|
Ok, I realize that the flame war has already been started, and that this will probably just add fuel to the fire. But I feel that this book should be allowed to stay on the shelves
I don't believe that supporting pedophiles is a good thing, I don't believe being a pedophile is good. I do, however, believe in freedom of speech. We're one of the only countries in the world where you can say whatever the hell you want to in front of whoever the hell you want to.
U.S. Supreme Court
COHEN v. CALIFORNIA, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)
403 U.S. 15
COHEN v. CALIFORNIA
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
No. 299.
Argued February 22, 1971
Decided June 7, 1971
Look that up if you believe in freedom of speech. One of my favorite Supreme Court rulings ever.
|
On November 12 2010 04:20 King K. Rool wrote:
My argument, or stance, is that we shouldn't judge those who have urges (in this case, pedophilia), but we should judge the actual act of pedophilia (stuff like stalking, taking pictures, child pornography, etc), the actual act is what's wrong, not the urge. Hence, hate the crime, not the fetish.
Right, I guess we should allow crazy people to carry guns as well? After all they may not kill anyone, but I'm guessing you wouldn't want to walk down the same street as such a person.
|
On November 12 2010 04:36 stre1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 04:20 King K. Rool wrote:
My argument, or stance, is that we shouldn't judge those who have urges (in this case, pedophilia), but we should judge the actual act of pedophilia (stuff like stalking, taking pictures, child pornography, etc), the actual act is what's wrong, not the urge. Hence, hate the crime, not the fetish. Right, I guess we should allow crazy people to carry guns as well? After all they may not kill anyone, but I'm guessing you wouldn't want to walk down the same street as such a person.
People suppress urges all the time because they know their actions will harm others. Not all paedophiles are immoral freaks who will always act on their urges. If you want to prove me otherwise go ahead.
|
On November 12 2010 04:42 Wohmfg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 04:36 stre1 wrote:On November 12 2010 04:20 King K. Rool wrote:
My argument, or stance, is that we shouldn't judge those who have urges (in this case, pedophilia), but we should judge the actual act of pedophilia (stuff like stalking, taking pictures, child pornography, etc), the actual act is what's wrong, not the urge. Hence, hate the crime, not the fetish. Right, I guess we should allow crazy people to carry guns as well? After all they may not kill anyone, but I'm guessing you wouldn't want to walk down the same street as such a person. People suppress urges all the time because they know their actions will harm others. Not all paedophiles are immoral freaks who will always act on their urges. If you want to prove me otherwise go ahead.
Even if that is so, the same could be said about the mad guy with the gun. Want to have anything to do with this person? Want him to roam the streets? It's not rocket science, as long as you have such urges you will be constantly be a potential threat to others.
|
On November 12 2010 04:36 stre1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 04:20 King K. Rool wrote:
My argument, or stance, is that we shouldn't judge those who have urges (in this case, pedophilia), but we should judge the actual act of pedophilia (stuff like stalking, taking pictures, child pornography, etc), the actual act is what's wrong, not the urge. Hence, hate the crime, not the fetish. Right, I guess we should allow crazy people to carry guns as well? After all they may not kill anyone, but I'm guessing you wouldn't want to walk down the same street as such a person.
Are you fucking serious? This is such a bad comparison.
First of all, crazy does not imply homicidal.
Secondly, your comparison might work better if I was arguing that people with known pedophilia should be allowed to adopt kids or something, which is a completely different argument.
Thirdly, we do lock up those with mental problems that are strong enough that they're a danger to themselves or others around them, just like we lock up pedophiles who are a danger to our kids.
Lastly, pedophilia and "crazy" (which I'm assuming you mean lunatics or people stricken with insanity) are at different levels. Pedophiles, other than their urge, are like other people. Insanity is completely different, and their perception of the world is completely different.
So how is your point relevant at all?
|
On November 12 2010 04:06 stre1 wrote:
Wait, are you comparing this book with the game Manhunt? Because while I feel that game passes the limit and don't disagree with it being banned in many countries, where they differ is in that (a) Manhunt is not a manual (b) in this game you don't kill innocent people (afaik).
