To the Moderator that warned me:
All I am doing is answering this OP's posts here. I hope that is ok. I assume it is since you left his comments here. So now I will give a rebuttal
if you don't mind.
Originally posted by onetofollow
True, the line moves back and forth on where the censorship lines will be drawn, and most communities must adapt their censorship to the current
standards set by the community members.
This is a simplistic, yet similar way to how our actual society works.
The boundries for our society are set by the members of the community.
The lines don't move back and forth. The line was drawn in 1992. Laws are usually changed by an act of parliament. The Crown in this case is using
the courts to redefine the law, not simply refine or have it clarified, and that is improper. Also, It's the standard of the Canadian community as a
whole, not one isolated communities standard. That's the law. The problem all started with a conflict of interest between the cops moral law from his
church and the moral law of Canada. The cop testified that the exposure of a female breast was in his mind sex. Sound like a fair assessment to you?
Sound like grounds to file obscenity charges?
In the Canadian film censorship case, society spoke. The work was deemed to be obscene in the CONTEXT that it was marketed.
In the first trial the judge deliberately misled the jury. If you would read the report regarding the second trial you would see that the jury was
misled again, and in a more blatantly obvious manner. You would also see that the judge railroaded the whole case, because the Criminal Code deemed
the case dismissed as of May 25, 2006, and there should not have been a second trial. You would also know the judge over-ruled the Charter, rules of
evidence established hundreds of years ago, as well as rules of the court. The notice of appeal and grounds for appeal will be filed and reported on
soon. The number of grounds could well be a record in Canada. You were not at either trial, so you should be more objective and study the case
materials before saying all these things. An opinion not based on facts is based on conjecture and extreme bias.
Some may feel that it was the wrong decision and that is their right in our free society. Others feel that this was the line, that we as a society
were not ready to cross.
No, a misdirected jury convicted. When you say "we as a society were not ready to cross" you are including a lot of people that do not agree.
The lines were drawn in the 1970's and again in 1992, and Smith did not cross the line. In the Crown's closing argument the jury was told "this is
your opportunity to draw a new line for the rest of Canada." This was an improper suggestion to the jury. The judge was asked to address the jury and
intsruct them that drawing a new line is not their job and they are not to see their roles as one of censorship, but the judge refused to do it. This
is another ground for appeal. That a jury in a small community was duped the first time should be of more concern to you. That it was done for a
second time, and more openly, should tell you something.
The idea of accepting a film with no plot, no concept, just gratuitous violence against women is not acceptable in Canada. At least not when packaged
as snuff or necro. Not all Canadians feel like the decision was a wrong one. The films and meta tags fit the Canadian definition of obscene in our
current society. It's about context, as well as content. That is what caused the censorship.
Many films have very weak plots. Many story lines are so over done that it's not even worthy of consideration. Story lines are often used as a set up
for the money shots. In Smith's case the money shots are the special effects. He did effects like you see in the Matrix movies, but he did them
before they did, and he did them very well, and on a very low budget. This is exaclty what Dr.Barry Grant said in his testimony at Smith's first
trial. The short scenes were setups to show case his special effects to other movie producers in the B Movie Internet community. They were also
auditions in which the actors(women) had some input as to what the short skit would involve, and they were paid for their auditions. So what if he
tried to make some money from these audition scenes? The women signed model releases and were paid.
Oh, They were not packaged as necro. I believe the words fantasy snuff were used in hidden Meta Tags, however that was to sensationalize and it
wasn't actually snuff.
The movie 8mm cashed in on the whole snuff theme in a more disturbing way. Many of Quentin Tarantino's movies contain more extreme elements. Same
with Andy Warhol's Flesh for Frankenstein which was made in 1973 and available in Canada(with necro sex contained in it). David Cronenberg eroticized
hardcore sex and violence in the 1996 movie Crash(see the R rated version). Tool Box Murders, New York Ripper, Bais moi, and I can name a hundred more
that are more graphic, sexual, violent and disturbing than Smith's.
Met Tags cannot be obscene in Canada unless they "advocate and counsel" child pornography. The sex has to be in the materials, not merely in the
mind of the viewer.
The case had a fair shot with more than one judge more than one location, more than one court and more than one brilliant legal mind defending the
plaintiff against the charges and they could not make their case. The case was well and prominently documented in the Canadian press for all to
You are assuming an awful lot here. It was not fair the first time around, not fair the second time around, not tried in two different locations, was
not well documented in the Canadian press, and it's being appealed again.
You were not there. There was never a fair shot. These brilliant lawyers you refer to agree that there was no fair shot. Smith's present lawyer has
two law degrees, a masters degree in criminology, a psychology degree, and an English degree(5 degrees). Does a jury know and understand the law
better than they do? As a friend of Smith and macjafa, I have studied and researched this case for 8 years and I can tell you without hesitation that
I know more about the obscenity law than 90 pecent of the lawyers in Canada. The jury never read one line of an obscenity case....not one. Neither did
the judge by the sounds of it. I sincerely doubt you have spent more than 30 minutes researching the obscenity law, and no time researching the court
documents posted on macjafa's site regarding the Smith case.
There was no public outcry as there has been in other censorship cases in Canada for this case to be dismissed.
Public outcry is not how cases get dismissed.
Perhaps it is all in the timing. Society will accept or reject different moral lines as the mood of society itself swings left and right. In order to
change the censorship of this particular product the members of the community must first accept the ideas they are trying to sell. Until then, guilty
Your not alone in your opinion, I'll give you that. But the law cannot be as capricious as what you just stated. There is an objective standard to
the law. An objective standard is exactly what the Supreme Court said was needed and it is what they gave society and law enforcement in the Butler
decision in 1992. Explicit sex must be in the materials, that's the standard. The materials in Smith's case are films and photographs, that is what
the charges are based on, not meta tags.
The Court of Appeal stated that nudity, graphic nudity, and sexualized nudity was not enough. But the second trial judge didn't tell the jury that in
his instructions. So it was a railroad job.
To advocate convicting someone just because you don't like what they created is not right.
[edit on 23/2/09 by John Matrix]