Film Censorship in Canada

reply to post by nanookofthenorth


Although this is about censorship, which I am against, and by your own words you are also against, I feel I should respond to you and ease your concerns.
I checked all the links to various pages. None of the pages mention names of youths. I recall a law suit filed that did name one youth and possibly Don's children. This was on the public record, and not a violation of anyone's privacy. Don is a straight up no nonsense guy that definately has a big heart.

Your concerns are unfounded and I am convinced you do not know the person you are talking about.

reply to post by John Matrix

Sorry but I do know him. I wasted 11 years with him and had two kids with him so I do think I know a bit about him. Did you???

Originally posted by nanookofthenorth
reply to post by John Matrix

 

Sorry but I do know him. I wasted 11 years with him and had two kids with him so I do think I know a bit about him. Did you???

He's been married for 25 yrs. You both would have been growing up together, so it's quite understandable that you would no longer know the person you once knew. People grow up, people change. Most of us learn to let go of the past and forgive people because we realize at some point it is much healthier on our hearts, minds, and bodies to let it go and forgive. I wish you well in this endeavor. I'm sure it is long over due.

I know many people that have been married young then grew appart, after a time, they let it all go, forgive, and become friends.

From experience, I can say that it's a matter of perception as to whether one sees the cup as half empty or as half full. 11 years wasted? You mentioned 4 kids, which means you have two. Not a waste in my mind.

As for censorship, I am pleased you are against it. Thanks for your comments.


[edit on 20/2/09 by John Matrix]

First off, I am a she which may help explain to you why I find Mr. Smith's works personally repugnant.

I do agree with you that the Criminal Code says nothing about explicit sex in that section. What is does say is a combo of sex and violence will be considered obscene.

As I'm not willing to spend my money on any of this 'art', I'm only been able to form my opinion of his work based on screenshots. In the ones I've seen, they inevitably go like this: Girl gets brutally killed and falls to the ground dead, with her legs splayed open (which is the centre of the picture and therefore the focus of the camera) which can be construed as sexualized violence aka obscenity under Canadian Law.

The difference between Mr. Smith's work and that of many filmakers today is that his work is intended to be 'wanking material' and is not meant to be shown at your local Silver City.

IMO, the reason Mr. Smith lost his case was due to the choice of meta-tags he used. It's pretty hard to argue you aren't making obscene (under the legal definition) work when your 'art' is hosted on your own site with meta-tags consisting of things like 'snuff films, necro fetish, slut wives and porn'.

Originally posted by Duzey
I do agree with you that the Criminal Code says nothing about explicit sex in that section. What is does say is a combo of sex and violence will be considered obscene.

As I'm not willing to spend my money on any of this 'art', I'm only been able to form my opinion of his work based on screenshots. In the ones I've seen, they inevitably go like this: Girl gets brutally killed and falls to the ground dead, with her legs splayed open (which is the centre of the picture and therefore the focus of the camera) which can be construed as sexualized violence aka obscenity under Canadian Law.

But despite the Criminal Code not using the modifier explicit, does not mean that explicit is not part of the law. The Supreme Court of Canada said the sex must be explicit which means clear and unambiguous sex acts at the extreme end of the spectrum. Women in lingerie could be seen acting in murder scene in the Silk Stockings series on television. These scenes are easily as sexual and more likely to arouse men than Smith's materials.

The court of appeal said sexualized nudity was a nebulous term, too overly broad, and unhelpful in determining whether materials are obscene. They also said violence is not obscene. If neither are obscene, then adding them together does not make them so.

Your analysis is just that....your analysis. This same opinion can be made of many films such as Bais Moi, which has hardcore sex scenes coupled with violence. It was shown at the Toronto Film Festival in September 2000, presented in Theaters in every province, and distributed on DVD. The content makes Don's materials look like a walk in the park on Sesame Street. There are at least 100 films I can name here with graphic sex and violence. Smith's materials do not contain sex acts. So it's still unfair and amounts to discrimination.

The difference between Mr. Smith's work and that of many filmakers today is that his work is intended to be 'wanking material' and is not meant to be shown at your local Silver City.

How crude. There is no proof of that.

IMO, the reason Mr. Smith lost his case was due to the choice of meta-tags he used. It's pretty hard to argue you aren't making obscene (under the legal definition) work when your 'art' is hosted on your own site with meta-tags consisting of things like 'snuff films, necro fetish, slut wives and porn'.

The meta tags are hidden and 99.9% of people do not know how to view them. Search engines use meta tags to categorize websites for their content, and this is often used as a tool to protect people who do not want to view adult content. Likewise adult web site filtering software will also pick up on meta tags and use those words to determine that the website is an adult site, and this warns the software to prevent the page from loading and protects kids from viewing it.