Basically, if you're equating murder and rape (of children none the less), then I don't know what say, as murder can be everything from evil to perfectly understandable (e.g. US government does it everyday). Rape is always an act of evil, comparable only to (other forms of) torture. And if you have any kinds of inclinations towards it you will be a threat towards others until you get yourself cured.
It's funny to see all these posts mentioning "freedom", but none mentioning the other side of the coin, "responsibility". Can't have one without showing an equal part of the other guys.
If by "this game" you're talking about Manhunt, you kill quite a number of innocent people in there IIRC. And while it's certainly not a manual on how to commit crimes and get away with it, it could easily be considered a very graphic, interactive manual on how to commit murder with household objects.
And yes I'm equating them, because from a legality standpoint they are the same. A guide instructing how to commit murder and a guide instructing how to rape children are both guides instructing how to commit crimes.
There is certainly room for debate about responsibility. It should be the responsibility of say, publishers and retailers to decide if they want to carry such a horrifying book for sale. It should be the responsibility of parents and older siblings and teachers and whatnot to make sure such a book does not fall into the hands of someone whom it might have an adverse effect upon. It should not be the responsibility of the government to decide which books should and should not be allowed to be written.
On November 12 2010 04:10 Xanbatou wrote:
No, you missed my point. Just as nobody needs to play a video game about killing people to figure out how to kill people, nobody needs to read a book about molesting children to know how to molest children. However, a video game that realistically teaches the logistics about killing people, such as how to evade the cops by hiding your trail of evidence (and I'm not talking about spray-painting your car in GTA) is basically on the same level as this molestation book.
Ah, I see. While I can't think of such a game off the top of my head (and of course I haven't played every game), rest assured, I'm certain such a game will eventually come along.
On November 12 2010 04:10 Xanbatou wrote:
I thought you wanted general evidence of people committing a crime that was outline in a book they read. I was mistaken. However, I still feel that it should apply, so please tell me why you think it is that someone can commit a murder after reading a how-to-guide on the topic it but someone won't molest a child after reading a how-to-guide on the topic? What is the difference that requires more evidence?
And you misunderstood me. By logic and reasoning, I did not mean in the ultimate sense of whether or not this should be illegal. I simply meant in the sense of such a book inciting people to commit the crimes outline within.
General evidence of people committing a crime because of instructions from a book is not good enough, because if we open the door to censoring books that might cause crime, as you've even agreed, it causes too many other problems.
That's why I said I was specifically looking for evidence of this particular book causing crimes. If that is the case, then now there's a perfectly valid reason for pulling this specific book, and not any other book, off the shelves. That kind of evidence would prove that this book is inciting people to cause crime, whereas right now without that evidence it's merely supposition.
On November 12 2010 04:18 Xanbatou wrote:
Krigwin, I think he realizes that. I think his point (and everyone else's point when they bring up freedom of speech in relation to this) is that this SHOULD fall under the category of a crime. That's what the debate is, if I am understanding correctly. Should writing instructions for committing crimes be considered a crime? One can argue that it could be considered aiding and abetting and make the author an accessory.
However, then we run into the problems you pointed out, such as the ease of concealing those same instructions within a seemingly innocuous plot.
If someone commits a crime because of and while following instructions carefully outlined in a book, then you might have a case for charging the author as an accessory and you know what, I would even agree with you, depending on the book. However, trying to instead argue for the censorship of that book is much harder and a completely different debate.
|
United States5162 Posts
On November 12 2010 04:49 stre1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 04:42 Wohmfg wrote:On November 12 2010 04:36 stre1 wrote:On November 12 2010 04:20 King K. Rool wrote:
My argument, or stance, is that we shouldn't judge those who have urges (in this case, pedophilia), but we should judge the actual act of pedophilia (stuff like stalking, taking pictures, child pornography, etc), the actual act is what's wrong, not the urge. Hence, hate the crime, not the fetish. Right, I guess we should allow crazy people to carry guns as well? After all they may not kill anyone, but I'm guessing you wouldn't want to walk down the same street as such a person. People suppress urges all the time because they know their actions will harm others. Not all paedophiles are immoral freaks who will always act on their urges. If you want to prove me otherwise go ahead. Even if that is so, the same could be said about the mad guy with the gun. Want to have anything to do with this person? Want him to roam the streets? It's not rocket science, as long as you have such urges you will be constantly be a potential threat to others.
