law.
>This discussion is getting tedious. Can we go back to talking about rpg's?
Can we go back to buying them and selling them freely?
--
Kevin J. Maroney|k...@panix.com|Proud to be a Maroney|Proud to be a Yonker
At night, the ice weasels come.
Paul Jackson
>In article <1994Dec9.1...@jarvis.cs.toronto.edu>,
>Paul Jackson <pa...@turing.toronto.edu> wrote:
>Because, although the rights are inalienable, idiots in government
>uniforms are everywhere. Hysteria and madness do not change the source of
>rights, only the degree to which they can be exercised.
I must admit that I've NEVER understood this. How can a right be
inalienable yet it cannot be exercised due to government idiots?
>But, I forgot, you can only read about Jeff Dahmer at the sufference of
>your government.
Look, would you (and others) PLEASE stop with this absurd, baseless rhetoric.
Canada and the US disagree about some of the rough edges of free speech and
what can and cannot be said but, by and large, there are comparitively few
differences. Just becasue we restrict free speech in a few areas that you
don't doesn't mean that, in general, we restrict free speech.
>I'd argue with your terminology, but not with your intent: "In the US,
>people have more acknowledged rights than in Canada, but in general
>Canadians have few obstacles to expressing those rights." The US
>government is, in practice, far from an exemplary institution.
Yup. And, quite frankly, I prefer the reality to the theory.
>Libel has nothing to do with free speech, any more than fraud has to do
>with free trade or riots have to do with free assembly. Libel is using
>speech to harm, as is delivery of a threat (to anyone, not just the
>President), or causing a panic.
You just completely lost your argument here. The intent of the Canadian laws
is exactly the same as the intent of the libel laws, to stop people from
harming people via free speech. Neo-Nazi propoganda is "using speech to harm"
the only difference being that one is against a group and the other is
against individuals.
>>This discussion is getting tedious. Can we go back to talking about rpg's?
>
>Can we go back to buying them and selling them freely?
Never stopped as far as I can tell. This whole argument has been about
suggested changes to some draft legislation. No law has been passed.
I can buy and sell whatever games I want to.
--
Paul Jackson
David L Evens
: In article <3ccn86$s...@panix2.panix.com>, Kevin Maroney <k...@panix.com> wrote:
: >In article <1994Dec9.1...@jarvis.cs.toronto.edu>,
: >Paul Jackson <pa...@turing.toronto.edu> wrote:
: >Because, although the rights are inalienable, idiots in government
: >uniforms are everywhere. Hysteria and madness do not change the source of
: >rights, only the degree to which they can be exercised.
: I must admit that I've NEVER understood this. How can a right be
: inalienable yet it cannot be exercised due to government idiots?
Basically, because the legal recognition of a right is imaterial to the
existance and natre of that right.
: >But, I forgot, you can only read about Jeff Dahmer at the sufference of
: >your government.
: Look, would you (and others) PLEASE stop with this absurd, baseless rhetoric.
: Canada and the US disagree about some of the rough edges of free speech and
: what can and cannot be said but, by and large, there are comparitively few
: differences. Just becasue we restrict free speech in a few areas that you
: don't doesn't mean that, in general, we restrict free speech.
Actually, in Canada speech is quite severely restricted. For instance,
you can be arrested for saying you believe certain things to be true or
not true. Not encouraging others to believe this, not arguing for this
position, just stateing what you believe.
: >I'd argue with your terminology, but not with your intent: "In the US,
: >people have more acknowledged rights than in Canada, but in general
: >Canadians have few obstacles to expressing those rights." The US
: >government is, in practice, far from an exemplary institution.
: Yup. And, quite frankly, I prefer the reality to the theory.
Even through no mechanism is allowed in law to preserve the reality?
: >Libel has nothing to do with free speech, any more than fraud has to do
: >with free trade or riots have to do with free assembly. Libel is using
: >speech to harm, as is delivery of a threat (to anyone, not just the
: >President), or causing a panic.
: You just completely lost your argument here. The intent of the Canadian laws
: is exactly the same as the intent of the libel laws, to stop people from
: harming people via free speech. Neo-Nazi propoganda is "using speech to harm"
: the only difference being that one is against a group and the other is
: against individuals.
Groups have no actualy existence, they're just a convenient way to
justify the abbrogation of the rights of the individual.
: >>This discussion is getting tedious. Can we go back to talking about rpg's?
: >
: >Can we go back to buying them and selling them freely?
