People have probably not been waiting for this decision with bated breath, except for those whose ball gags are too tight, but I have been hoping for a favorable outcome, and here it is:
Judge R.R. Low said the Sweet defense's presentation of several "mainstream" books and videos with themes at least as graphic, sexual, and violent as his adult BDSM vignettes, "coupled with their widespread availability, satisfies me that Canadians, for better or worse, tolerate other Canadians viewing explicit sexual activity coupled with graphic violence which is more or less indistinguishable from the eleven videos."[T]he defense show[ed] both mainstream materials such as American Psycho, I Spit on Your Grave, Rape Me, and Portrait of a Serial Killer, as well as certain computer materials, to support the defense's contention that Sweet's adult videos were not quite as full of unacceptable material as the prosecution had alleged.
I am glad for the acquittal, but I am still confused about Canadian law and not much comforted by the standard Judge Low seemed to be applying in the case. It implies strongly that unpopular speech is unprotected in Canada, and that really worries me.
(Tip: DazeReader.)
Unpopular speech is unprotected in Canada. Most of what I've read about it concerns people feeling legal heat for arguing against homosexuality. I'm surprised you hadn't heard.
"First they came for the religious fundamentalists, and I said nothing, because, hey, let's be honest, those guys are nuts. Then they came for the kinky women in leather, and I said, NOW WAIT JUST A DAMNED MINUTE HERE!"
Posted by: Gib | April 27, 2004 at 08:41 AM
No, I have heard (Volokh, et al), but I have also heard that the concern is overblown (e.g., Leiter). It is obvious that Canadian protection for sexual expression is lower than the US's, but I am ignorant of their law so far, so I can't say how much lower.
Most of the rightwing criticism of the Canadian hate-speech crime laws have focused on bashing the left (Bernstein), so it's been easy to ignore so far. I want to read more, but am strapped for time.
Posted by: Mithras | April 27, 2004 at 09:29 AM
Canada does have a Charter Of Rights And Freedoms; 'freedom of speech, thought, and expression' is, as I recall, the first mentioned.
However, as usual in any society, there are in reality restrictions. The usual legal ones about uttering threats, saying you have a bomb in your luggage, that sort of thing. There's also hate-crime law which restricts speech, and of course obscenity laws. These things go back and forth between 'say anything' and 'but not that.'
Interestingly, a judge in Ontario recently abolished the movie censorship comission on the grounds that they hadn't provided any evidence that they needed to exist.
Posted by: Ashbless | May 30, 2004 at 10:42 AM