And how exactly do you plan on prosecuting your thoughtcrime?
|
On November 12 2010 04:49 stre1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 04:42 Wohmfg wrote:On November 12 2010 04:36 stre1 wrote:On November 12 2010 04:20 King K. Rool wrote:
My argument, or stance, is that we shouldn't judge those who have urges (in this case, pedophilia), but we should judge the actual act of pedophilia (stuff like stalking, taking pictures, child pornography, etc), the actual act is what's wrong, not the urge. Hence, hate the crime, not the fetish. Right, I guess we should allow crazy people to carry guns as well? After all they may not kill anyone, but I'm guessing you wouldn't want to walk down the same street as such a person. People suppress urges all the time because they know their actions will harm others. Not all paedophiles are immoral freaks who will always act on their urges. If you want to prove me otherwise go ahead. Even if that is so, the same could be said about the mad guy with the gun. Want to have anything to do with this person? Want him to roam the streets? It's not rocket science, as long as you have such urges you will be constantly be a potential threat to others.
What do you mean by "mad" or "crazy"? I sometimes have urges to beat people to death when I'm particularly angry, but I am not a threat to society. Now if I told you I had urges to fuck 7 year old boys when I'm particularly horny, would you want to lock me up? How are the 2 scenarios different?
Can you see that they're not different and that in neither case am I mad or crazy or fucked up or immoral?
|
On November 12 2010 04:12 Krigwin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 03:52 FabledIntegral wrote:
I don't understand, there are limits to free speech, but limiting it does not make it "not free." That notion is just preposterous to me. Isn't that the reason you can't slander? Libel isn't protected. Classic example that you can't yell "FIRE" in a movie theater? I honestly do not understand how people cannot grasp this distinction and keep trotting out these tired old arguments. Let the dead horses rest, please, for the sake of equine life everywhere. If you shout fire in a crowded theater, well first of all there is absolutely nothing wrong with that if the theater is actually on fire. If it's not on fire, you're charged with inciting panic. The theater owner can bring charges against you for violating the unspoken code of conduct that you agreed upon upon entering his theater. This is not a "limit to free speech". It is a limit to committing crimes, inciting panic is a crime. Likewise in the case of libel, you don't have a case for libel if what the person says is actually true. You have to prove the statement is not true, that it caused harm, and that the person who made it knew at the time it was not true. The crime here is the actual damage caused to the person's reputation, business, or emotional state, not the guy saying stuff. Starting to get the point here? These are separate crimes. A person can say whatever they want and it's not illegal unless the act of saying it falls within other crimes, such as causing actual harm to someone. What crime has this person committed with the act of writing this book that would merit censorship?
No, you're trying to make a distinction that doesn't even exist. So please don't write something as condescending as you've portrayed it.
First of all, I assumed the fire case was obvious that there wouldn't be a fire. Utterly baffling you would clarify that. You're saying it's a crime because it incites panic. That doesn't detract from the fact you still are being arrested for what you said. If you can get arrested for what you say and its consequences, then there are limitations on your free speech, by definition.
Likewise, libel
defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures.
You have utterly no point to say "you have to prove it." Because I'm already talking about a scenario where libel was indeed committed. You are attempting to argue a completely different premise. In a case where there is libel (irrelevant of "proving it" or not), you are convicted of a crime for the words that you said, because your words caused damage to someone. Consequently, there is a limitation on your free speech. You cannot say things which damage other people's reputation.
|
On November 11 2010 20:41 mikado wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 20:32 Nightfall.589 wrote:
There is no reason to censor this book. Everyone, including pedophiles are responsible for their own actions.
Since "But this book told me to molest children" won't hold up in any court of law (Much like "Doom 2 made me shoot up my school"), this book isn't guilty of inciting a crime.
