Canada censors television viewing of its citizens


mdoneil writes "Yesterday there were several stories in the news about Canada premitting Al-Jazeera satellite signals to be recieved and rebroadcast in Canada. The official announcement from CRTC notes that Al-Jazeera must be recorded and steps taken to keep it free from abusive content.

I always wondered why the History Channel commercials said not available in Canada. It seems odd to me that one must apply to the government to broadcast via satellite, which is of course inherently international in scope, a service for which people are willing to pay.

I could get Al-Jazeera here, I frequent a Persian restaurant that has it as part of its Arab language package - although they seldom watch it.

I'm glad I live in a country where I can decide what I want to watch. The articles yesterday were discussing the apparent hipocrisy of Canada's censorship of Fox News, broadcast from the freest nation on earth and their recent approval of Al-jazeera broadcast from Qatar a traditional monarchy that got a new Amir in 1995 in a coup when the then Amir was ousted by his father. The Qatari legal system is based on Islamic law, not in the hit parade of free societies.

Why do Canadians tolerate this censorship when the Canadians on this forum get upset when someone wants to remove King and King from a library?"


Took me about 3 seconds to find the status of Fox News in Canada: 004-45.htm

Note that the Canadaians approved a station called Fox News Canada (blending the US Fox News with specific Canadian news) back in 2000 (search the crtc site for "Fox").

But I suppose it's easier just to claim that the Canadians are "censoring" news from the "freest country on earth" (one wonders if those making that statement have ever travelled to any other country, because believe me, the US isn't the freest).

Hypocrite is an interesting word. It is Greek, and it refers to an actor. Thus, an actor in a theatre pretends to be something that he/she is not. To the Hebrews, theatre and Greek acting were alien, and it is a strong part of the Christian tradition to disparage it.
Surprisingly, this is not common in other cultures. In arguing with a Moselm one time, I was surprised to hear him admit that he wanted others to think him better than he was. What was wrong with that?
The charge of the sin of hypocrisy (or any way you spell it- actually, spelling it with a "K" is not un-Greek) is a Christian premise that is so ingrained in our culture that it is accepted as a norm without question as being bad. Actually, like any premise, it should be re-considered to prevent irony. Women who discuss punishment for young men who resist being drafted for Iraq and men who discuss punishing women for having abortions are discussing things that affect themselves only indirectly, and are thus open to charges of hypocrisy. And the charge may be true. Whether this charge is bad or good depends upon your examination of the premises.
Not all actors are bad. Nor is all acting good. Some people apply moral restrictions on others, that don't really apply to them, so the restrictions are easy to assert. After all, as Mark Twain said, no one needs reforming so much as other people!

Calling all comments a "lively discussion" is like calling Limbaugh a little right of center. Much of the political discussion here is, sadly, no better than what I could read anywhere else.

No one is forcing anyone to read it, you're right, but maybe that's not the best attitude to have. Many people think LISNews has degraded, and it's because of all the political crap. A few people seem to be able to discuss politics coherently, but a few more can't seem to figure out how to be civil.

No one filters you out because they don't like what you have to say, they do it because they don't like how you say it. I'd be willing to be most everyone reads ChuckB, and he often says the same things you do, but he does it is such a way as to invite discussion.
Your rhetoric and style are old and tired.

No, everything need not be related libraries, but it need not all be you trying to convince everyone that liberals are diseased godless vermin and conservatives, on a mission from god, are the only hope our country has to survive. I'm just using hyperbole to make a point here.

Being offensive, belligerent and simple minded works well to build an audience on TV and radio, but it does little to educate, instruct and build any sort of dialog.

The echo chamber than bounces around talk radio doesn't need to bounce all the way here. It is possible to do better and still get the same point across.

I do remember when this board had the potential to be something, anything other than a partisan shit-flinging contest, that was awesome, but it was also boring, because it was just me and I don't have much to say. Diverse opinion and discussion need not be controlled by anger.

walk away from hate, become a conservative culture dropout

HTML really needs an ironic tag (or is it facetious) for such statements. I'm not sure how such text would be displayed though, maybe backwards?

I thought it was going to be something too. Library and informaton science news and current events too. I don't mind arguments either. But it just gets into namecalling and crap. I check here just a couple of times a week.

Don't let it get to you Kim. Some of them are just bullies.

