Why is Fox News banned in Canada?

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2004-05-09 02:22pm

SirNitram wrote:
BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:Part of having a free soceity is having people free to make up their own minds.
This is where Blkbrry is slowly introduced to the idea that American values are not universal. This, of course, will be seen as EVIL.

But it's good to be bad.

Currald · Post by **Currald** » 2004-05-09 02:37pm

Canadian customs routinely censors imported reading material based upon their own opinion of what the Canadian people should be exposed to.

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2004-05-09 02:54pm

Source being...

Currald · Post by **Currald** » 2004-05-09 02:57pm

Some benefit book for a bookstore that was suing the government. Let's see... What Right? edited by Robin Fisher. ISBN 1-55152-137-7.

Currald · Post by **Currald** » 2004-05-09 03:04pm

And here's some information online, if you're interested.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2004-05-09 03:21pm

Currald wrote:Canadian customs routinely censors imported reading material based upon their own opinion of what the Canadian people should be exposed to.

Having worked at Canada Customs I can tell you this is completely true. At our facility we had a bunch of ass-covering managers, many of whom were fundies, and as a result a lot of stuff got confiscated or held up which shouldn't have. A lot of my superiors were uncomfortable with letting S&M porn through, especially if was gay or lesbian. But the main problem is that they're a bunch of ass-covering pencil-pushing managers who'd rather "play things safe" instead of making a judgement call, and when they fuck up, they go to full pass the buck ass-cover mode.

desertjedi · Post by **desertjedi** » 2004-05-09 03:26pm

Sounds like every other governemnt worker across the world...
Rule #1: Cover Your Own Ass

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2004-05-09 07:23pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
Dahak wrote:
BlkbrryTheGreat wrote: Part of having a free soceity is having people free to make up their own minds.
Different countries, different standards and idea of rights.
Not everyone has to have the same ideals as the USA.
This is stupid. I hate it when plurality of ideas is used to try and defend anything without a real argument.

The same logic could justify Islamic extremism and cultural misogynism, etc. in other countries, you know.

I just don't like it when US Americans tell you that their way is the best and only possible way to do things, as it so happens with the idea of a totally free, unlimited free speech.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-05-09 07:47pm

If the CRTC was really fair, they'd also ban the CBC

.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-05-09 08:17pm

Dahak wrote:I just don't like it when US Americans tell you that their way is the best and only possible way to do things, as it so happens with the idea of a totally free, unlimited free speech.

Well then refute intelligently; don't hide behind this "other people can have other customs" bullshit.

And also, if that's your position, don't get offended when Americans remind you that you don't have free speech, cuz sorry, "partially free speech" is not free speech.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-05-09 08:45pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote: Well then refute intelligently; don't hide behind this "other people can have other customs" bullshit.

And also, if that's your position, don't get offended when Americans remind you that you don't have free speech, cuz sorry, "partially free speech" is not free speech.

Americans dont have free speech either...you cannot for example say "I want to kill the president" or, shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre or, defame someone.

In fact, americans only have partially free speech, they just crow really loud because they think it's completely free...

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2004-05-09 10:22pm

I think this is hilarious. Canada doesn't allow FOX to broadcast because they set a precedent with A-J... and America, to my knowledge, doesn't allow A-J to broadcast either. So, Canadians are just consistent and fair, instead of insular and hypocritical?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-05-09 10:39pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:In fact, americans only have partially free speech, they just crow really loud because they think it's completely free...

Freedom of speech mainly applies to issues of political dissent. That's the context that it was created under. The old European governments would toss you in jail simply for disagreeing with something that a lord or king did. The Framers of the Constitution did not want this to be the way the American government did things, so they gave everyone the right to free speech.

The problem with that vague wording is that just about any god damn thing you can think of has been defended by some dumb-ass as "free speech," including lobbying and the presence of religion in the government.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-05-10 12:03am

Durandal wrote: Freedom of speech mainly applies to issues of political dissent. That's the context that it was created under. The old European governments would toss you in jail simply for disagreeing with something that a lord or king did. The Framers of the Constitution did not want this to be the way the American government did things, so they gave everyone the right to free speech.

Let's also not forget that free political speech hasn't been a given throughout all of American history. The Alien and Sedition Acts being one example of this of course.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-05-10 12:43am

Currald wrote:Canadian customs routinely censors imported reading material based upon their own opinion of what the Canadian people should be exposed to.

Customs is above the law, in both directions. I've shipped a lot of things to the US, and when US Customs decides to seize them or reject them at the border, do you think they have to defend their reasoning?