Everyone calling for it's ban should also be advocating banning violent first person shooters (Murder simulators, as some call them.)
Will this book probably cause more harm then good? Sure, probably. Fortunately, that is not the criteria we use to limit speech. Bad analogy. War is something written in our DNA, if you will. Humans have killed millions of their own kind for all kinds of motivations but at the most basic level, it's evolution at work, survival of the fittest. That being said, do you think anyone would stand for the sale of a rape simulator?
Japan.
A GTA style game where you have to hunt down little kids and have them to have sex with you? No. There're things that are just wrong. Wrong and harmful to the core of the society at large, and pedophilia is one of them.
Right, murder, dismemberment, genocide, all those things are fine, but once we start bringing kids into these, well, then, that's when we draw the line for freedom of speech.
|
On November 12 2010 03:52 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 01:27 Osmoses wrote:On November 12 2010 01:11 Iplaythings wrote:On November 11 2010 22:46 Railxp wrote:
free speech absolutely needs to be upheld. Allowing one scenario to compromise it completely demolishes the principle, and shows that you are not only inconsistent, but also irrational in your beliefs and morals. It also shows that you do not understand why people have fought and died for the right of free speech for all, and how it is vital ingredient for a free society.
To those claiming the pedo book should be banned because it teaches you how to break the law, the Anarchist Cookbook is also available on amazon, and that book teaches you how to mix homemade explosives. Lolita is a classic amorous tale also involving pedophilia, also on amazon.
There is PLENTY of crime fiction on murdering and getting away with it, all of which can be used as reference or research material for potential murderers. And yet nobody is getting up in arms about that. OJ Simpson's "If I did it" further grays the border of reality and fiction. And yet nobody is getting their panties in a bunch about cold blooded murder. and yet now you are angry about pedophilia?
Freedom of speech is sacrosanct, if you decide to suppress it when you dont like what is being said, then you are no different than those who persecuted the intellectuals that you now name heroes of human history. Because people cencor one thing, it doesnt mean that next time they will go farther with the "supression" of the law. There is limmits to free speech. Even the book doesnt openly (or maybe it does) encourage pedophilia, but it's the same way that condom commercials encouraged people to have sex, free speech or not it WOULD make more pedophiles. In that case I couldnt care less if some people think their free speech is offended. Know that pedophilia can demolish a childhood. Any sort of promoting, encouraging or even NOT contempting pedophiles has NOTHING to do with free speech, it's about human rights. And there is a HUGE difference between double standards by allowing books with murder and pedophilia involved - in these books the standpoint of the reader youre even disgusted by the offender or the offender is shown as a madman, who people develop contempt for throughout the book / film. If you want a good example of the logic youre using towards this book look at the Muhammed Drawing Crisis. There are no limits to free speech. If you draw a line anywhere, it is no longer free. Just like you think pedophilia should not be allowed to be "taught", there are people who think videogames featuring excessive violence should be banned. And then there are those that think that videogames that feature violence should be banned. And then there are those that think that videogames should be banned, period. People don't think alike, what you call stupid someone else will call common sense. You think this book should be banned because it could possibly spawn more pedos. That is a ridiculous statement. I think you should be banned, because you could possibly spawn children with values as ridiculous as yours. I also think the internet should be banned, because you know what, you can find anything on there. And among that vast vault of ANYTHING, you might find something that could potentially turn you into a pedophile. Ban the internet. If you don't like it, don't read it. I won't. But don't fucking tell me what I'm allowed to read. On November 12 2010 01:20 fellcrow wrote:On November 11 2010 07:41 kataa wrote:
In previous threads I've spent alot of time defending free speech. However, in this case it's pretty inexcusable. Pedophilia is a crime in western society, and a book on how to execute it no more should be legal than a book on how to make a very nice nail bomb.