Geewilikers...I sure did seem to strike a nerve, didn't I? Well...I don't like political censorship. Plain and simple. That means everyone gets to express their opinion. Sure hope that illuminates things for you, but it'll be hard to tell. Yep, I usually find your opinions, etc. "interesting" and sometime downright hilarious. I think you're taking things waaay to seriously! And I think you and I have a lot more in common than you may realize. (Though I'm a lapsed Lutheran!)

exKuse me. I stand Korrected.

It is more correctly Khristian Khurch and romantic Komedies.

Apparently today is my day to be a snot.

This thread (and the Moore movie giveaway thread) have really devolved. See what happens when I sit home during the day.

marriage is for creating children not amusing adults

You weren't kidding about being a papist, by golly! My anthropology studies gave me a different view of marriage. You're right on the "not amusing adults" part. Children, to be crude, however, are a by-product of marriage. Marriage has more to do with creating alliances, reciprocity, building goat herds, and strengthening social bonds than anything. Here's reportage about statements from the American Anthropological Association from the San Francisco> and the Boston>. Marriage, as we in western Kountries know it, (thanks to the Christian church and romantic comedies), is an evolved version of it. Even in other modern, technological cultures, marriage has everything to do with social status and reciprocity. Will be happy to point you in the direction of any authoritative sources.

The simple beauty of the Web we can access (as opposed to the Chinese who truly are censored) is that we are free to be jerks. Of course that freedom also allows- even encourages- others to let us know they think we are jerks.

I think my comments are well though out and equal in tone and temperment to those to which I am responding. It is apparent that many others don't share my opinion. Perhaps my rhetoric is old and tired, although I certainly don't agree with that. However it has seemed to turn some people off from LISNews, an unintended consequence. As I feel that LISNews and its forum for discussion and debate serve a greater purpose than to display my political commentary I shall endevor to limit my political ravings to my own website.

Let the tempered political debate about things library related begin!

walk away from hate, become a conservative culture dropout


Blake, let's be specific for the sake of this discussion. A few folks here lament the vitriol of LISNews, yet somehow can't resist the urge to participate while holding themselves above the fray. Sorry, but I find this a bit hypocritical (“c� for you Kim) though certainly not a new phenomenon here at LISNews. FWIW, I personally find Kim, Willpie and Fang’s submissions just as “shitty� (whatever this means) as mine, yours and mdoneil’s. Would you agree?

I’ve always appreciated LISNews for its freedom. Little in the way of snitty rules for framing debate. That judgement has always been left to the submitter and the reader, should they decide to participate. As it should be.

Kim is also correct that this boy, tomeboy, doesn’t always play nice with Fang. But I wouldn’t want Fang to change his style for the sake of those who find his hyperbole offensive. That’s his prerogative as it is also Kim’ prerogative to read Fang’s or tomeboy’s rebuttals. In fact, if truth be known, Willpie, Kim, et al will continue to read this “shit flinging�. LISNews "rubberneckers" for lack of a better term.

But here’s the rub Blake. One person’s “shit� is another’s means of expression. For the sake of this discussion about Canada (again with a “C� for Kim), I personally find no “shit� anywhere. I do read strong opinions, which obviously create interest among other LISNewzies. As I look at this story this morning I see 30 comments, while those scintillating and somehow topically superior stories such as "robots getting bookish" and "open access issues in the UK" have zilch (where are you Kim and Willpie?).

If we want a milk-toast site as Willpie seems to indicate, but I doubt really wants, then we will need rules. Rules that Blake I doubt cares to make or enforce. Common sense tells us that submissions with little value will be ignored and therefore implicitly discouraged. Again as it should be. But if some on this board care to criticize some “boys� political roughhousing then perhaps they would do well to leave their jackets on and move on.

"unlike you I do not make excuses for my government's censorship"

And just what country would that be? I have yet to recognize any place or institutions or governments you write about.

I promise this is my absolute LAST comment on this topic I'm glad we've cleared the air! Just so you (Tomeboy, FangFace, some Irish guy in sunny Florida): I do like reading your comments, articles posted, and journals. I don't agree some (or even most!) of the time. Sometimes I like to get out my flamethrower.;)
Cim (the French spelling of Kim!) Hmmm. Cimberly. That looks weird. Oh, well!

Get that double cheeseburger and keep posting! It may not be "good" for you, but it'll be fun. (Besides, I enjoy what you write even though I might disagree with it. It brings excitement to my dull, mundane life!)