So as bad as the meta tags might sound, they do serve a good purpose. You, being a "super moderator" should know these things. As well, any webmaster will tell you that allowing this evidence was a low blow. The meta tags were not part of the indictment, not part of the impugned materials, Smith was not charged for having a web site or meta tags, and they are not analogous to the dust cover of a book. The court of appeal determined this in 2005, but they are not website administrators or experts on the way Internet sites and meta tags work.

The reason for conviction at the first trial was determined by the court of appeal to be the judge's improper jury instruction. Read the OP.

The reason he was convicted in the second trial is also in the OP. The judge threw the Criminal Code, the charter, rules of the court, rules of evidence, etc. out the window and also gave the jury a confusing and unreasonable definition for obscene material. A definition that did not even exist in 2000 at the time Smith was charged. It was a railroad job. A frame up.

[edit on 20/2/09 by John Matrix]

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 acts.

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.

50. On February 23, 2006, the Supreme Court of Canada denied the Crown's Application for Leave to Appeal and subsequently denied Mr.Smith's cross application. The Supreme Court of Canada Case Summary states that:
Smith’s websites portrayed in particular partially or totally naked women simulating extreme violence and death. The materials did not depict sexual acts.
51. On May 27, 2006 Mr. Smith provided six weeks Notice of Claim to the Attorney General's Office in Ontario. The Notice of Claim is required under the Proceedings Against the Crown Act where a civil remedy is sought against the Ontario Provincial Police.
52. On June 14, 2006 the attorney General's office made up a letter to Mr.Smith in which they acknowleged recieving the Notice of Claim on May 30, 2006.
53. On July 11, 2006 a new summons was issued by the Provincial Court Office in Fort Frances. The summons issued well past the 90 day limit as set forth in section 485 of the Criminal Code of Canada and it was issued by the wrong court. Section 485 of the Criminal Code deems the case dismissed for want of prosecution because the Crown failed to summons Mr.Smith for a new trial after the Supreme Court gave it's decision on February 23, 2006.
JAFA'S NOTE: The Crown's retaliation against Mr. Smith for having filed a Notice of Claim continued in complete disregard for the Criminal Code of Canada (secion 485).
54. On July 14, 2006 Mr. Smith was served with the above mentioned Provincial Court Summons which demanded that he appear in Fort Frances to answer to five charges even though Mr.Smith had already been acquitted on one of the five charges. The other four charges were the four convictions that the appeals court set aside.
55. On September 7, 2006 The Crown Attorney, Mr. Kent Saliwonchyk, issued a second summons calling for Mr. Smith to appear in Fort Frances on September 18, 2006. The second summons also contained an indictment consisting of the same five charges, despite Mr.Saliwonchyk having told Mr. Smith on August 2, that he would correct the error and re-write the indictment.
56. On September 8, 2006 Mr. Saliwonchyk spoke Mr. Smith's lawyer and insisted that either him or Mr.Smith be present in Fort Frances on September 18 for a pretrial conference. Saliwonchyk threatened that he would issue a warrant for Mr.Smith to appear, HOWEVER, he had already issued the warrant the day before. Mr. Smith's lawyer was not aware that the warrant had already been issued the previous day, nor did Mr. Saliwonchyk tell him. Mr.Smith's Lawyer asked Mr. Saliwonchyk to hold off until the following week, at which time he would be able to schedule a pre trial conference with him. Saliwonchyk agreed, however, he had already instigated the issuance of the warrant the previous day and he did not wait until Mr.Smith's lawyer got back to him.
57. On September 14, despite the conversation between Saliwonchyk and Mr. Smith's lawyer on September 8, Mr.Smith received the summons to appear in Fort Frances for a September 18 pre-trial confernece. This was done despite Mr.Smith's lawyer having not received any disclosure from the crown regarding their case.
58. September 18, 2006: Mr.Smith and his lawyer attended the Fort Frances courthouse as a result of the summons served on September 14, 2006. This summons was vexatious and an abuse of process in light of the fact that it was served 2 court days prior to the hearing(Sat. and Sunday don't count).
59. The Crown attorney had scheduled a pre-trial conference for September 18th and a new trial for October 23rd 2006. The scheduled pre-trial conference ended up being nothing more than a first appearence for Mr.Smith since no time for preparation had been given to his lawyer. A new pre-trial conference date was set for November 14, 2006.
60. It was stated for the court record that the Crown "waited in the weeds" from July 7, 2005 to July 11, 2006 before initiating the new trial process and that any delays in proceeding with a new trial lies squarly at the feet of the Crown.
61. On September 18, 2006 Don was finally given a revised indictment that excluded the one charge that he had already been acquitted on four years earlier. The charge in question concerned private materials! Having this charge hanging over Mr.Smith's head for two months was meant to cause Don and his wife mental anguish.
62. In May of 2007 Don's defence presented arguments on several applications such as: unreasonable delay; re-election; void for vagueness; quashing of 4 warrants; exclusion of evidence(not a complete list).
63. In mid-august 2007, Chief Justice McCartney gave a decision on all the applications heard in May. He denied all of the defence applications, brushing over many issues, and failed to give proper reasons for his denials.
64. In January 2008, the defence presented an application to quash the indictment based on section 485 of the Criminal Code of Canada which clearly states that when there is loss of jurisdiction over an accused, there is a 90 day limitation period to regain jurisdiction. After 90 days the Criminal Code deems the charges dismissed for want of prosecution.
65. The Supreme Court ruled on the leave to appeal applications on February 23, 2006 and Don was not compelled to make any court appearence until a new summons was issued. Hence, the Superior Court had no jurisdiction over Don until they served him with a summons. The 90 days went by and the time limit ran out on May 25, 2006.
66. As noted in paragraph 53, the new summons was not issued until July 11th and that summons was null and void because it was issued by the wrong court. It also violated s. 485 of the criminal code which states after the 90 day limit special written permission from the Attorney General is required, and only upon the laying of a new information (the old charges and information cannot be used).
67. The judge over ruled the Criminal Code of Cananda(an Act of Parliament) and denied the defence application to quash the indictment which was based on s. 485.CCC.
68. The trial began on May 12, 2008. The defence objected to the content and to various omissions in the judge's charge to the jury. The judge failed to heed the intructions of the Court of Appeal decision regarding the jury charge, therby guiding the jury to give an unjust verdict. The judge failed to separate out the evidence for each charge. The judge failed to instuct the jury on the proper legal definaition of explicit sex.
69. The judge stated to the jury "even where there are no sexual acts, the materials can still depict explicit sex". This statement was not given by the court of appeal for instructing the Jury. The court of appeal said that explicit sex requires sex acts at the extreme end of the spectrum of sexual activity that is shown in a graphic and unambiguous fashion. The court of appeal aslo stated that the law catches only depictions of sexual intercourse and other non-trivial sex acts.
70. The judge's jury charge was neatly tailored to result in Don's conviction.
71. Don's defence lawyer(not the same one as the first trial) planned his case from the beginning for the Court of Appeal. He overturned every rock to find every issue he could. He filed applications and put every objection on the record. The result is a record breaking number of grounds for appeal which will be posted soon.

