On November 12 2010 05:44 Xanbatou wrote: Bah, I leave for 10 minutes and my point is completely misconstrued.
When I said "possible crimes" I was only referring to the specific instance of an instructive guide of any sort. The difference is that with an instructive guide there is intent.
Steven Spielberg should not go to jail for Jaws because he wasn't instructing anyone on anything.
Avatar was not instructing anyone to join the taliban.
And I DEFINITELY wasn't saying to restrict any freedom of speech that could cause possible crimes.
For that matter, if you tell someone in person that the best time to break into a certain bank and how to crack a bank safe and you know that the person wants to break into a bank and that person breaks in, does that not make you an accessory?
To take it further, what if you distribute flyers to people that say that in a few days you are going to reveal the best ways to break into a bank. What happens then? Should you be detained before the event to prevent anything from happening? Or should you only be detained if someone actually uses your advice to break into a bank?
Are Doom, Modern Warfare, Manhunt murder instruction manuals?
What about fiction books of a similar nature?
What if I write a work of fiction that goes into excruciating detail about how the protagonist gets away with murder?
What if someone goes ahead and uses it as inspiration for their own crime. Am I an accessory to murder? Is ID Software an accessory to the Columbine Massacre?
None of those are instructon manuals.
Instruction implies excruciating detail, so the only one that fits that criteria is the work of fiction. However, it is also a work of fiction, so it's not clearly an instruction manual. It's a definite grey area, however, I don't think something like that should be banned. If that was the case though, it would be very easy to get around any laws about books that instruct on how to commit crimes just by adding in a plot, so it's hard to say.
Which is exactly the point that I'm trying to make. There is no particular distinction between a book about Bob Joe plotting to murder his neighbour, that goes over each step of the crime, and a "How to murder your neighbour" instruction guide.
There is however, a very noteworthy distinction between the above, and a "You should murder your neighbour, and this is how to do it" publication.
So the difference is that one is suggesting that you should murder your neighbour and the other is merely outlining what you should do, should you want to murder your neighbour?
Indeed. One of them incites a crime. The purpose for its existance, is to get its reader to commit a crime. If I were to write that book, and a reader did the crime, I'd be an accessory - I incited him - just like if I were a mob boss, and I told one of my henchmen to whack Three-Fingered Jojo, I'd be an accessory. If I were a chemistry professor, and I told my students that they should go out and build bombs, I'm pretty sure that I could be convicted for it.
The other is an informational. The purpose of its existance, is to inform its reader how to commit a crime. If I were to write that book, and a reader did the crime, I wouldn't be an accessory - I didn't incite him - I gave him knowledge, and he chose to apply it. If I were a chemistry professor, I wouldn't be an accessory to a bombing, if one of my students decides to apply some of what he learned. Or, if I were a mob boss, and I told one of my henchmen how to best commit murder... And he then went on to whack Three-Fingered Jojo, I never gave the order. I wouldn't be an accessory.
Can providing knowledge on how to commit a crime make you an accessory?
If I'm a chem prof, and my student asks me how to make a bomb that he intends to use illegally, sure I'd be an accessory.
On the other hand, if he pays attention in class, and takes home the relevant knowledge, builds a bomb, blows up a federal building, no, I wouldn't be.
A gun store is not responsible for someone buying a gun, and shooting his neighbour. A gun store is responsible for selling someone a gun, who tells them that he's going to shoot his neighbour with it.
Well obviously providing general knowledge would not get you nailed as an accessory. However, what if the chemistry professor taught a class specifically about making bombs, where to place them to cause the most damage, and how to cover your tracks so that you would not get caught by the authorities for placing it? All without ever explicitly telling them to go do it, but giving them the know how to not only do it if they wanted to, but also avoid the law.
I think specifically teaching things like where to place a bomb to cause the most damage and how to evade the law is stuff that should get you in trouble for sure. Why? Because people that aren't going to commit a crime won't need to know that (for example they could have a perfectly legitimate reason for needed to know how to build a bomb), but people that are going to commit a crime WILL need to know that. So you ARE essentially aiding and abetting a criminal to help him avoid being caught.
There are plenty of legitimate reasons to know how where a bomb would do the most damage. Curious engineers would want to know that... And keep it in mind when designing buildings. Evading police? Criminology students learn how people do that every day. Building the bomb? Completely relevant to demolition, construction, etc.
While we're here, there's no more legitimate reason to possess an automatic weapon (You don't hunt deer with those), but that doesn't make the sale of automatic firearms illegal.
The selling of this book would clearly have hampered their profits, which is why they have gone back on their previous position of allowing it to be sold based upon freedom of speech.
That they were initially prepared to do so on this basis shows some seriously high standards.
On November 12 2010 05:44 Xanbatou wrote: Bah, I leave for 10 minutes and my point is completely misconstrued.
When I said "possible crimes" I was only referring to the specific instance of an instructive guide of any sort. The difference is that with an instructive guide there is intent.
Steven Spielberg should not go to jail for Jaws because he wasn't instructing anyone on anything.
Avatar was not instructing anyone to join the taliban.
And I DEFINITELY wasn't saying to restrict any freedom of speech that could cause possible crimes.