I am so sorry that I teased you (Tomeboy) and your friend Fang about spelling things with a "K".


Don't be. Kim, I'm a firm believer in personal responsibility; you are not to blame for my -- or anyone else's -- reactions to your postings. The choice to reply or not is mine, and the method by which I reply is also mine. How I react to something I read here is my responsibility and mine alone. Problems arise when someone thin-skinned does not understand this principle and blames you for their reaction to what you wrote.

I endevor to have a healthy lunch but that didn't stop me from getting the double cheeseburger for lunch. I try ya know.

I guess I'm not sure what we're talking about, I thought it was comments, but maybe it's submissions? In submissions, Fang & you tend to be, I won't say shitty, but partisan perhaps. I can't recall any from Kim or Willpie off the top O' my head.

Yes, Fang is offensive sometimes.

I suppose one person’s "shit" is another's means of expression, again, it's not what people are saying it's how it's said.

I'm always suprised that good, usefull, informative stories are often the least read. Things like Robots and Open Access are just not hot buttons for discussion I guess. Though I hope they are well read and used. They don't attract much attention, so if we were an ad dirven site I'd be avoiding them, and it is those kinds of stories that I think are most important. Where the hell was I going with this?

Rules, yeah, I'm not much intersted in that, I just hope for more civility.

I shall endevor to limit my political ravings to my own website.
I strongly suggest you reconsider this decision Matthew.

Kim - no need to apologize.

Tease away because I don't plan to change whatever style others deem I have.

This is still a free board and many of us, contrary to popular opinion, have thick skin (as well as a sense of humor).

This tome"boy" is not easily offended and invites any and all comments. Just like my old tennis days in college, I like a good scrap but understand when the match is over. Make sense?

So let it fly Cim uh I mean Kim ; )

I am so sorry that I teased you (Tomeboy) and your friend Fang about spelling things with a "K". If only I'd known what a snit it would cause. I'm also really sorry you think my posts are "shitty". I absolutely, positively, cross-my-heart promise to try not to make "shitty" posts again. As for "roughhousing", I can't help but notice that some who lament the lack of "civility" are pretty quick to start slinging away. Just an observation and not directed to anyone personally, ok?:) And I won't tease you about using the letter "K" ever again. (I like it, my name starts with it!)

Fair enough, Tomeboy. There is indeed no gun to my head. Please return to your regularly scheduled smug quipping. Nothing to see here.

Hey, maybe for a change of pace, you and Greg could gang up on anyone who asserts anything remotely liberal and keep shouting until they give up responding, then imagine that makes them wrong about anything they've ever thought. I mean, surely all the earnest conversation around here is growing tiresome.

Or, maybe you and Fang-Face could each deliberately misspell the name of the other's home country! And maybe you could to it, like, every day! That would be a riot. I bet you'll really get through to each other that way.

Well, since you felt it necessary to capitalize the word any when you referred to censorship I made the error of thinking you meant what you wrote.

If you could please clarify for use what portions of your comments should we believe and what portions are utter nonsense. No wait, no need to do that. From reading your comments I have figured it out.

Condescending posts are really of little value. The ability to effectively articulate your opinions is a key attribute of well-reasoned discussion. Ad hominem attacks as I have said before many times do little to advance your cause. So rather than casting aspersions about my needs perchance you should utilize the proofreading skills you learned in library school (or elsewhere if you are not a librarian) to be certain what you wrote is indeed what you want to say.

I have no need to impress anyone. I post here because I enjoy reasoned dialogue and debate. Fang and I have had similar discussions before and I feel confident in saying that while he and I disagree we respect one another's convictions.

Judging from your posts, the first in which you call someone an idiot, and your recent posts in which you insist on correcting others spelling it seems that you are the one that wants to start some type of flame war. That is not the purpose of LISNews. Reasoned, if sometimes heated, discussion related in some way to libraries or issues that affect libraries is what I believe to be the purpose of LISNews.

I think that my commentary is topical and illuminating. I choose my words carefully, and I endeavor to make myself understood. I think if you ask even those who disagree with me they will tell you they find my commentary interesting. I have of late grown quite weary of people who find the need to be condescending and some of my replies to them were less than deferential, this post included. Perhaps your comments were intended in jest, as I note some of them have emoticons, however the comments themselves outweigh the suggested emotion.

I read what you wrote and took it, and the emphasized words, at their plain meaning. If you wish me to do otherwise please find someway to express yourself that we can all understand.