: Never stopped as far as I can tell. This whole argument has been about
: suggested changes to some draft legislation. No law has been passed.
: I can buy and sell whatever games I want to.
Of course, there are laws restricting with whom you are allowed to play them.
Howler Monkey
>The government is not doing any thinking for anyone *except* for those who
>*want* to publish hate literature. Those people can go hang.
That statement, is under the laws of Canada, a form of hate literature (the
expression of hatred towards a specific class of people, in this case,
poeple who publish hate literature). As a Canadian marching in lock-step
with your "aren't we all such nice polite people here" dogma, I will have to
ask you not to post any more of this awful hatred in a group with a Candian
distribution.
Hate literature laws are, amusingly enough, illegal under themselves.
>Hell, get ten Canadian anti-censorship fanatics in one room, and I'll bet
>you good cash that nine out of ten of them agree that banning hate lit is
>a good thing, and five out of ten of them agree that press bans are a good
>thing, and that *all* of them agree that banning media which advocate violence
>against women is a good thing.
You just lost that bet. cpdo...@chemical.watstar.uwaterloo.ca
^^
I believe that the best way to suppress a "bad" idea (whatever that is) is
to let it be exposed and promulgated, so that it can be refuted wherever it
may appear. You don;t kill cockroaches by saying "I don't want to see you
in my kitchen"; you kill them by turning the lights on them and stomping on
them until they stop moving. I think banning hate literature is a stupid
move because it makes martyrs of the banned, I think press bans are
ridiculous (that's why you sequester the jury), and I think that banning
media which advocates violence of any kind is wishful thinking and an
attempt to pretend that it doesn't exist if we don't look at it, rather than
being a real attempt to solve the problem.
>Obscenity laws reflect the views of the majority; the majority want the
>above banned.
No; the laws of Canada reflect the views of the politicians who make them,
because the majority have no say in what happens in the House of Commons
once the elections are over. Individual MPs are constrained by the threat
of a vote of non-confidence if they vote against their party, so everybody
toes the party line. Do you honestly think the majority of Canadians are in
favour of, say, employment equity in the form of not permitting white males
to apply for certain government positions? I'm willing to bet that the
majority of Canadians think that there are certain countries we should not
allow immigrants from, but that doesn't happen either.
>You were brought up under the US Constitution, which is supposed to
guarantee>you the right to absolute freedom of expression. My country's
Charter of>Rights and Freedoms does not guarantee the same -- it grants
limited rights>to freedom of expression.
By definition, there cannot be limits on freedom. Our Charter of Rights
claims that there can be "reasonable limits on freedom of expression". Here'
s the problem with that argument: who do consider worthy to decide what you
or anyone else can or cannot say? What if religion was considered to be the
"opiate of the masses" in Canada and promulgation thereof was considered to
be a crime? Would you be so complacent in your defence of our wonderful
government?
I think ours is better thought
out. It's also>a lot more recent, and so better reflects modern thinking --
no amendments >to it, as has been necessary time and time again in the US.
That is, it reflects the current political ideals on Parliament Hill, and
did so in a time when special interest groups had a great deal of power over
the House. It's loaded with left-wing political rhetoric, and that's
entrenched in our national legal system, whether we want it to be or not, or
whether 20 years from now we want it to be or not.
>>So what's the rationale for banning the expression of ideas, if not the
>>fear of those ideas?
>Not fear -- concern. I worry that if hate literature were not banned, we'd
>end up with more Jim Keegstras.
So? What do you care? As long as they aren't hurting anyone or contravening
any laws (hate lit laws excepted, of course), what's the harm in being
racist? If I beleive that all people with, say, orange skin are the scum of
the Earth and should be shot on site for polluting the world I live in, I
have the right to believe that and say so. As long as I'm not directly
harming any orange-skinned people (or anyone else, for that matter) I've
done nothing wrong legally. I may be ostracized socailly, but that's
society's choice to make, not the law's. You can prosecute me for my
actions, and should if they are harmful. But you cannot prosecute my
motivations.
You cannot honestly tell me that you can
>think of any good reason for hate literature to exist. Not one.
A good reason for it to exist? Not offhand. But just because I can't think
of a good reason for it to exist is not sufficient reason for it not to.
There's no good reason for, say Silly Putty to exist, but that's not a
reason to ban it.
>>> I have faith in the system that should it try to fuck me over, I can push
>>> back and win.