JAFA NOTES: This is a perfect example of how mean spirited right wing religious fanatics and politically motivated extremists will use their power and knowledge of the system to inflict people that do not bow to their views.

I'm glad you posted that information from your website. It is clear that the only one that respected the Law here is Smith because it is a fact that there is no sex in his materials.

The law does not catch materials simply because a person or a group finds them repugnant, offensive, insulting, etc. There is an objective standard which is the materials must be a dominant characteristic of undue exploitation of sex and violence, and the sex must be explicit sex acts.

I add that, the explicit sex has to be in the materials, not merely in the mind of some viewer who thinks that showing a female breast is sex, or that somehow the position of an actor and the camera angle can make a video obscene in the absence of explicit sex.

The real crime here is what DrDon and his family have had to suffer through at the hands of these sadistic maniacs who think nothing of abusing their powers and manipulating the system to destroy an innocent man and his family.

In psychology they call it misplaced anger, hatred, prejudice, etc. when the artist is attacked for his art. The negative reaction is a result of something they see in themselves that they are unable to deal with, so they lash out at the artist. I'm convinced they would have lynched him long ago if they felt they could get away with it.



[edit on 22/2/09 by John Matrix]

It appears that not too many people care about this case. Don said that only two people from Fort Frances area showed up to watch the trial, and they were his friends. Other than that, the court room was completely empty of any members of the public. One person from the media showed up once. They did a poor job of covering the story, relying mostly on bias and false information given to them by the Crown attorney's office. The link to the FF Times report can be found on my website. No public out cry tells me that the prosecution was not in the public interest. They simply don't care. Which is one more reason this case has gone way too far.

I like what you said, "the explicit sex has to be in the materials, not simply in the mind of the viewer." The Crown and Judge prosecuted Don in a joint effort unprecedented in Canadian history. The crown and the judge infected the jury with noble cause corruption and tunnel vision. They deliberately created an atmosphere of bias and prejudice, literally putting emotional pressure on the jurors to convict.

