reply to post by Duzey
I would like to add I find the materials personally repugnant too. I also find the tv series CSI repugnant, with the undignified manner they deal with
victims and the portrayals of handling corpses. I find it sickening.
But I don't advocate the subjective manipulation of the law or the throwing away of the objective tests for obscenity for personal vindication. I
certainly don't like the idea of a Judge prosecuting Smith right along with the prosecution. Judges are supposed to stand between the state and the
citizen as unbiased and impartial weighers of evidence and facts, not assist in the prosecution. Who has a fair chance in that kind of courtroom?
The law is the law. The SCC Butler 1992 decision states that "ANY DOUBT" as to whether the materials have artistic merit "MUST" result in a
decision that favors freedom of expression. "Any doubt" and "must" are definitive terms. I note that you referred to the materials as 'art'. If
there is any doubt about whether it's art, it cannot be obscene. That's the law.
The same SCC decision says that materials have to contain explicit sex and violence and then states: If materials are not obscene under this frame
work they do not become so by way of who might see them, or the place and manner in which they are shown(I paraphrased).
Society must be fair. Society allowed Smith to be exposed to thousands of TV programs and movies for well over 40 years before he produced anything.
Based on what he saw and what the law says, he set out to carve his own unique grove in the field of film production. He honored the law and did not
make any materials with sex acts. That line is very clear to anyone viewing his productions.
Your opinion that the meta tags, legs splayed and camera angle somehow makes it obscene is far more than a stretch of imagination and desire. Nudity,
graphic nudity, and sexualixed nudity in the adult context does not fill the requirement of explicit sex and is therefore not obscene, whether you
wish it was or not. That you or I don't like certain positions or the exposure of certain body parts or the camera angle does not translate into sex
The OPP officer that has harassed the Smith family for 8 years testified in open court that he thought the exposure of a female breast was a sex act.
This shows how bent he is to convict Smith. He fabricated the evidence in his own mind, fabricated his opinion of sex in his own mind, and threw out
all the objective legal standards to get a conviction. There is clearly a conflict between the fundamentalist religious moral views of the officer,
and the moral laws of Canada. That is more unfair, repugnant and sickening than Smith's materials could ever be. This should be of greater concern to
you than Smith's materials.
If the law stated clearly that you cannot have nudity and violence, there would not have been nudity and violence in Smith's productions. I say that
because Smith is not a criminal type, has no previous record in the preceeding 45 years prior to 2000 when he was charged, and he researched the case
law before starting anything. His testimony concerning his research is a fact unchallenged.
Is it Art. Yes.
Is it obscene. No
Is it repugnant to some. Yes
Is it censorship. Yes
Is it an improper use of the law. Yes
Did society expose Smith to similar materials first. Yes
Did society encourage Smith to make his materials. Yes
Did the law get used against Smith in a boo-bi-trap fashion. Yes
This may not violate your sense of fair play and decency, but it does violate mine.
This is clearly an illegal use of the law for more than just censorship purposes.