It took David Milgaard 23 years. You have a lot more faith than I, friend.
here, we have
>five parties, each with radically different views on governing. When one
>fails, we change it. This happened recently when the Conservatives went from
>a majority government to two (2) seats. We have the recall system, where
>we can bring our representatives back home if we think they're screwing around.
One: cite me an instance in living memory where an MP has been recalled.
And the argument "but they're all doing such a wonderful job of representing
us!" is fallacious by inspection.
Two: Anyone with half a brain can tell that the Liberals and the
Conservatives are the same damn thing with only minor differences. The NDP
follows a left-wing ideology, but not very far, and the other two parties
were developed as reactions to each other (the Reformers were tired of
seeing Quebec get special treatment, and the Bloc wants out, period.)
>Basically, you just don't understand how things work up here. I
>am quite willing to let my government make mistakes and then try to rectify them
>afterwards, rather than second-guess them and get all worked up about
>something which may not even happen.
An ounce of prevention, etc.
This is probably why there are so few
>lobyby groups up here, as opposed to down there -- we have a lot more faith
>that our government won't screw us over. When they do, *then* we do
>something about it.
Excuse me? Our government has been screwing us over for years, they simply
never give us a chance to do anything about it unless they absolutely have
to. Tell me you're in favour of the cuts to the social safety net. Tell me
that hiring practices blatantly discriminatory against white males are a-
okay by you. Tell me it makes sense to allow one province to dictate
policy to an entire nation, at the expense of the others. Tell me it's
reasonable for the government to sink huge amounts of money into technically
unfeasible projects and then bail out at a greater cost than the projected
overrun if completed. Go ahead.
-Chris
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Howler Monkey
Howler Monkey
>You just completely lost your argument here. The intent of the Canadian laws
>is exactly the same as the intent of the libel laws, to stop people from
>harming people via free speech. Neo-Nazi propoganda is "using speech to harm"
>the only difference being that one is against a group and the other is
>against individuals.
The problem with this argument is that it's awfully tough to show that you'
ve suffered harm because Joe Nazi wrote a book. If I'm a Jew and a Nazi
follows me aroudn shouting epithets, then he's harassing me and probably
trespassing to boot. Well and good. I can have him curtailed for that. If
said Nazi writes a book saying "all Jews are scum", then I woudl probably be
upset, but if it's now illegal to upset anybody anywhere in Canada, then we
have a Biiiig problem. Show me how hate literature is directly harmful by
virtue of its existence, and I'll buy the usefulness of this law.
Or let's put the shoe on the other foot. Say for the sake of argument that
I'm a Nazi. We're holding a rally in a park. Some anti-racists find out
about this and show up. Being smart, the rest of the Nazis don't. Somehow,
no one told me so I show up. As soon as I do, the crowd of anti-racist
activists starts shouting "Nazi scum, off our streets! Nazi scum! Off our
streets!" and shouting assorted other bits of anti-Nazi propaganda. (This
actually happened, by the way, in Ottawa last summer)
By Canadian Law, they have committed a hate crime - promulgation of hatred
against a specific identifiable group (Nazis). So why weren't they
prosecuted? If a Nazi can't say "all Jews/blacks/homosexuals/anyone not us
are scum", why can the anti-racist activists say "all Nazis are scum"?
-Chris
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Howler Monkey
Rockerboy
: I think everyone in the USA should take a moment and think of how lucky
: we are to have the First Ammendment. Let's hope that that stops this
: kind of thing from happening here.
Oh, wow! Like, wake up while you still can. The first ammendment has
been eroded so badly that it's nothing more than a symbol. Our
government has stripped it of any power.
--
'Sometimes what you have to say is going to get right in the faces
of the powerful people who really run this world. But you don't
care....It's your place to challenge authority...'
roc...@netcom.com (Rockerboy)
Lanz Jean-David
this whole crap of mindless streams. (No flame here, friends, just bad but
necessary to keep my mental imbalance poetry. "Centimes" is pronounced - the
last syllable at least, I have abandoned the idea of explaining nasal vowels
to Anglo-Saxons, "teems".)
First, I'd like to remind you, since we have had mostly Canadians and USAns
fighting over what the basic rights of a person were, that the UNO has
issued the Rights of Man and Citizen, and that if a law of a member state
goes in contradiction with those Rights, anyone has a right to say it's
a Bad Thing. And he or she will be right. Right? It's sort of a rite. OK,
back to writing. (I should be in bed now. It's been six hours since I should
have gone to bed.) So it seems to me that it should conclude the issue of
Scowling Jim Cowling vs. USAns. Still, you never distrust your governement
enough IMHO.