The book shouldn't be banned because of it's offensive content, Lolita is a perfectly fine novel. However, if the book does directly instruct people in how to commit a crime, then it should be banned. I second this. That is the reason why it should be banned. The idea that this book is offensive but Lolita is perfectly fine is an OPINION. I don't understand, there are limits to free speech, but limiting it does not make it "not free." That notion is just preposterous to me. Isn't that the reason you can't slander? Libel isn't protected. Classic example that you can't yell "FIRE" in a movie theater?
I'm not sure I follow. Limitations, I think, is pretty much the definition of "not free". A dog in a fenced up backyard isn't free, no matter how big the yard is.
Slander laws are put in place for practical reasons, but they none the less restrict your freedom. Please don't argue against that, because you can't.
Obviously I understand that total freedom would be bad for society as a whole in a practical sense. Anarchy is retarded, in a practical sense. So punish me for violence, punish me for rape, but censorship is where I draw the line. Don't police my thoughts.
|
If someone commits a crime because of and while following instructions carefully outlined in a book, then you might have a case for charging the author as an accessory and you know what, I would even agree with you, depending on the book. However, trying to instead argue for the censorship of that book is much harder and a completely different debate
So basically you are saying instead of making the book illegal to prevent possible crimes associated with the book from occurring, you should only ban the book after it has been established that a crime is associated with it?
|
On November 12 2010 04:57 Osmoses wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 03:52 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 12 2010 01:27 Osmoses wrote:On November 12 2010 01:11 Iplaythings wrote:On November 11 2010 22:46 Railxp wrote:
free speech absolutely needs to be upheld. Allowing one scenario to compromise it completely demolishes the principle, and shows that you are not only inconsistent, but also irrational in your beliefs and morals. It also shows that you do not understand why people have fought and died for the right of free speech for all, and how it is vital ingredient for a free society.
To those claiming the pedo book should be banned because it teaches you how to break the law, the Anarchist Cookbook is also available on amazon, and that book teaches you how to mix homemade explosives. Lolita is a classic amorous tale also involving pedophilia, also on amazon.
There is PLENTY of crime fiction on murdering and getting away with it, all of which can be used as reference or research material for potential murderers. And yet nobody is getting up in arms about that. OJ Simpson's "If I did it" further grays the border of reality and fiction. And yet nobody is getting their panties in a bunch about cold blooded murder. and yet now you are angry about pedophilia?
Freedom of speech is sacrosanct, if you decide to suppress it when you dont like what is being said, then you are no different than those who persecuted the intellectuals that you now name heroes of human history. Because people cencor one thing, it doesnt mean that next time they will go farther with the "supression" of the law. There is limmits to free speech. Even the book doesnt openly (or maybe it does) encourage pedophilia, but it's the same way that condom commercials encouraged people to have sex, free speech or not it WOULD make more pedophiles. In that case I couldnt care less if some people think their free speech is offended. Know that pedophilia can demolish a childhood. Any sort of promoting, encouraging or even NOT contempting pedophiles has NOTHING to do with free speech, it's about human rights. And there is a HUGE difference between double standards by allowing books with murder and pedophilia involved - in these books the standpoint of the reader youre even disgusted by the offender or the offender is shown as a madman, who people develop contempt for throughout the book / film. If you want a good example of the logic youre using towards this book look at the Muhammed Drawing Crisis. There are no limits to free speech. If you draw a line anywhere, it is no longer free. Just like you think pedophilia should not be allowed to be "taught", there are people who think videogames featuring excessive violence should be banned. And then there are those that think that videogames that feature violence should be banned. And then there are those that think that videogames should be banned, period. People don't think alike, what you call stupid someone else will call common sense. You think this book should be banned because it could possibly spawn more pedos. That is a ridiculous statement. I think you should be banned, because you could possibly spawn children with values as ridiculous as yours. I also think the internet should be banned, because you know what, you can find anything on there. And among that vast vault of ANYTHING, you might find something that could potentially turn you into a pedophile. Ban the internet. If you don't like it, don't read it. I won't. But don't fucking tell me what I'm allowed to read. On November 12 2010 01:20 fellcrow wrote:On November 11 2010 07:41 kataa wrote:
In previous threads I've spent alot of time defending free speech. However, in this case it's pretty inexcusable. Pedophilia is a crime in western society, and a book on how to execute it no more should be legal than a book on how to make a very nice nail bomb.
