Besides everything else, what makes this whole thing a ridiculous cause celebre is that on both cable and satellite a whole bunch of porn channels (payment) are already available. So a "Canadian" channel should be banned and the others continue? This is a case of people looking for an issue whilst either not knowing reality or choosing intentionally to ignore it in order to raise a stink.
Mark
Ottawa
The whole free speech thing makes polar opposites bedfellows when it comes down to it all. Everyone latley has this knee jerk reaction "oh no, you can't say something like that to me or anyone else" so they run off to a HRC instead of convincing the general public that the so called "hate speech" is wrong with facts and actions. No one wants to work for their goals or beleifs.
We live in a pathetic time.
So, what you are saying, is that in order to demonstrate their committment to freedom of speech, the CFAC needs to keep their mouths shut on an matter that is not only important to them but to our society as well?
Telecommunications content is, for better or worse, regulated in this country, and as such it is a matter of public policy. For voting citizens to request that the government policy reflect the best interests of society, is simply people practising their freedom of speech. All sorts of people at every part of the political spectrum do this all the time. I am pretty sure that McVety isn't asking to have anyone hauled up in front of a HRC, and tried and penalized, like happened with McLeans and the Western Standard.
However, it seems that if those people are Christians, and critical of the sacred constitutional right to view porn on TV, that makes them enemies of free speech. That is really too much of a double standard.
McVety and the CFAC can't deny anyone their right to freedom of expression, even if that is making a porn film. What they might attempt though, is to request restrictions on someone's ability to market that film as a product over a regulated, and public media.
Come on people, we are not talking about controversial political opinions, or odious religious views, or revolution fomenting comments here: we are talking about selling movies of people having sex on TV. That may be a free speech issue, but if it is it is a pretty weak one.
How can we have a debate in this country on the merits or perils of public porn, if the religious side can't have the free speech to present their views?
I think you could probably argue a viable case that there is a fundamental difference in kind, as far as "public speech" goes, between the expression of political opinion as a means of advocacy and the depiction of obscene imagery as a means of profit.
Arguing that the government has no business using its entrusted authority to restrict the former does not mean you think the government has no discretion in whether to cooperate with or support the latter. There's also a difference between active legal persecution of public expression and refusing a broadcast license to a private corporate applicant. The porn industry can hardly claim it has no other channels of distribution.
The right to free speech only means that the government cannot legally punish you for the expression of an opinion. It does not require that the government must support with its own monies any mode of public communication or distribution at all.
"McVety and the CFAC can't deny anyone their right to freedom of expression, even if that is making a porn film. What they might attempt though, is to request restrictions on someone's ability to market that film as a product over a regulated, and public media."
Horsefeathers. Ultimately, this argument boils down to "you're free to think whatever you like, so long as you don't tell anyone about it" - and that's a long way from free speech.
"How can we have a debate in this country on the merits or perils of public porn..."
We can't, and shouldn't. You just don't get it, do you? What *I * watch or read (or film for others to watch) is none of your bloody business. Period. Don't like it? Turn off your TV, or switch channels. Don't want little Johnny to see it? Control your own spawn, and stop trying to infringe on my freedom as the easier alternative to telling your own child what he can and can't do. You have the right to be concerned when my actions affect a non-consenting adult; until then, back off - a long way off.
To dcardno:
Others have the perfect right to tell you that porn is degrading and harmful to society if that is what they believe. Acting on that belief is another issue.
Heh...it was a mere blink of an eye, time wise, when TV was CLOSELY regulated by on-set censors. Personalities were constantly being harassed for (accidentally or otherwise) uttering profanities, and other no-no's. Look at the Smothers Brothers; they were blackballed for making uh, injudicious political comments on air.
My mind's blanking here, but a very well known American stand-up comedian did a great bit on being harassed while doing his shtick.
Now we've got Holly Hunter on 'Saving Grace' letting it pretty much all hang out on a weekly basis; pretty sure it's on regular channels.
[External Link]
With apologies to Dan, I thought this debate had come and gone.
Rogers has devoted about one third of their pay per view channels to porn in Toronto, not to mention a quite a few specialty channels catering to prurient interests. I'm not sure if other operators across the country are more sensitive to the prude brigade, but it's on TV here and it seems to be selling across the dial.
But with the already bulging porn industry in Montreal, shouldn't there be some concern about the Canadian government getting into bed with another Quebec industry?
There are plenty of arguments against obscenity laws but calling porn a free speech issue is like calling gambling in Las Vegas a free speech issue. dacrdno, would you argue free speech demands that liquor companies be permitted to run ads showing everybody having a grand time getting blotto, and that if we don't like, we should just switch channels?