To answer your question, Howler monkey : "why can the anti-racist activists
say "all Nazis are scum" ?", they can't. The Nazis will pursue them for
their freedom of speech. And second, you do not choose to be Jewish, black,
white, or left-handed. On the other hand, you choose to be a Nazi. It's an
opinion you can suscripe to or not. You might make comments about how a
kid's background affect her opinions, but still, I believe there's a choice.
Second, the issue of banning RPGs has been quite an ancient one. I remember
my parents, some months after I expressed interest for the idea (I was a kid
at the time ; well, at most 13), showing me a newspaper article about how
American kids had gone utterly mad and committed suicide after playing D&D
for a long time, and the parents were sure it was a cause and effect case.
I think they were only worried by this article, and this prevented me from entering the area too early. Whether it is a good thing or not, I can't tell.
I can just remember how devastated I was, really down and out like a lost
soul, when my favourite SW character, a magnificent Ellen Barkin look-alike
with violet eyes and a big mouth, got transformed into a 300-pound cyborg
because of a small mega-bomb that she had no means to dodge. The funniest
part of it is, I didn't even noticed the connection until one month later.
Maybe if it had happened when I was younger, I'd have kept bad sequels.
Maybe. Ah well. And there's not only the law, my friends. If They (whoever
They are) want to ban RPGs, a good little presss campaign is quite efficient
in that regard. There's been a TV show this summer, that's manipulated the
death of a youth into making TV viewers that RPGs make one mad and murderous
or at least suicidal, and as a result, some RPG enthusiasts didn't get the
help the mayor had promised them for their mini-convention, so the event
couldn't even take place. It kind of reminds me of Father Jean-Paul Regimbal,
who believes strongly that Rock'n'Roll is the weapon of the Devil. Remember,
Led Zep got condemned. Enough morals.
Third, there's been a thread for really long in french RPGs magazines about
how Americans can get stupid. (Some Americans, not all of them.) For example,
there was Mark Rein*Hagen who marvelled at the freedom french authors are
given. I mean, Nephilim is a french game, but I'm not sure it was translated
or adapted. On the other hand, I kknow for sure that the game "In Nomine
Satanis" has been adapted to the more ... puritan ? tastes of the american
public. In my version, the author warned kindly the "preventers from playing
neatly" that there existed such a thing as 2nd degree, which was intended to
be used thouroughly in the game. And for all I know, only "In Nomine Satanis"
has been adapted, not its angelic counterpart. The game is in fact two, "In
Nomine Satanis" in which PCs are demons who fight angels, and "Magna Veritas",
just the reverse. And if actually *playing* demons could pose moral problems
to narrow-minded people, I know of others who would joyfully burn down "Magna
Veritas" for being blasphematory, since the God and Heaven it presents are
a bit ... say, parodic. No, really. :-). I did not wish to insult anyone, but
to provide an outside view.
Fourth, Donald (Donald J. Dale), if, as you claim to be, "No matter how large
a majority approves, a law which infringes upon the rights of even one person
is morally wrong", then jails shouldn't even be thought of. :-) :-) :-) :-)
(The smilers *don't* mean : "Haha, I got you, you stupid." They mean : "I
know I'm being stupid. Sorry, but I couldn't resist. No offense meant,
however.")
Fifth, Dave, you are here too ? Gee, man, when do you find time to write
Richard Darwin stories ? Don't tell me you unsuscribed from The Stripe.
Joe even welcomed (welcame ?) a newbie for you !
Last, have a good time.
"France is the most beautiful country in the world."
--Ars Magica 3rd edition.
"Sic."
--the french translator.
<ROTFL>
--me.
jd
Craig William Jackson
rights _you_ enjoy,
Sorry for quoting our of context, but doesn't your whole thesis
boil down to those three words? Perhaps in the USA you believe in
inalienable rights. I'd very much like to believe in them as well, but
my knowledge of history interferes.
If you go back more than two hundred years, you'd discover that
in most of the world your "inalienable" rights did not exist. Insulting
the woring people, or those from "higher" social classes, could be fair
casue for a duel. If you were incapable of surviving such a duel, too
bad. Hope your family could find a new way of living. Even the right to
life and limb is not universal.