The book shouldn't be banned because of it's offensive content, Lolita is a perfectly fine novel. However, if the book does directly instruct people in how to commit a crime, then it should be banned. I second this. That is the reason why it should be banned. The idea that this book is offensive but Lolita is perfectly fine is an OPINION. I don't understand, there are limits to free speech, but limiting it does not make it "not free." That notion is just preposterous to me. Isn't that the reason you can't slander? Libel isn't protected. Classic example that you can't yell "FIRE" in a movie theater? I'm not sure I follow. Limitations, I think, is pretty much the definition of "not free". A dog in a fenced up backyard isn't free, no matter how big the yard is. Slander laws are put in place for practical reasons, but they none the less restrict your freedom. Please don't argue against that, because you can't. Obviously I understand that total freedom would be bad for society as a whole in a practical sense. Anarchy is retarded, in a practical sense. So punish me for violence, punish me for rape, but censorship is where I draw the line. Don't police my thoughts.
I'm not arguing that they restrict your freedom. That was the point I'm trying to make. So you'd agree then that no country on earth actually has free speech? If you are, then I misunderstood the point you were trying to make.
What I'm saying is you still have "free speech," nonetheless, even with those laws. I don't agree with your definition of free having to be taken to the extreme of 100% uncontested. That was never the intention of anyone who proposed free speech. Maybe it's a denotative vs connotative argument, but I just personally don't see it having to encompass the "no limitations" you're describing.
|
On November 12 2010 04:59 Xanbatou wrote:Show nested quote +If someone commits a crime because of and while following instructions carefully outlined in a book, then you might have a case for charging the author as an accessory and you know what, I would even agree with you, depending on the book. However, trying to instead argue for the censorship of that book is much harder and a completely different debate So basically you are saying instead of making the book illegal to prevent possible crimes associated with the book from occurring, you should only ban the book after it has been established that a crime is associated with it?
Here,
"This is a theoretical guide for how to smash someone's head in.
1. Go outside.
2. Pick up a rock.
3. Smash someone's head in.
You have now smashed someone's head in!"
If you were to follow my instructions, should I go to jail? Better yet, should Steven Spielberg go to jail for causing panic amongst swimmers with his movie Jaws? Should Samuel Colt have been sent to jail for creating something other people could potentially use to kill each other?
Avatar could potentially inspire americans to join the taliban, get that shit off the cinemas.
I'm not arguing that they restrict your freedom. That was the point I'm trying to make. So you'd agree then that no country on earth actually has free speech? If you are, then I misunderstood the point you were trying to make.
What I'm saying is you still have "free speech," nonetheless, even with those laws. I don't agree with your definition of free having to be taken to the extreme of 100% uncontested. That was never the intention of anyone who proposed free speech. Maybe it's a denotative vs connotative argument, but I just personally don't see it having to encompass the "no limitations" you're describing.
I'm sure there are plenty places where there is no legal action for saying whatever you like. You might get killed, obviously, but in the juridical sense, there must be places with complete freedom of speech. But the point I was trying to make was mostly semantic, I guess. Don't call it free speech if it's not free. What you have is not freedom of speech, it's the juridical permission to say most things without being punished for it. You're on a long leash, but it's there.
|
On November 12 2010 04:50 King K. Rool wrote:
Thirdly, we do lock up those with mental problems that are strong enough that they're a danger to themselves or others around them, just like we lock up pedophiles who are a danger to our kids.
That's good to know, I guess no more cases of child rape will occur now then since they are all locked up for good. The point I was trying to make is about the difficulty of stopping this particular crime before it happens. As apposed to a crazy person, a rapist doesn't necessarily stand out.
On November 12 2010 04:52 Krigwin wrote:
If by "this game" you're talking about Manhunt, you kill quite a number of innocent people in there IIRC. And while it's certainly not a manual on how to commit crimes and get away with it, it could easily be considered a very graphic, interactive manual on how to commit murder with household objects.