I think it is worth mentioning that the jury did not say what materials were obscene. So the judge and the crown created a situation in which millions of dollars have been spent on 2 jury trials, and no one even knows what materials are obscene. How are courts, judges, crown attorney's, police, and lawyers supposed to tell anyone what's obscene from this. That outcome in itself is outrageous. A person should come away knowing exactly where they crossed the line so that it doesn't happen again, and the court has an obligation to the accused, the public and law enforcement, to inform them as well. But in this case they did not, because they can't, and that makes it a miscarriage of justice.

I am curious. Matrix factual and historical descriptions have not been challenged. So far so good.

Counterpoints adamantly stated and repeated have instead attacked the defendant. Interesting as the defendant has made no statements whatever within this thread. Of further interest is the personal nature of the attack statements alleging conditions of the defendant not otherwise in evidence.

At the same time I conclude that those attacking DrDon have not appeared in court nor have they been sought out by the crown agents and attorneys. That tells me that the attacks and counterpoints may be less than valid. If that is the case, I sense a hint of slander and libel. And thus those replies should be subject to the rules and protocols of this message forum.

Of course this message represents my own opinion.

4P

I wonder how the public is going to feel about the costs associated with two jury trials involving a Crown case built on mudslinging and causing prejudice to the accused in order to cheat out a conviction?

macjafa: have you heard if the appeal is filed? Is there a file number assigned to it yet?

THE APPEAL IS FILED!!!

It's filed under # C50073

MORE DETAILS AS SOON AS i CAN GET A COPY. I AM TOLD THERE ARE OVER 30 CAUSES LISTED.



[edit on 25-2-2009 by macjafa]

reply to post by macjafa


They will make efforts to keep this out of the media just like they did in 2002 following the unlawful sentence given by the first trial judge. That decision was kept from the public and out of the news media for nearly three yrs. I'm glad you have it posted on your web site, along with the version that contains your commentary. But how did you get it? It cannot be found on any of the websites that post court decisions.

With more than 30 grounds for appeal you can bet they will try to keep it low profile and out of the media spotlight. They don't want to draw any negative media attention towards one of their "lords".

reply to post by John Matrix


I have a source that I have promised I won't reveal. I now have the appeal and am working on way to post it. :bnghd:

there are 32 seperate grounds for appeal. not sure but this may be a record for Canada courts.

I hope there are many here interested in knowing how the Doc was treated.



[edit on 2-3-2009 by macjafa]

Seems like people don't care about freedom of expression unless it's their freedom and their works of expression being attacked. Unfortunately, in DrDon's case, it's all about misplaced anger. Some moron cop had an axe to grind because he was offended, so he attacks DrDon...meanwhile 8 yrs. later the fight is still going on. I gotta give him credit for fighting the freedom robbing bums.

This is all paraphrased and summarized in my own words.


The fair minded Judge failed to quash the indictment pursuant to section 485 of the Criminal Code which deemed the case dismissed for want of prosecution due to the crown's failure to issue a summons within 90 days after the Supreme Court gave it's decision to not grant leave to appeal. (Also violates section 7, 11(b) and section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms).

The fair minded Judge failed to grant re-election in the absence of crown consent pursuant to section 7, 11(d) and section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The fair minded Judge failed to declare DrDon's rights (prior to the trial and during the May 2007 application hearings) had been violated pursuant to 7, 11(b) and section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and he further erred in not ordering a stay of proceedings pursuant to section 24(1) of Charter.

The fair minded Judge failed to declare that section 163(8) of the criminal code, as interpreted by the Court of Appeal in Rv.Smith 2007:

i) is so vague and overly broad that it should be declared of no force and effect section 7 of the Charter and section 52(1) of the Constitution Act.

ii) infringes the right to freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Charter in a manner which is inconsistent with section 1 of the Charter.

iii) infringes the right to life, liberty and security as guaranteed by section 7 of the Charter in a manner which is inconsistent with section 1 of the Charter.

iv) infringes the right to be free of arbitrary arrest as guaranteed by section 9 of the Charter in a manner which is inconsistent with section 1 of the Charter.

v) infringes the right to make full answer and defence as guaranteed by section 7 of the Charter in a manner which is inconsistent with section 1 of the Charter.

The obscenity law is unconstitutionally vague or overly broad and ought to be declared of no force and effect; it infringes the right to freedom of expression; impairs the right to be free from arbitrary arrest; impairs the right to a fair trial; infringes the right to life, liberty and security; as well as impairs and violates the right to make full answer and defence, pursuant to sections 1,2(b), 7,9, 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of rights and Freedoms.