Or, take the justice system. I believe that the right of
presumption of innocence is correct, and I'm glad that I live in a
society that also agrees with that right. This "right" is not one that
the majority of societies has followed at any time in history, not even
now. The same can be said of the right to be tried in an impartial
manner. As often as not, historical trials started with the sentencing
and the rest was a formality to try and assuage any guilt on the part of
the people carrying out the sentence.
So we see a difference between the average (perhaps stereotypical
would be a better description?) view in Canada and the USA. In general,
one gets the impression that the American justice system is built upon
the construct of inalienable rights, which has been misinterpreted to
mean "Rights which we all have by natural law" rather than the original
meaning "Rights which all citizens _should have_ by the laws of decency
_unless there are attenuating circumstances_." (Those circumstances
appear in times of war, famine, flood, civil unrest, etc.). In Canada,
the justice system and the legal system are far more aware of the idea
that human laws are a circumstantial lot, and that the balance between
individual rights and group rights is not carved in stone.
Bye, Craig.
: --
: Larry Smith - My opinions only. lar...@zk3.dec.com/thes...@mv.mv.com/lar...@io.com
: -
: Necessity is the excuse for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument
: of the tyrant and the creed of the slave. -- William Pitt, 1763
***********************************************************************
Still wating for those blue bolts of lightning to smite me down!
Craig Jackson, full time breather and thinker. Part time student.
"Most people would sooner die than think; In fact, they do so."
- Bertrand Russell, 1872 - 1970
bopo
max...@swob.nullnet.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) writes:
[snip]
>If yes, how does it *really* differ from, say, Vampire?
Quite a bit, actually.
>Players are monsters killing people to advance.
[the rest of a good post deleted]
This is probably a nitpick, but it is not at all necessary to "kill" in
Vampire to advance. (Unless you mean in generation, at which point I
concede.) Actually, the politics of the game is set up so that any
character that leaves a trail of dead, bloodless bodies behind will not last
very long. A friend of mine played a vampire that carried a stun gun around
and zapped people and took only a little blood. Minimal violence. (Yes, it
involves drinking blood, but that's the game: Vampire.)
-bopo
k93...@hobbes.kzoo.edu
"Pretty rowdy behavior for Jesus. He used to get a buzz off the beer and go
squealing out of the parking lot." -an employee at a Waco bar on David
Koresh.
bopo
pa...@turing.toronto.edu (Paul Jackson) writes:
>I can't stand it anymore.
Same here.
>1) Canada is NOT the US. We don't believe in inalienable rights here, we
>believe that rights are more or less mutually agreed on by society and its
>institutions. We believe that this is an imperfect process, that it requires
>intelligent interpretation of ambiguous laws, and that appeals to that
>process have to be built in.
A lot of people in the US believe that we *do* have inalienable rights,
e.g., the the NRA and the right to bear arms, but anyone who believes this
is either living in the past, a hopeless idealist (which I am sometimes), or
very confused.
>2) If the US really has all of these inalienable rights, please explain to
>me how police forces in the US routinely confiscate property from people
>without any legal process (the War on Drugs) and leave it to the people to
>sue the government to get their property back. Or explain to me why it was
>legal to beat up Rodney King. Or explain why it was legal to subject the
>officers falsely accused of beating Rodney King (depending on your point of
>view) to Double Jeopardy by trying them again for the same crime.
Point to point:
1) I'm not quite sure what you're talking about, so I'll skip this one.
2) Um, it *wasn't* legal to beat Rodney King.
3) The first trial was in the Courts of the State of California. The
officers were charged with all the stuff you'd assume they'd be charged
with, and were aquitted. Now, if they had been charged in the same place
for the same crimes, it would have been Double Jeopardy. However, they were
charged in Federal Court with violating King's civil rights. Different
court, different crime.
>3) In my opinion, in theory people have more rights in the US (just look at
>that lovely constitution). In practice, however, people have at least as many
>rights and arguably more rights in Canada.
The practice of counting rights bothers me. How do you count them? This
makes me think of two kids collecting baseball cards and comparing who they
each have. I think it misses the point.
>4) Even in theory, all of the US "inalienable" rights are in fact quite
>alienable. For example, your right to free speech ends when it comes to
>libel, threatening the President, yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, etc.
>Your right to bear arms is hardly absolute (for example, convicted felons
>don't have the right, minors don't have the right, one is restricted in
>where one can carry weapons, etc).