C'mon, take the blinders off. I'm getting real tired of this issue being debated as if porn was just about respectable and responsible Victorian gentlemen enjoying a little harmless private relaxation as a break from studying Hansard or whatever. Modern porn is a highly lucrative, highly exploitative vice inevitably associated with crime, drug addicition and, as many experts will attest, individual addiction and family break-up. It is also highly misogynist and is intended to help men get in touch with their inner sultan. Those female actors many insist the constitution permits us to watch at will are usually drug-addled semi-slaves spiralling rapidly downwards. Whole libraries of it are just a few clicks of the mouse away and, make no mistake, it's legitimacy is having a formative effect on how little Johnny views women and the norm of sexual relations for adults.
Someday somebody should write a book on how the cause of free speech morphed from the right to challenge political and religious authority and orthodoxy into the right to exploit and disgust.
"Modern porn is a highly lucrative, highly exploitative vice inevitably associated with crime, drug [addiction] and, as many experts will attest, individual addiction and family break-up."
Such "experts". Such associations. Such inevitable problems.
Or not.
The real problem is, pr0n is lucrative - Sin No. 1 - and the tax man has no easy time creaming off the top - Sin No 2.
; ]
Ran:
That's just ideological cant of the sort that removes all responsibility for getting one's hands dirty and taking a hard, eyes-wide-open look at reality. It reminds me of those who say conservatives should respect the individual career choices of hookers.
So Peter - why not treat the real crimes you claim are inevitably found in concert with porn; the drug-dealing, the exploitation, and so on? First, I suspect, because "exploitation" isn't a crime - and is usually in the eye of the beholder. Neither is 'contributing to family break up' - although you seem to think that such an offense justified interfering in my right to say what I wish, and to listen to or read those who are doing the same thing. Kindly cite the statute that makes misogyny a crime, or 'being in touch with your inner sultan.' If those attitudes lead to actual crimes - like, say, violence against a woman, my impression is that it would already be covered under the CC; why not just enforce the laws we have, hmmm?
Pornography disgusts me, and I agree it is degrading and foul; but my *opinion* and my *values,* no matter how deeply felt, do not give me (or you!) the right to interfere in the communicaiton of ideas without direct harm.
dcardno:
So who gave you the right to appropriate the definition of "harm" that we all must live by regardless of actual social conditions? You may not see harm, but others see plenty of it. The connections between the sex trade writ large and crime, drugs, exploitation, etc. are constant, inevitable and there for all to see, legal or not. Even Amsterdam is realizing the old shibboleth about how the problem is illegality and all would be safe and well if only everything would be legalized is a crock:
[External Link]
Vice will always be with us and I agree trying to eradicate it completely is both futile and dangerous, but sitting back and watching it explode with all kinds of damaging consequences and then saying it is illegitimate to even try and stop or control it blows me away. Priveleged males playing out their private indulgences on the backs of poor and immigrant young women is not exactly how my constitutional law professors defined free speech.
BTW, why does absolutely everyone insist they find porn disgusting, degrading and foul, but then rush to defend and protect it as some sacred constitutional birthright? Isn't there an honest man out there somewhere who will say he loves the stuff and credits it with a sharp rise in his self-esteem?
"...why not treat the real crimes you claim are inevitably found in concert with porn; the drug-dealing, the exploitation, and so on?"
Those crimes *are* fought independently; but there is such a thing as the "broken-window" syndrome, and such a thing as prevention being more efficient and effective than cure.
"...'exploitation' isn't a crime - and is usually in the eye of the beholder."
Better tell that to the drafters and enforcers of minimum wage and child labour laws, then.
(And I'm all for minimum wage and child labour laws - I'm just skeptical of those who insist that the state's responsibility of deciding what constitutes 'exploitation' suddenly stops once commercialized sex is involved. With the emphasis on the *commercialized* aspect - the state may have no place in the bedrooms of the nation, but once money's involved, you've moved out of the bedroom and into the marketplace.)
"Pornography disgusts me, and I agree it is degrading and foul; but my *opinion* and my *values,* no matter how deeply felt, do not give me (or you!) the right to interfere in the communication of ideas without direct harm."
Nor does a pornographer's right to make and distribute pornography without legal penalty oblige the government to assist him by approving a broadcast licenses without any discretion or judgement whatsoever.
Refusal to assist or cooperate is not the same as active prosecution. Asking a government to withdraw assistance is not the same as asking it to enforce punishment.
Peter, it all boils down to your usual argument that all speech that doesn't offend *you* should be protected, while the stuff you don't like should be controlled, restricted, or prohibited. That's garbage, pure and simple. Take your blue pencil and pursed lips and leave the adults alone.
Stephen - in the 500 (and more) channel universe the 'airwaves' are no longer a scarce resource; the rationale for controlling broadcasting is gone. Now broadcasting licenses are used to promote clientelism, extract cash, or induce backscratching. We would be better off without the whole regulatory apparatus.