The fair minded judge failed to declare DrDon's Charter rights had been violated under section 7 and 8, and he failed to order the exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of his rights pursuant to section 24(2) of the Charter.

The fair minded judge allowed the Crown to submit into evidence an "agreed statement of facts" that had been entered into at the first trial.

The fair minded judge failed to order that the "agreed statement of facts" (tendered at the first trial) was inadmissible due to it's probative value being outweighed by it's prejudicial effect on DrDon.

The fair minded judge, by Allowing the agreed statement of facts into evidence, violated DrDon's right to a fair trial, right to make full answer and defence, as well as the principles of fundamental justice pursuant to section 7, 11(d) of the Charter.

The fair minded judge erred in allowing the "three stories" from the first trial into evidence.

The prejudicial effect of the "three stories" outweighed it's probative value.

The fair minded judge erred in refusing to rule that the "three stories" are irrelevant and immaterial and therefore inadmissible; in relation to the jury making a just determination as to whether the impugned films and photographs are obscene.

The fair minded judge Allowed the "three stories" into evidence and thereby violated DrDon's right to a fair trial, right to make full answer and defence, as well as the principles of fundamental justice pursuant to section 7, 11(d) of the Charter.

The fair minded judge denied DrDon's application to have the "making" portion of section 163(1)(a) of the Criminal Code declared to be a violation of section 1,2(b), and 7 of the Canadian Charter of rights and Freedoms and he failed to declare the obscenity law to be of no force and effect pursuant to section 52(1) of the Constitution Act.

The fair minded Judge erred in ruling that the Crown's experts were qualified to make a just determination of whether DrDon's materials constitute obscenity.

The fair minded Judge failed to declare the testimony of the Crown experts as inadmissible for reason that it's probative value was outweighed by it's prejudicial effect.

The fair minded Judge failed to declare the testimony of the Crown witnesses(police) was largely immaterial and irrelevant and therefore inadmissible for reason that it's probative value was outweighed by it's prejudicial effect.

The fair minded Judge failed to grant directed verdicts of acquittal. For instance:

i) No evidence for explicit sex for any of the 4 counts.

ii) No evidence submitted by the Crown to prove the date and place of the making of video tapes. Count 1:

iii) No evidence tendered to prove distribution took place in Ontario. Counts 3 and 4.

The fair minded Judge denied the defense request to inform the jury that DrDon could not be found guilty for distribution outside of Ontario.

The fair minded Judge denied the defense request to inform the jury that DrDon could not be found guilty of "making" obscene materials in the absence of any proof that such making was for the distribution within Ontario.

The fair minded Judge made numerous rulings to allow evidence which prejudiced DrDon.

The fair minded Judge failed to grant the defense request that he instruct the jury that a number of the Crown's closing statements were inaccurate, inflamatory and prejudicial to DrDon.

The fair minded Judge failed to prevent Crown counsel from entering the Jury room to set up equipment to assist the jurors in accessing the impugned audio and visual materials for the purpose of their deliberations.

The fair minded Judge erred extensively in his charge to the Jury(details when the factums are filed).

The fair minded Judge failed to rule that the verdicts are unsupported by the evidence and therefore unreasonable.

The fair minded Judge failed to rule that the verdicts do not provide any indication as to which of the impugned materials constitute obscenity.

The fair minded Judge failed to rule that it is a misscarriage of justice DrDon is found guilty of violating a law that had changed in 2005, long after the dates on the indictment.

The fair minded Judge failed to recognize DrDon's rights under section 7, 11(b) of the Charter were violated between the the date of the convictions of May 29, 2008 and the sentencing 8 months later on January 26, 2009.

The fair minded Judge's sentence was harsh and accessive. The sentence violates section 12 of the Criminal Code and section 11(h) and 12 of the Charter.

The fair minded Judge relied on inadmissible evidence, irrelevant factors, and impropper considerations in his reasons for sentence.

The fair minded Judge denied DrDon's application for a Stay of Proceedings at the sentencing hearing.

It is a misscarriage of justice that DrDon stands convicted of obscenity, and sentenced, when it is impossible for anyone to know which of the materials the jury found to have violated the law.

There are numerous other grounds that will appear in the factum which fall under some of the grounds covered above.
As an example: The judge instructred the jury on the legal definition for obscenity as follows;

"Even where there are no sexual acts, the materials can still depict explicit sex"

An oxymoron. A more confusing instruction than the first trial judge's instruction which the court of appeal declared was improper and resulted in over turned convictions and a new trial being ordered.

IMHO this judge did EVERYTHING he could to screw over Dr. Don


[edit on 10-3-2009 by macjafa]