I'm glad someone else here knows this. The US is not the Land of
Inalienable Rights, nor would I care for it to be so. However, if our
government tried to ban these games, there would be trouble. It comes down
to deciding what is harmful, and what is harmful enough to the general
public to warrant banning it, even though it will infringe the rights of a
minority. You'd have a tough time here (I hope) of convincing people that
this sort of game does that. I'm of the camp that believes it's the
parents' responsibility to keep their children from stuff they don't want
them seeing, as each parent has a different idea of what is harmful.
(Remember this thread froma while back?)
[A>This discussion is getting tedious. Can we go back to talking about rpg's?
Fine by me.
>
>Paul Jackson
Bruce Baugh
:As for the customs agents, read the Comics Journal. These goofballs are
:grabbing shipments of comics almost every month, and if you follow the
:pattern it becomes obvious that these seizures are completely random and
:subjective, and furthermore that customs agents seem perversely attracted
:to all the most challenging, intelligent and audacious work out there.
:They're NOT confining their efforts to obvious and irredeemable porn, in
:other words.
Ah ha, I'm happy to agree with you 100% on this one. It's not just comics,
either - standards that (ironically enough) Dworkin and McKinnon proposed
as model statutes are now used routinely to hold up shipments to gay and
lesbian bookstores. In some cases there's objection to content (and I have
yet to hear any such objection that made much sense); in some cases, even
worse, the claim from customs is apparently that if it's going to a gay or
lesbian bookstore, it must be pornography...even if the same book goes
without hassle to other bookstores.
All of this sets highly dangerous precedents. Tyranny isn't built in a day,
it creeps in slowly. Even "minor" infractions must be taken very seriously
indeed precisely so that they don't have a chance to become more dangerous.
bru...@teleport.com * Bruce Baugh, posting from but not for Teleport
List Manager, Christlib, where Christianity and libertarianism intersect
"Lacquered frog bands are no longer popular with America's trendsetters,
Max. We'd be hosed." - Steve Purcell, SAM AND MAX: FREELANCE POLICE
Nemo Nicholas
> Oh, wow! Like, wake up while you still can. The first ammendment has
> been eroded so badly that it's nothing more than a symbol. Our
> government has stripped it of any power.
The fact that you can write something like this on an open-access newsgroup
and not have a visit at 2:00 in the morning by someone with a gun and a
badge is damn impressive in quite a few countries.
> roc...@netcom.com (Rockerboy)
Nemo Nicholas
Mikko Kurki-Suonio
> In article <3c6rac$i...@nyheter.chalmers.se>,
> Bertil Jonell <d9be...@dtek.chalmers.se> wrote:
> > It is called the Stockholm Syndrome.
>
> I think you're thinking of the Helsinki Syndrome, where hostages begin to
> agree with their captors. Of course, you're wrong -- the only thing that
> the Syndrome can be related to other than hostage situations is people who
> follow Xtianity.
>
> Sorry, just had to add more flamebait.
You better check your sources, Jimbo.
It indeed *is* Stockholm Syndrome. Bertil is writing from a Swedish
address, in case you didn't notice. And I can testify that no such case
exists in Helsinki, or even the entire Finland for that matter. Hostage
situations aren't that everyday occurances around here.
As for your flamebait: The probable source for the Stockholm Syndrome is
that people are used to seeing guns only in hands of authorities -- thus
in a stressful situation hostages begin to view gun-toting captors as
legitimate authorities.
Personally I think it can be extended to cover any situation where group
A stops questioning group B's right to do something on the grounds that
since they did it, they must have the right to do so (i.e. might makes
right).
Risto Kauppinen
> scow...@angmar.dataflux.bc.ca (Scowling Jim Cowling) writes:
> > In article <3c6rac$i...@nyheter.chalmers.se>,
> > Bertil Jonell <d9be...@dtek.chalmers.se> wrote:
> > > It is called the Stockholm Syndrome.
> >
> > I think you're thinking of the Helsinki Syndrome, where hostages begin to
> > agree with their captors. Of course, you're wrong -- the only thing that
> > the Syndrome can be related to other than hostage situations is people who
> > follow Xtianity.
> >
> > Sorry, just had to add more flamebait.
> You better check your sources, Jimbo.
Maybe his source is "Die Hard" ?
(they called it "Helsinki Syndrome" in Die Hard)
> It indeed *is* Stockholm Syndrome. Bertil is writing from a Swedish
> address, in case you didn't notice. And I can testify that no such case
> exists in Helsinki, or even the entire Finland for that matter. Hostage
> situations aren't that everyday occurances around here.