What the fuck do you think Customs is? It is ABOVE THE LAW. People and material coming through a border checkpoint aren't in the country yet, and are not presumed innocent until proven guilty, nor are they given any of the other guarantees that apply once you're in. People can reject stuff based on a whim, a prejudice, religious beliefs, or just because they're pissed off because they haven't gotten laid since last year.

I don't know what candy-coated fantasyland you live in, but in the real world, Customs always reserves the right to block material at the border for reasons that wouldn't hold up once you're already inside.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-05-10 12:43am

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
Dahak wrote:I just don't like it when US Americans tell you that their way is the best and only possible way to do things, as it so happens with the idea of a totally free, unlimited free speech.
Well then refute intelligently; don't hide behind this "other people can have other customs" bullshit.

And also, if that's your position, don't get offended when Americans remind you that you don't have free speech, cuz sorry, "partially free speech" is not free speech.

I see the point about the FCC completely sailed over your head. Maybe you need to grow taller.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2004-05-10 01:14am

Darth Wong wrote:Customs is above the law, in both directions. I've shipped a lot of things to the US, and when US Customs decides to seize them or reject them at the border, do you think they have to defend their reasoning?

What the fuck do you think Customs is? It is ABOVE THE LAW. People and material coming through a border checkpoint aren't in the country yet, and are not presumed innocent until proven guilty, nor are they given any of the other guarantees that apply once you're in. People can reject stuff based on a whim, a prejudice, religious beliefs, or just because they're pissed off because they haven't gotten laid since last year.

I don't know what candy-coated fantasyland you live in, but in the real world, Customs always reserves the right to block material at the border for reasons that wouldn't hold up once you're already inside.

The especially scary part was when a friend of mine was travelling from Istanbul to Sophia (I was going to Thessaloniki), one of the other travelers we met at the hostel didn't have the correct visa money (US cash only at that time), was kicked off the train at the border, and told to find her own way back to Istanbul.

At customs, you are literally in limbo, in no man's land.

Currald · Post by **Currald** » 2004-05-10 01:59am

I merely state a fact...

Currald wrote:Canadian customs routinely censors imported reading material based upon their own opinion of what the Canadian people should be exposed to.

... and you imply that I am living in a fantasy land?

Darth Wong wrote:I don't know what candy-coated fantasyland you live in, but in the real world, Customs always reserves the right to block material at the border for reasons that wouldn't hold up once you're already inside.

Oh my god, Darth Wong, you've really opened my eyes here. We really don't live in perfect democracies where ideas travel unimpeded by government interferance. I continue now with my life, disillusioned and saddened, but wiser for the journey.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-05-10 02:03am

Currald wrote:I merely state a fact...
Currald wrote:Canadian customs routinely censors imported reading material based upon their own opinion of what the Canadian people should be exposed to.
... and you imply that I am living in a fantasy land?

So you're now claiming that your fact was just stated for purely informative purposes with no intended relevance to the issue under discussion? Yeah, sure.

Darth Wong wrote:I don't know what candy-coated fantasyland you live in, but in the real world, Customs always reserves the right to block material at the border for reasons that wouldn't hold up once you're already inside.
Oh my god, Darth Wong, you've really opened my eyes here. We really don't live in perfect democracies where ideas travel unimpeded by government interferance. I continue now with my life, disillusioned and saddened, but wiser for the journey.

Your sarcasm belies the fact that you were obviously caught trying to make a point that was really no point at all.

Currald · Post by **Currald** » 2004-05-10 02:09am

I inferred that you thought that the Canadian government didn't censor print media.

Darth Wong wrote:Print editorials are fine, just not the broadcast of a network that commits fraud on a regular basis by misrepresenting political advertising as journalism.

I was attempting to present evidence against this. If I have inferred incorrectly, I do apologize.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-05-10 02:22am

Currald wrote:I inferred that you thought that the Canadian government didn't censor print media.

Only if it's hate literature. Political expression is fine, which is why I can print out editorials from FOX News and pass them out on Yonge Street without a problem. For that matter, we have a number of newspapers and periodicals in Canada which are almost as pro-Yankee jingoistic as Fox news, but they haven't received a hint of a complaint because they aren't applying for broadcast licenses. As with the FCC in the US, the CRTC is much stricter about what it allows for broadcast than what the Constitution allows for general expression.

But that has nothing to do with Customs, which pretty much makes up the rules as they go along and never really have to justify themselves.

Darth Wong wrote:Print editorials are fine, just not the broadcast of a network that commits fraud on a regular basis by misrepresenting political advertising as journalism.
I was attempting to present evidence against this. If I have inferred incorrectly, I do apologize.