As always I welcome reasoned debate, but frankly I fail to see any from you. The best discussions I have had are with those with whom I disagree. These members of LISNews manage to articulate their convictions without stooping to personal attacks, innuendo or specious argument. Granted from time to time we may all stretch the bounds of propriety, but all in all those most interesting, and to use your term, those that impress me most, are those who demonstrate that they have considered their writings and made a visible effort to state their position.

Respectfully, direct your question to Fang Face.

You're reaching here Fang. Whining, or should I say, sniveling about mean ole Mr. Murdoch while soft-shoeing around Kanada's codified censorship.

Your example in fact supports my contention. I suppose your country's laws could be used to ban Fox News from being aired.

Now this wouldn't be the reason for your tacit support of the legislation, would it?

This administration is far from Fascist.

As far as I know there is not a move to amend the Constitution to prevent homosexuality. Maybe I'm missing something, but the government does not regulate what people do in their sex lives. Oh, you mean the same sex marriage idea, well marriage is for creating children not amusing adults so with activist judges pretending to create law when they are there solely to interpret laws we really need to clarify things for them. Making it illegal for two persons of the same gender to get married (or for that matter making it legal for two persons of the same gender to marry) would solve the dilemma those judges have and allow them to go back to their role as arbiters, not originators, of law.

I think I have said before that I think a law to criminalize flag burning is unneeded. If it is your flag feel free to burn it. If it is not your flag you have stolen it and that is already a crime. I think it is a silly way to make a political statement, but some people want to relive the 60's so feel free.

I did ask what was wrong with Canadian censorship, or at least I thought I did:Why do Canadians tolerate this censorship when the Canadians on this forum get upset when someone wants to remove King and King from a library?"
I really don't know what you mean about the US free press letting me see the Iraqi genocide. I have seen the mass graves, the hundreds of thousands of people murdured, the stories of torture at the hands of Saddam, his sons, and their minions. The gassing of the Iraqi Kurds, the torture and rape of Saddam's political opponents are all too well known. What a relief it must be to be free from Saddam for the average Iraqi. Oh, you think the US is genocidal, well I could get that opinion from Al-jazeera as we have been able to see that in the States for quite some time now on Dish TV. I however don't believe much of what the Arab world has to say about the US, call me biased if you will but I think removing Hussein from power was doing Iraq, and the world a service.

You have heard of the anti-homosexual and flag burning amendments

Help me here Fang. Last time I checked there were still 27 amendments to our constitution. Perhaps you would care to rephrase your fallacious statment here?

Now suppose we talk about that knee-jerk reactionary Hate Speech legislation in Kanada that has already become law? Or does your passion for free speech stop at Bushies border?

What do we need American proganda and misinformation for? We get plenty enough from our elected parasites, we don't need to import yours. As the idea that the U.S. is the free-est country on Earth, is laughable. Criticize President Moron in public and you can kiss goodby to any endorsement deals you have or be summarily thrown out of the property where you are giving a show (Danny Glover, Whoopi Goldberg, Linda Ronstadt).

As for freedom of speech and of the press, those mean that you get all the information you need to make up your own mind. Fox "News" does not support that principle.

2004, July 18: Report on challenge to Fair and Balanced trademark

By Fox News. On this day, Don Hazen, Executive Editor of AlterNet, announced a law suit against Fox News that had been filed on 23 Dec 2003. The Independent Media Institute, the parent organization of AlterNet, had filed a legal challenge with the U.S. Trademark Office seeking to strip Fox of its trademark registration on the grounds the trademark was "merely descriptive" (making it ineligible) as well as "false and misleading". The challenge was filed just hours before the clock
was scheduled to run out on the "contestability period". This is the legally mandated 5-year window during which a trademark registration can be challenged. Under U.S. law, after this period lapses the right to use a trademark becomes "incontestable" and virtually invulnerable, with the trademark holder entitled to prevent anyone else from using it, under penalty of prosecution, virtually forever. Regardless of whether the trademark was legitimately registered or not.