--
Risto Kauppinen e-mail: rkau...@fltxa.helsinki.fi
1) God does not exist 2) And anyhow he's stupid
Carl M Kadie
>1) Canada is NOT the US. We don't believe in inalienable rights here,
[...]
You don't? The Canadian Charter starts:
=================================================
CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of
God and the rule of law:
Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and
freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed
by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Fundamental Freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including
freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
[...]
=================================
It talks about the supremacy of God; it talks about guaranteeing
rights (not "granting" rights), it talks about "fundamental freedoms".
It doesn't quite use the words "inherent" or "inalienable" or
"God-given", but then neither does the U.S. Constitution[*].
* The U.S. Declaration of Independence do uses some of these words
but it is not part of U.S. law.
If there is a difference between U.S. and Canada it is not a
difference about the inherency of some rights, but rather on the best
way to protect those rights. Because of Britain's bad experience
(historically) with some tyrant kings, Canada believes that powerful
legislatures are the best protection against tyranny. Because of the
U.S.'s bad experience (historically) with the British Parliament, the
U.S. believes that things like balance of power between branches of
government, federalism, a Bill of Rights, etc are the best protection
against tyranny.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/civics">
civics
=================</a>
* Civics Archive
Directory of general documents related to government. It includes the
U.S. Constitution and (part of the) Canadian constitution and old mailing
addresses for U.S. Senators and Representatives.
If you have gopher, the archive is browsable with the command:
gopher -p academic/civics gopher.eff.org
The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.77.172.4). It is in directory "pub/academic/civics".
To get the file(s) by email, send email to ftp...@decwrl.dec.com. In
the body of your note include the lines:
connect ftp.eff.org
cd /pub/CAF/civics
get <filename1>
get <filename2>
where <filenameX> is the name of a file that you want. File README is
a detailed description of the items in the directory.
For more information, to make contributions, or to report typos
contact J.S. Greenfield (gre...@eff.org).
=================
=================
If you have gopher, you can browse the CAF archive with the command
gopher gopher.eff.org
These document(s) are also available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.77.172.4), and then:
cd /pub/CAF
get civics
To get the file(s) by email, send email to ftp...@decwrl.dec.com
Include the line(s):
connect ftp.eff.org
cd /pub/CAF
get civics
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
= Email: ka...@cs.uiuc.edu =
= URL: <ftp://ftp.cs.uiuc.edu/pub/kadie/>
Lazlo Nibble
> Obscenity laws reflect the views of the majority; the majority want the
> above banned.
By supporting those laws the majority are determining not only what *they*
read, but what *other people* are allowed read, which they have no right
to do, "majority" or not. What any individual puts into their mind and
body is *their* business, and nobody else's.
Laws against "bad" expression operate under the assumption that those who
might be exposed to such expression are incapable of determining the
expression's merit or lack thereof on their own -- that the government must
do it for them. And once you've come to the conclusion that people are
incapable of making correct decisions for *themselves*, you've effectively
abandoned the entire concept of democracy.
Paul Jackson
>pa...@turing.toronto.edu (Paul Jackson) writes:
>
>>1) Canada is NOT the US. We don't believe in inalienable rights here,
>[...]
>
>You don't? The Canadian Charter starts:
>
>=================================================
>CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
>
>Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of
>God and the rule of law:
>
>Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
>
>1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and
> freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed
> by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Note the last part of the above sentence. I believe that this means our
rights are not "inalienable". I admit, I've NEVER understood the American
position that some rights are inalienable but can still be taken away,
however, so perhaps I'm using inalienable incorrectly.
Note that, for example, Quebec has used the above to justify a law that
makes it illegal to put up signs in English.
--
Paul Jackson
Lazlo Nibble
> I don't see any role-playing game I would conceivably carry ever being
> banned. I don't see any lobbyist *wanting* to ban anything I carry.
In other words, I'm not using the rights being trampled, so take 'em away
and to hell with anyone else who'd want to use them.
> "Government banning hate literature (etc) are violating your civil rights."
> I'll just say again -- no, they're not. Not in Canada. Rights are not
> universal.
So if a majority vote in Canada made it legal to shoot Sikhs on sight,
that's be okay, because their right to not be killed isn't universal?
Where exactly do you draw the line, Jim?
David L Evens
: scow...@angmar.dataflux.bc.ca (Scowling Jim Cowling) writes:
: > I don't see any role-playing game I would conceivably carry ever being
: > banned. I don't see any lobbyist *wanting* to ban anything I carry.