Your "evidence" has nothing to do with this. I can print an editorial and be fine. You're talking about Customs, which (for the third time) essentially operates above the law. If you actually knew that at the time of posting instead of pretending to be underwhelmed when it was pointed out to you, then you would not have considered it a repudiation of my point that the law does permit such things in Canada.

Currald · Post by **Currald** » 2004-05-10 02:30am

Darth Wong wrote:You're talking about Customs, which (for the third time) essentially operates above the law.

If they are above the law, how is it that they have been sued (and lost) in the supreme court?

Mark MacDonald wrote:We want to show how flawed Customs continues to be, and we want to attack the legislation head on that allows them to censor books at all.

They are empowered by legislation. They can be disempowered by legislation.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-05-10 02:54am

Currald wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:You're talking about Customs, which (for the third time) essentially operates above the law.
If they are above the law, how is it that they have been sued (and lost) in the supreme court?

You act as though you already understand how the world works, yet you repeatedly seem to need me to explain it to you. If you have money, then yes, you can sue Customs and win. The phrase "above the law" is not literal; it is figurative. They operate with reckless abandon because they know that most people simply do not have the werewithal to challenge them, and you can't just go to the local munipality because they have no jurisdiction over them; you must go to the federal government, with all of the red tape that this entails.

How does the average person react when a shipment worth $100 is seized or bounced by Customs? Spend tens of thousands of dollars taking the govermnent to court? Fat fucking chance. He'll probably just order it again and hope it gets through this time ... which is exactly what some Americans have to do when stuff gets rejected coming the other way. As Aerius pointed out earlier (and he only worked at Customs; what would he know

), people there pretty much make decisions based on whatever criteria are handy today. You don't seriously think the law formally allows that, do you? They're just pushing their authority, safe in the knowledge that people aren't going to challenge them.

Mark MacDonald wrote:We want to show how flawed Customs continues to be, and we want to attack the legislation head on that allows them to censor books at all.

They are empowered by legislation. They can be disempowered by legislation.

Disempowered to do what? Stop shipments at the border based on gut feeling in an era of "terrorism" concerns? Stop rejecting sexually explicit material if it's offensive when that phrase could mean anything from offending a fundie to child porn, which is why you will never eliminate Customs' ability to do search and seizures of videos at the border? For someone who claims to know how the world works, you sure don't.

PS. Using an example of Customs being smacked by the Supreme Court is not wise when you're trying to prove that I'm wrong about the law permitting free expression. The Supreme Court is the law.

Currald · Post by **Currald** » 2004-05-10 03:54am

Darth Wong wrote:The phrase "above the law" is not literal; it is figurative. They operate with reckless abandon because they know that most people simply do not have the werewithal to challenge them, and you can't just go to the local munipality because they have no jurisdiction over them; you must go to the federal government, with all of the red tape that this entails.

I'm afraid that I'm simply a literal man. When someone says something, I assume that they mean exactly what they say. It drives my wife crazy.

You don't seriously think the law formally allows that, do you?

Well, doesn't it? Something to the effect of "customs agents must seize all obscene materials" with a checklist of basic guidelines, which ultimately must be interpreted by each customs official.

Disempowered to do what? Stop shipments at the border based on gut feeling in an era of "terrorism" concerns?

No. That would be negligent.

Stop rejecting sexually explicit material if it's offensive when that phrase could mean anything from offending a fundie to child porn,

The guidelines regarding what constitutes offensive material could be made more explicit. This is especially important in a federal level agency where "prevailing community standards" don't really apply (assuming that Canadians use such language in their obscenity laws).

For someone who claims to know how the world works, you sure don't.

I never made any such claim. Shit, I barely even know how my computer works!

PS. Using an example of Customs being smacked by the Supreme Court is not wise when you're trying to prove that I'm wrong about the law permitting free expression. The Supreme Court is the law.

Excellent point. I'm chasing my tail in circles.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2004-05-10 11:48am

What Wong basicly said, is that
"A difference, that makes no difference, IS no difference."
Customs is effectivly above the law to all but a tiny few, and they must spend years and tons of money getting recorse.
Thus as far as YOU, and everyone YOU know, they are above the law.
You must judge the law, be it physics, or the court system, by how it applies to your specifiic case.
Small exeptions in tiny percentags, in conditions not aplicable to you might as well not exsist. (as far as you are concerned)

Yes Timmy, 3 years later, after a court case, (lucky for you there was video tape showing the whole incident or you would have lost) you got a settlment and the policeman that beat you was fired.
This changes the lumps on your head and your busted arm none.
"You can't do that!"
THUMP, BUMP, SLAM, SNAP!
"Who the fuck do you think will be filling out the paperwork kid?"