"...it all boils down to [the] usual argument that all speech that doesn't offend *you* should be protected, while the stuff you don't like should be controlled, restricted, or prohibited. That's garbage, pure and simple."
I applaud your dedication to consistency, Doc, but I really do think you've engaged in a bit of a reductio ad absurdum here. Commercial pornography is not political advocacy, and the costs and benefits of restriction vs. permission are fundamentally different equations. Treating them as if they were exactly the same - whether completely liberalizing both or stiflingly restricting both - is bound to backfire on both advocates and pornographers, and on everybody else for that matter.
Corporations which put their employees' health at unnecessary risk as part of the job, or which promote criminal activity, are regulated and punished all the time, after all. That this particular industry is making and selling a product distributed as images rather than objects, and thus using the same channels as political speech, is incidental.
"...We would be better off without the whole regulatory apparatus."
Again, this strikes me as essentially trying to treat fundamentally different things as if they were exactly the same. There is no one universal "appropriate" level of regulation; it varies with what you're regulating.
For political advocacy, the level has to be set extremely low (libel, slander, and incitement to violence laws at worst). For commercial pornography, I see nothing wrong with setting the bar somewhat higher, for reasons of health, safety, and (yes) morality. Nor do I see any inconsistency between the two.
Now if somebody was producing politically satiric porn, that could get problematic. But pornographers get into their work for the money, not the soapboxes.
I should add here that as far as supporting offensive free speech goes, I have never once suggested that, say, as a Catholic, I have the "right" to demand that anti-Catholic publications like THE DA VINCI CODE, anti-Christian articles like those frequently written by EGALE members, or religiously blasphemous art like "Piss Christ" or the elephant-dung Madonna be destroyed or recalled, or that their creators/distributors be legally penalized. I haven't even suggested that Dan Brown be sued for deliberately spreading proveable untruths about the Catholic Church and Christianity. I've never once written my MP to ask that the Toronto weekly rag EYE WEEKLY, which regularly bashes and denounces religions and religious people, be shut down. So I am more than willing to tolerate offensive speech in the name of free speech.
But porn wrecks lives. Pure and simple. And I see nothing wrong with doing as much as we can justly do in order to stop that. If we are not sure what exactly the "justly" caveat means, at least we still have the freedom to argue over it. :)
Bravo, Stephen J. The only thing I can add is a riposte to dcardo's ad hominem accusation that I only countenance speech I agree with. It is you, dcardno old dear, who brooks no argument or dissent and who just repeats yourself rotely, hauling out the libertarian Holy Book and calling any damn racist, inflammatory, threatening or obscene communication "free speech" and thus on a par with the best of Thomas Jefferson. How about getting down into the muck of this issue? How about telling the revolted wife who left with the kids out of a sense of betrayal because she discovered her husband was trolling porn sites long into the night that she should repect his individual freedom and choice? How about telling the poor immigrant father who has lost his daughter to the street that there is nothing constitutionally that can be done, but he should be proud to live in a nation that so prizes individual freedom? How about telling the kids they musn't peek yet, but you don't really have any idea why because once they are eighteen it stops being a dangerous, exploitative perversion and suddenly becomes just a harmless lifestyle choice? How about telling the heroin addicted porn star that freedom is tough, but that there are counselling services available to her provided she has private insurance?
Conservatism is not supposed to be a doctrine that champions the right of the well-off and successful to indulge their private pleasures on the backs of those below.
Peter: "It reminds me of those who say conservatives should respect the individual career choices of hookers."
Ran: Me too. I'm libertarian on the issues of pr0n and h00kers. [...Which is where I diverge from the Conservatives and Liberals here who would push their values onto others.]
"But porn wrecks lives. Pure and simple." That's such trite, unproven B.S.
'Addiction' ruins lives... not porn. Hell, buying vast collections of plastic war model kits or blogging stupid comments for hours on end. Can we PLEASE stop this bullshit about pornography "ruining" lives? Addiction to anything can ruin lives. Hey I've got it... let's ban plastic war models, and the problem of addiction will just go away like magic!
"But porn wrecks lives. Pure and simple..."
No - porn leads people to make life choices that you disagree with. Not quite the same thing, no matter how you feel about the adults who make those choices. So far, we have not made lack of judgement a crime.
"How about telling the revolted wife who left with the kids out of a sense of betrayal because she discovered her husband was trolling porn sites..."
She can be as revolted as she likes, and make her decisions appropriately. What you can't do is justify an infringement on his right to read what he likes on the basis that it may offend his wife. Should we ban catalogues since I may be dismayed by my wife's spending habits? Again - you confuse something truly unfortunate with something that you would like to make illegal. If you would like to volunatarily renounce your agency due to incompetence, that can probably be arranged. Please don't infringe on mine or the other adults in the nation.