Alternet also announced that it was joining in launching an international campaign to confront Fox News in its blatant efforts to use the airwaves for political gain and to promote conservative politics. Wes Boyd of, in announcing this movement, said, "People are steamed about the media. People get it. Washington has never seen the kind of outrage that they heard last year from citizens around the country about media consolidation. And Fox News, as Robert [Greenwald] has
shown in this film [Outfoxed], is Enemy #1 in the undermining of democracy -- they're partisan, they're bullies, they lie, they'll do anything for a buck, they don't even know what journalism is, and then they claim to be 'Fair and Balanced.' So we're going after Fox. This is just the beginning of a campaign to rebrand Fox "Unfair and Unbalanced," so that people know what they're watching. This campaign is a warning to any other media outlets, if they're thinking that the Fox model is
something to copy. It isn't. Try journalism instead. Try serving the public interest."

Don Hazen wrote in his announcement:

Certainly Fox viewers could not fail to benefit from taking a more skeptical view of the trustworthiness of their favorite news channel, since a recent study by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy [PIPA] found that Fox News viewers were far more likely to have significant misconceptions about important news facts than viewers of any other TV news channel. In our challenge to Fox, one may wonder why it was left solely to
our relatively small web magazine to pick up the trampled banner of journalistic integrity and carry it -- right to the very gates of the mighty Murdoch media empire. Where, one might ask, were Murdoch's prestigious and presumably more honorable media rivals -- CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post -- who pride themselves on upholding the highest standards of truth and fairness, and look down their noses at Fox for its cynical pursuit of sleaze and sensationalism? We
sincerely hope that all manner of media organizations and leading journalists and public figures will join the confrontation of Fox, because Fox News taints all of corporate media in its role as propagandist, reducing the public's confidence that it is getting anything remotely truthful -- or fair and balanced.


We have no problem with Fox News being an unashamed spokesperson for the GOP, or even an outlet for conservative propaganda, in what is after all a free marketplace of ideas. But when Fox is allowed to frame its distorted, ideological point of view as "fair and balanced," we're all in trouble. What they're really saying is that anyone who disagrees with or challenges the conservative line is biased or a flat out liar -- or just plain wrong. That kind of dangerous reasoning has to be
challenged, whether it's coming from the White House or Bill O'Reilly.

This "Konsider" and "Kanada" it just misspelling or no "C" on the keyboard or some Teutonic linguistic ancestry thing attempt at being "klever"? I'm just "kurious"!;)
Kimberly (Yep, I know...with a "K"!)

This is an amusing statement coming out of a neo-fascist regime that is trying to write hatred and censorship into its constitution. You have heard of the anti-homosexual and flag burning amendments, haven't you? Then too, how about your so-called free press denying you the right to see the reality of the Iraq genocide?

You know, if you asked us, we'd be just as happy to tell what is wrong with Canadian censorship as we are to tell you what is wrong with Amerikan censorship. But you never ask. You just posture sanctimoniously as if your kind of censorship is all right, and everybody else's is all wrong.

I think it means that you have to get permission from the government to recieve certain satellite signals. If you have to get permission from the government to watch something, or if a broadcaster has to get permission to rebroadcast an existing signal that is censorship.

Of course sharing the bandwidth is a reasonable function of government, the FCC does not regulate content through prior restraint. You can imagine it as something benign if you want, but the Canadian government is telling you what you can watch. (unless you live near the border like almost all other Canadians and can get US broadcast stations.)

Comparing Canadian censorship to Cuban censorship really does not strengthen your argument.

This isn't so much censorship as red tape. You have to get permission from the government to broadcast certain signals. In the United States, the FCC is pretty much built around this rule. Not that the US respects other countries' similar> or anything...

I'll do that since I see (you're right) he likes to use "K" a lot too! I also see you two don't play well together!;) To be honest I really don't see all that much difference between you two. Jealousy? Sibling rivalry? Unrequited love? Only time will tell!
Meanwhile I'm against ANY censorship.:)

Hey, remember when this board had the potential to be something, anything other than a partisan shit-flinging contest?

That was awesome.

Hi, Kim.

Welcome to the fray.

NO, I don't think anyone should show pornography to six year olds.

Ask some of the censorship advocates to define "pornography" some time; they won't. Actually, they can't. Here's a couple of things that are "pornographic".

Breast-feeding considered Pornography in> A woman was arrested and basically charged for sexual molestation for a photograph of her breast-feeding her one year old.

Where's Waldo. In the book with real world scenes, on the page with the beach, on the right hand leaf, upper right corner is a woman sunbathing with her bikini top untied. One breast and nipple is shown in profile. The book was challenged as pornographic.

Here's a list of over 1,400> many of which have pretty much been challeged for being pornographic, although the challenge is often couched as "age inappropriate".