I see. Well this game should not fall into the hands of someone with murderous intentions or urges then. Just like someone who becomes violent after drinking alcohol should abstain from drinking it. And just like how this book should not have been written, and should not be sold, because there is only (again, as far as i can see, since i haven't read it) one reason for wanting to read it; the wish to rape children. But some seem to think that a 100% freedom of speech/whatever is more important.
|
On November 12 2010 04:53 FabledIntegral wrote:
No, you're trying to make a distinction that doesn't even exist. So please don't write something as condescending as you've portrayed it.
First of all, I assumed the fire case was obvious that there wouldn't be a fire. Utterly baffling you would clarify that. You're saying it's a crime because it incites panic. That doesn't detract from the fact you still are being arrested for what you said. If you can get arrested for what you say and its consequences, then there are limitations on your free speech, by definition.
Likewise, libel
defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures.
You have utterly no point to say "you have to prove it." Because I'm already talking about a scenario where libel was indeed committed. You are attempting to argue a completely different premise. In a case where there is libel (irrelevant of "proving it" or not), you are convicted of a crime for the words that you said, because your words caused damage to someone. Consequently, there is a limitation on your free speech. You cannot say things which damage other people's reputation.
Maybe we're operating by different definitions here, because I see an incredibly important distinction.
If I shout fire in a crowded theater that is on fire, I have done nothing wrong. My speech has not been limited in any fashion. If I shout fire in a crowded theater that is not on fire, well I don't get charged for what I said, I get charged with inciting panic.
If I say your self-run business employs illegal immigrant labor and it turns out that it does, I do not get charged with libel. I can say whatever I want to about your business if it's true. If it is false I get charged not for saying your business employs illegal immigrant labor, I get charged for damaging your business's image. Is that not a distinction?
On November 12 2010 04:59 Xanbatou wrote:
So basically you are saying instead of making the book illegal to prevent possible crimes associated with the book from occurring, you should only ban the book after it has been established that a crime is associated with it?
Yes. Because until said crime has been associated with it, the book has done nothing criminal by the mere act of its existence. If we open the door to banning books that could, at some point in the future, have a crime associated with it, that opens the door to banning too many books.
|
On November 12 2010 05:11 Krigwin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 04:53 FabledIntegral wrote:
No, you're trying to make a distinction that doesn't even exist. So please don't write something as condescending as you've portrayed it.
First of all, I assumed the fire case was obvious that there wouldn't be a fire. Utterly baffling you would clarify that. You're saying it's a crime because it incites panic. That doesn't detract from the fact you still are being arrested for what you said. If you can get arrested for what you say and its consequences, then there are limitations on your free speech, by definition.
Likewise, libel
defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures.
You have utterly no point to say "you have to prove it." Because I'm already talking about a scenario where libel was indeed committed. You are attempting to argue a completely different premise. In a case where there is libel (irrelevant of "proving it" or not), you are convicted of a crime for the words that you said, because your words caused damage to someone. Consequently, there is a limitation on your free speech. You cannot say things which damage other people's reputation. Maybe we're operating by different definitions here, because I see an incredibly important distinction. If I shout fire in a crowded theater that is on fire, I have done nothing wrong. My speech has not been limited in any fashion. If I shout fire in a crowded theater that is not on fire, well I don't get charged for what I said, I get charged with inciting panic. If I say your self-run business employs illegal immigrant labor and it turns out that it does, I do not get charged with libel. I can say whatever I want to about your business if it's true. If it is false I get charged not for saying your business employs illegal immigrant labor, I get charged for damaging your business's image. Is that not a distinction? Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 04:59 Xanbatou wrote:
So basically you are saying instead of making the book illegal to prevent possible crimes associated with the book from occurring, you should only ban the book after it has been established that a crime is associated with it? Yes. Because until said crime has been associated with it, the book has done nothing criminal by the mere act of its existence. If we open the door to banning books that could, at some point in the future, have a crime associated with it, that opens the door to banning too many books.
