🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4sgdk0$ifi@news.interlog.com>, alchemy@interlog.com says...
>
>djones@insight.mcmaster.ca (David Jones) wrote:
>
>>In article <4s447k$e20@news3.realtime.net>, David Smith <bladex@bga.com> 
wrote:
>>>Morton Goldmacher (alchemy@interlog.com) wrote:
>>>:
>>>: The law on what constitutes criminally obscene material is pretty
>>>: clear and unambiguous. 
>
>
>>>I am familiar with the US obscenity ruling, Miller v. California.
>>>
>>>What is the Canadian equivalent?  What is the test for determining 
>>>whether an item is obscene or not?
>
>
>>The "Butler Decision" is what you want:
>
>>       R. v. Butler, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452, 89 D.L.R. (4th) 449-499
>
>>The decision is available online in the Legal Archives
>>of Electronic Frontier Canada:
>
>>       http://www.efc.ca/pages/legal.html
>>       http://www.efc.ca/pages/law/court/R.v.Butler.head.html
>
>
>A more applicable S.C.C. decision to the issues surrounding iSTAR's
>actions is R. v. Jorgenson (1995), easily found by using the Supreme
>Court's database at the University of Monreal's website.
>
>Morton M. Goldmacher
>Barrister and Solicitor 
>

	Forgive me if I'm wrong (and I probably am), but the law is more 
about precedents than actual law. If one can prove/demonstrate/cite 
precendents then one is lawfully correct. If one can disprove or debunk a 
current precedent, then that will be how current law will be interpreted.
	The "law" is interpreted by lawyers, for lawyers. Some precendents go 
back to the 18th century in British common law. Small wonder that some 
current decisions are suspect. Cite that precedent!!