Horben said:
The focus on freedom of speech in America always confused me. Canada drew its constitution much later than American, and our politicians qualified the freedom of speech as being preserved, so long as its use, does not significantly restrict the rights and freedoms of the overall population.
For example, a Nazi subculture in Toronto decided it wanted to march down Queen Street some years ago. The police caught word of it and broke up the march under the premise that, freedom of speech or not, nobody needs nazism in their community. That restricting this use of free speech does not significantly impede the rights and freedoms of Canadians at large. So long as restrictions are applied responsibly (which I personally agree that they were in this case) there will be no real problems.
I only quote this as an analogy, not to compare video gaming to nazism. But, maybe there are some parts of the gaming products that should be examined, and that we should say, 'dude, seriously, that's wrong.' With its authority and scope of operations, so long as you can find good ministers maybe the courts are the best medium available for that.
"Does not significantly impede the rights and freedoms of Canadians at large." This is what I, and the writers of the US constitution, have a problem with. This is skirting on tyranny of the majority. Because the "average" viewpoint does not support something, should it be outlawed for everyone? "Canadians at large" may not have felt marginalized or threatened by the police's actions in that case, but you can bet the guys who got told they weren't allowed to express themselves freely did. Even if the only thing being censored nowadays are fringe Nazi groups, the concern is that, if these guys can be silenced, there is potential for the expansion of these powers. Where do you draw the line? It's completely arbitrary, and thus it's dangerous to use this as law, which is supposed to be precise. Canada has experienced more than one sticky court case over their limitation clause, and it's just going to keep happening so long as they keep that vagueness in there. If Nazis are being censored now, what's to keep some other group that is very similar to Nazis, but not quite, from being censored? And then a group just a little different from them, and one a little different from them, etcetera etcetera until you've moved down the line to, I don't know, anything, really. That's the problem with vague definitions and arbitrary limitations in law - it leaves the door open for things to get out of hand.
The US constitution attempts to protect the freedoms of everyone with regards to speech regardless of their extreme views, up until the extent that their speech infringes upon other another person's rights. Restrictions such as "shouting fire" are in place only because they carry potential for causing immediate physical harm to other people. The one obvious exception to this general rule is the obscenity clause, which traditionally only relates to sexual material, and which is what California is currently trying to incorporate into its attempt to control the distribution of violent games.
EDIT:
And please don't get me wrong - I don't think anyone should be censored, even fringe Nazi groups. I don't care if the average person doesn't want them out expressing their views in their community. "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." To prefer censorship to confronting bad ideas and dealing with them in the light of day is just cowardly, and can't lead anywhere good. If people want to preach hate and ignorance, let them, and then go out and preach the opposite. If you dislike what they have to say, do something about it yourself, don't rely on the government creating a special exception to human rights so that people don't have to confront something like this. Imagine if they treated other issues the same way! No, having a clear, defined, and most importantly, UNIVERSALLY applied rule of law is vital, especially when it comes to guaranteed freedoms.