: In other words, I'm not using the rights being trampled, so take 'em away
: and to hell with anyone else who'd want to use them.
This is a good argument.
: > "Government banning hate literature (etc) are violating your civil rights."
: > I'll just say again -- no, they're not. Not in Canada. Rights are not
: > universal.
: So if a majority vote in Canada made it legal to shoot Sikhs on sight,
: that's be okay, because their right to not be killed isn't universal?
: Where exactly do you draw the line, Jim?
This isn't quite such a good argument, mostly because observant Sikhs are
usually already breaking the law. Why? Because the Sihk faith requires
its followers to obey certain precepts, one of which is the carrying of a
ceremonial knife called a Kirpan (sp ?). Most Sihks carry this (fairly
large) knife inside their clothing somewhere, making it a concealed
weapon! And these are the guys (exclusively male, by the way, and not
much gets said about it, unlike the Catholic church only allowing male
clergy, but I digress) who get special treatment in the RCMP.
Scowling Jim Cowling
of a debate I've kinda been enjoying. I've had to gopher out for news, and
picked out a couple of articles to respond to. Hopefully, I'll see most of
the rest of the thread in time, but if I don't, you now know why I haven't
responded. (Addendum: the original article appeared just as I posted it...)
Note the second: The fact that I'm going to flame Evil Stevie mercilessly
in no way means that I've lost any respect for him. After all, profits for
INWO will pay for my trips to GAMA, Origins, and GenCon next year, as
well as keep me in beer and skittles for a considerable length of time.
Those who have seen me flame people in other newsgroups know that I do it for
fun, and rarely is malice involved. (ObCampaign: vote for me for Flame
Royalty in rec.arts.comics.* Flame Royalty category in the Bizarro Squiddies.
Gotta make third year in a row. ;) )
>In a previous article, s...@pentagon.io.com (Steve Jackson) said:
>>In a previous message, Jim Cowling commented:
>>
>>If Customs Canada messes up, they pay for it in court. I have yet to see
>>an example of where they made a bad decision that wasn't overturned in a
>>court of law.
>
>Can you assure us that you have been personally overseeing Customs
>Canada, that you KNOW about every bad decision they have made, and that
>you also KNOW that in every case where they made a bad decision, the
>victim had the time and money to take it to court?
Y'know, it's amazing. Here I thought that you had some skill at reading
comprehension -- after all, you're a writer, editor, and publisher. The key
words above refuting your question's validity are "I have yet to see".
The semantic content of my sentence does not include the guarantee that I
have seen all occurances in question. I will assume, since you've chosen to
respond to the thread, that you've read all my previous postings -- if so,
you would have known that I have the ability (time, money, etc.) to defend
myself in court should it become necessary. Hence, since I have the ability
to go to court over such potential injustice, and all occurances I have seen
(that relate) were overturned, I will certainly win any potential suit, given
a reasonably static judicial climate (QED).
One doesn't need degrees in Writing or Linguistics to figure that out.
>It's nice that you have heard of cases where the courts eventually
>repudiated seizures. Not everyone can afford court. When my office was
>raided and my computers seized, I would not have been able to afford
>any protection on my own; the EFF saved me. Can everyone in Canada
>depend on angels like that?
Well, here I'm going to be evil and rapacious. >:)
I can't say that I'd be disappointed to see my smaller competitors, who
couldn't afford to defend themselves in court, end up victimised. I can
afford to -- such a prospective law could, in theory, help the big get
bigger and kill off the smaller stores. Eris knows I'm not beyond a little
bureaucracy to help my store out. In the twenty years our store's been around,
we've seen countless locally competing stores collapse, and taking advantage
of opportunities that they haven't (or have not been able to) certainly has
added to our success. Legislation which would make it difficult to import
some games, although unlikely to occur, could only help me financially. I
can't see any costs associated with fighting in court being higher than the
increased business due to free publicity. Try and tell me that your fighting
the Secret Service didn't give you a lot of business you wouldn't otherwise
have received. :) Sure, you were in a bit of financial trouble around that
time, I believe, but it's a lot cheaper to go to court in Canada.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
......The Rev. "Scowling" Jim Cowling......scowling@angmar.dataflux.bc.ca......
...Moderator: rec.arts.comics.info....FAQKeeper: rec.arts.comics.marketplace...
You know how dumb the average person is? Half of the population is even dumber
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------