Aside from that, ask them to define "child". Most censorship advocates equate a young adult of 17 years 364 days in age with two year olds, and completely ignore the fact that some of those young adults seek out sexuality-based materials (some of which is bona fide pornography) of their own free will and volition.

Oh, yeah. And much of what they call "porn" is really just information about sex and sexuality.

Oh, rest assured, tomeboy, that if I had the power I'd line all of our censor morons up against a wall right next to yours and plunk you down in the middle. Another lesson you have yet to learn is: unlike you I do not make excuses for my government's censorship. I don't pretend it's something we need for homeland security, or whatever the flavour of the week is.

And by the way, tomeboy, why are you lot complaining about Canadian censorship? You and nbruce are supposed to be in favour of censorship. I would think you should be rejoicing that your system works.

No! Please! Don't be apolitical! Your reading public demands your wit and wisdom! Really! All six of us have agreed on this!

I didn't think any of this was "partisan" at all! You boys are really all on the same page, run around looking for just about anything to fight about then try to impress the rest of us! It's hilarious! As for the "potential" Willpie's writing about, I'll just lower my expecations & make 'em a little more realistic!

I try to post and respond to many different things all tangentially related to libraries. I think that censorship of the airwaves to be related.

I'm sorry you don't like the lively discussion, and in fact you're right about some of it being little more than rhetoric, but really no one is forcing you to read it.

I've posted articles about Google, a Mayor taking over a library, little known google>, my city being sued because it fired a HIV+ librarian, bugs eating books, and free Air Force band CD's for libraries, as well as many other things. I don't think LISNews has degraded at all. I know this sounds presumptuous but really, you don't have to read everything. Heck you can even filter individuals out; I know people have filtered me out because they don't like what I have to say. I think that's wonderful why read things you feel will waste your time.

However to add balance I will endeavor to make my next 5 submissions apolitical and completely library related. Lets see how I do.

No. I can see I should've been a LOT more clear. I was talking bout POLITICAL censorship. I suspect you knew that too, but had that need to impress the other boys, huh? If not, then I'll explain a little further: NO, I don't think anyone should show pornography to six year olds. It's a matter of morals and common decency. I hope that's not too much to ask.

I checked Glover, Goldberg and Ronstadt (sounds like a law firm) were not paid by the government to give concerts, or opine politically. If the private sector wants to withdraw their support for these people it seems like it is an exercise of their free speech not to financially support people with whom they disagree - or even with people they would rather have do their job as opposed to handing out opinions.

As for criticizing the president, I have criticized every president since I could talk. I criticized Nixon for not staying off TV so I could watch kiddie shows. I have criticized the current administration, of course not as much as the last, but I don't agree with anyone about everything.

I'm not certain why you seem to think all Americans that are not registered Democrats are glued to Fox News. I did not read everything that you pasted, as I am familiar with the issues. However you failed to mention that's recent Federal Trade Commission complaint was> because it was not within the purview of the FTC. These are not legitimate use of the government's time but simply grandstanding maneuvers by groups that don't like Fox's content.

Please be realistic here if the New York Times can use "All the news that's fit to print." when they acknowledge that their reporters make things up, then Fox can certainly use "Fair and Balanced". I find that Fox is indeed fair and balanced.

I do occasionally watch Fox, but I watch so little television it really is of no consequence. I do read the local newspapers, the Irish newspapers; I check a newspaper from Madrid where I went for an undergraduate program. I read the diocesan newspaper, American Libraries from ALA, American Rifleman from the NRA. I visit a few times a month the Christian Science Monitor and I read at least weekly the Wall Street Journal and a bit more frequently the Financial Times. I check in with the International Herald Tribune probably weekly as well.

So contrary to your posting all conservatives are not glued to Fox all the time. However I can watch Fox if I wish (along with all of the left leaning channels such as CNN and MSNBC), unlike my Canadian friends who can't watch Fox.

Let me know if you want me to tape anything for you. Or is mailing it to Canada a crime up there?

Really, can I show porn to six year olds?

Willpie, does that contraption that forces you to read and respond to partisan shit-flinging really hurt as bad as I have heard?

Konsider Kanada's draconian hate speech>, the one that will most likely designate the Bible as hate>, as another example. Having broached this subject before, it is quickly dismissed in favor of the sexier opportunity to bash knee-jerk reactionary Amerikans and their Attorney General.