Stephen Hart
2004-08-14 16:49:47 UTC
2.) We were not really talking about a specific case.
JD> I realize that, but I thought you were talking about what Don hadJD> heard about a friend??
Yes, but you and I exchanged a fair number of messages while waiting
for Don to clarify things like what area of the U.S. and what had
actually been banned.
JD> Again, local laws take
JD> precedence for moral standards.
There's certainly leeway for federal and provincial/state laws to be
interpreted in consideration of "local standards", but I do not think
local laws have precedence -- at least not under the Criminal Code.
Here's what I mean...
JD> Actually by Local Laws, I meant mostly State Laws and local moralJD> precedence for moral standards.
There's certainly leeway for federal and provincial/state laws to be
interpreted in consideration of "local standards", but I do not think
local laws have precedence -- at least not under the Criminal Code.
Here's what I mean...
JD> standards apply.
Ah! I would have worded it differently, but that's also my
understanding of the usual situation.
JD> You do remember the judicial statement about not
JD> being sure what porn was, but knoweing it when you saw it?? <G>
I never heard that one, but I do think it's cute. ;-)
A municipality might enact a by-law that banned the sale of _Playboy_
magazine. They might even be able to enforce that ban and levy small
fines against businesses that broke that by-law. Still, since
_Playboy_ magazine is not judged under the law a being pornography,
there is just no way that the town could lodge criminal charges.
JD> And all that would take is one person protesting to the provincialmagazine. They might even be able to enforce that ban and levy small
fines against businesses that broke that by-law. Still, since
_Playboy_ magazine is not judged under the law a being pornography,
there is just no way that the town could lodge criminal charges.
JD> judicial system <G>
All what would take?
...Going out on a limb, I'm going to assert that
_Playboy_ magazine is so widely distributed that it would be very
doubtful that it could be judged as pornography. Some people might
think that it is pornographic rather than erotic, but they're pretty
much a minority in any province. So, what with _Playboy_ being
commonly accepted by the majority in each province, I don't think such
a case would even go to trial.
I think it would be more likely to see a provincial case where such a
local by-law was being challenged as unconstitutional.
By the way, we probably should put this message exchange in context.
After all, most of our discussion stemmed from my misinterpreting
Don's outline of the situation in Alabama. Well, that and my
inclination towards using hyperbole in order to generate message
traffic here in Users249. ;-)
I guess I'm saying that, if I was going to attempt some really
intelligent debate about pornography and censorship, I would need to
go and do a little research about the current state of law.
TTYL, ...Steve
-
Aibohphobia (n.); the fear of palindromes.