Ugh we're not debating anything to do with saying fire in an actual fire, so drop it. It's irrelevant. At the same time, the definition of libel itself is when you ARE slandering, not when you aren't. So you can't try to bring up the distinction of saying something which isn't libel when we are debating when things ARE libel.
Thus there is no distinction in what you're saying. Yes, you're charged with inciting panic. And what is the method you used to incite panic? Speech. Thus you are NOT allowed to employ certain type of speech in certain situations. It's that simple. So consequently you're arguments of cases that AREN'T LIBEL are useless. How is your illegal employment argument related to libel in ANY WAY if it's true?
Here's a different definition, if it's easier to see
"anything that is defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents." It's only libel if it misrepresents.
To your second point, if a book should be banned, it should be banned. There's no validity in the argument "well, it would encompass banning too many, so let's not do it until..." I just don't really see any logic in this argument either. Something is illegal or not depending on if some random decided to use it for a certain purpose? We must be on completely different spectrums.
|
On November 12 2010 04:59 Xanbatou wrote:Show nested quote +If someone commits a crime because of and while following instructions carefully outlined in a book, then you might have a case for charging the author as an accessory and you know what, I would even agree with you, depending on the book. However, trying to instead argue for the censorship of that book is much harder and a completely different debate So basically you are saying instead of making the book illegal to prevent possible crimes associated with the book from occurring, you should only ban the book after it has been established that a crime is associated with it?
Restricting freedom of speech for possible crimes?
Ban most of literature, music, books, art then because so much of them can be linked to possibly causing crime.
In fact ban video games, television shows and radio programs as it is possible they could lead to causing crime.
Ban science education in schools, it is possible that some of the knowledge they glean could lead to POSSIBLY causing crime.
Don't ban for what is possible, ban for what IS.
|
On November 12 2010 04:52 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 04:49 stre1 wrote:On November 12 2010 04:42 Wohmfg wrote:On November 12 2010 04:36 stre1 wrote:On November 12 2010 04:20 King K. Rool wrote:
My argument, or stance, is that we shouldn't judge those who have urges (in this case, pedophilia), but we should judge the actual act of pedophilia (stuff like stalking, taking pictures, child pornography, etc), the actual act is what's wrong, not the urge. Hence, hate the crime, not the fetish. Right, I guess we should allow crazy people to carry guns as well? After all they may not kill anyone, but I'm guessing you wouldn't want to walk down the same street as such a person. People suppress urges all the time because they know their actions will harm others. Not all paedophiles are immoral freaks who will always act on their urges. If you want to prove me otherwise go ahead. Even if that is so, the same could be said about the mad guy with the gun. Want to have anything to do with this person? Want him to roam the streets? It's not rocket science, as long as you have such urges you will be constantly be a potential threat to others. And how exactly do you plan on prosecuting your thoughtcrime?
Of course, that's the problem, you can't. Which is why rapes will continue to occur. It seems some people here have no problem with that though, and don't feel like anything needs to be done about it.
On November 12 2010 04:53 Wohmfg wrote:
What do you mean by "mad" or "crazy"? I sometimes have urges to beat people to death when I'm particularly angry, but I am not a threat to society. Now if I told you I had urges to fuck 7 year old boys when I'm particularly horny, would you want to lock me up? How are the 2 scenarios different?
Can you see that they're not different and that in neither case am I mad or crazy or fucked up or immoral?
At the very least, a certain number of people who feel a given "urge" will indeed carry it out. So how is it a good thing that people continue to feel such urges? If they feel like there are at all in the "risk zone", can it not be expected of them that they should seek help?
|
On November 12 2010 04:20 King K. Rool wrote:
Though I know people feel the way you do, I can't confess to understand your view point: those who have these urges but control them already know its wrong (by societal standards and viewpoints on morality), and so they keep it hidden. A lot of them likely feel like there's something wrong with themselves. Why should we accuse them and dehumanize them even further when we ourselves have base urges that we regulate normally? When they already feel bad about it themselves?
We don't have to accuse them... I'm not going to go up to every pedophile I see and say you are a pedophile you should feel bad.
But I'm not going to ignore the fact that they are one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
