🚀 go-pugleaf

aldham@wimsey.com (Danny Aldham) wrote:

>Bruce Allen (osiris@!sympatico.ca) wrote:
>: 	If an intelligent, well-reasoned, statement providing the case against
>: royalty, posted in a reasonable number of groups simultaneously, were to be
>: removed soley for its content, then that would be censorship.
>: 	When "FUCK THE QUEEN" gets dropped, it is indeed a cleanup. 
>: 	Nothing more.
>
>So when a message is cancelled because you don't like the title,
>that is OK? 

No Danny.  When the title contravenes the Criminal Code of Canada and
refers to the Head of State in obscene language, then it is perfactly
in order to cancel such a message.

>You seem to have no grasp of the entire concept of free speach. 

It would appear that you have a few problems of your own with the
written word. So be so good as not to point any fingers.

>It is precisely the distasteful & obnoxious that must be allowed. 

You are quite right.  However, there are a few limits.  There is no
such thing as an absolute freedom. Neither there is such a thing as
completely unrestrained speech (please do note the proper spelling).
For example you may not utter threats against another person, you may
not utter falsehoods which may be damaging to another person's
reputation, etc. 

The person of the Monarch, being the Head of State is protected from
abuse more stringently than the rest of us commoners.

I am sure that the message would not have been cancelled had it not
referred to the Queen in such a vulgar and completely uncalled for
manner.

>Is it OK for the Communist Chinese to censore Democracy
>posts since they find them too in bad taste? And who decides? You?

Methinks you're a tad confused, dear boy. I would hardly equate a call
for proper elections, for opposing political parties and general human
rights with obscenities against the symbol of your country's
statehood.

>I think Gary Mills is censoring posts that he has no right censoring.

Well, think again, then ... In fact, he did the author a big favour.
Posting such a headline was, in my view, a criminal act. The guy could
have been charged for it.  Still, I would prefer to simply cancel the
post, rather than arresting the idiot and waste public money on
prosecuting him and jailing him.

Karl Pollak <kpollak@portal.ca>
Richmond, British Columbia