For that matter, if you tell someone in person that the best time to break into a certain bank and how to crack a bank safe and you know that the person wants to break into a bank and that person breaks in, does that not make you an accessory?
To take it further, what if you distribute flyers to people that say that in a few days you are going to reveal the best ways to break into a bank. What happens then? Should you be detained before the event to prevent anything from happening? Or should you only be detained if someone actually uses your advice to break into a bank?
Are Doom, Modern Warfare, Manhunt murder instruction manuals?
What about fiction books of a similar nature?
What if I write a work of fiction that goes into excruciating detail about how the protagonist gets away with murder?
What if someone goes ahead and uses it as inspiration for their own crime. Am I an accessory to murder? Is ID Software an accessory to the Columbine Massacre?
None of those are instructon manuals.
Instruction implies excruciating detail, so the only one that fits that criteria is the work of fiction. However, it is also a work of fiction, so it's not clearly an instruction manual. It's a definite grey area, however, I don't think something like that should be banned. If that was the case though, it would be very easy to get around any laws about books that instruct on how to commit crimes just by adding in a plot, so it's hard to say.
Which is exactly the point that I'm trying to make. There is no particular distinction between a book about Bob Joe plotting to murder his neighbour, that goes over each step of the crime, and a "How to murder your neighbour" instruction guide.
There is however, a very noteworthy distinction between the above, and a "You should murder your neighbour, and this is how to do it" publication.
So the difference is that one is suggesting that you should murder your neighbour and the other is merely outlining what you should do, should you want to murder your neighbour?
Indeed. One of them incites a crime. The purpose for its existance, is to get its reader to commit a crime. If I were to write that book, and a reader did the crime, I'd be an accessory - I incited him - just like if I were a mob boss, and I told one of my henchmen to whack Three-Fingered Jojo, I'd be an accessory. If I were a chemistry professor, and I told my students that they should go out and build bombs, I'm pretty sure that I could be convicted for it.
The other is an informational. The purpose of its existance, is to inform its reader how to commit a crime. If I were to write that book, and a reader did the crime, I wouldn't be an accessory - I didn't incite him - I gave him knowledge, and he chose to apply it. If I were a chemistry professor, I wouldn't be an accessory to a bombing, if one of my students decides to apply some of what he learned. Or, if I were a mob boss, and I told one of my henchmen how to best commit murder... And he then went on to whack Three-Fingered Jojo, I never gave the order. I wouldn't be an accessory.
Can providing knowledge on how to commit a crime make you an accessory?
If I'm a chem prof, and my student asks me how to make a bomb that he intends to use illegally, sure I'd be an accessory.
On the other hand, if he pays attention in class, and takes home the relevant knowledge, builds a bomb, blows up a federal building, no, I wouldn't be.
A gun store is not responsible for someone buying a gun, and shooting his neighbour. A gun store is responsible for selling someone a gun, who tells them that he's going to shoot his neighbour with it.
Well obviously providing general knowledge would not get you nailed as an accessory. However, what if the chemistry professor taught a class specifically about making bombs, where to place them to cause the most damage, and how to cover your tracks so that you would not get caught by the authorities for placing it? All without ever explicitly telling them to go do it, but giving them the know how to not only do it if they wanted to, but also avoid the law.
I think specifically teaching things like where to place a bomb to cause the most damage and how to evade the law is stuff that should get you in trouble for sure. Why? Because people that aren't going to commit a crime won't need to know that (for example they could have a perfectly legitimate reason for needed to know how to build a bomb), but people that are going to commit a crime WILL need to know that. So you ARE essentially aiding and abetting a criminal to help him avoid being caught.
There are plenty of legitimate reasons to know how where a bomb would do the most damage. Curious engineers would want to know that... And keep it in mind when designing buildings. Evading police? Criminology students learn how people do that every day. Building the bomb? Completely relevant to demolition, construction, etc.
While we're here, there's no more legitimate reason to possess an automatic weapon (You don't hunt deer with those), but that doesn't make the sale of automatic firearms illegal.
There is no legitimate reason for showing someone all 3 (how where and avoid getting caught) at once.
On November 12 2010 05:51 Nightfall.589 wrote: [quote]
Are Doom, Modern Warfare, Manhunt murder instruction manuals?
What about fiction books of a similar nature?
What if I write a work of fiction that goes into excruciating detail about how the protagonist gets away with murder?
What if someone goes ahead and uses it as inspiration for their own crime. Am I an accessory to murder? Is ID Software an accessory to the Columbine Massacre?
None of those are instructon manuals.
Instruction implies excruciating detail, so the only one that fits that criteria is the work of fiction. However, it is also a work of fiction, so it's not clearly an instruction manual. It's a definite grey area, however, I don't think something like that should be banned. If that was the case though, it would be very easy to get around any laws about books that instruct on how to commit crimes just by adding in a plot, so it's hard to say.
Which is exactly the point that I'm trying to make. There is no particular distinction between a book about Bob Joe plotting to murder his neighbour, that goes over each step of the crime, and a "How to murder your neighbour" instruction guide.
There is however, a very noteworthy distinction between the above, and a "You should murder your neighbour, and this is how to do it" publication.
So the difference is that one is suggesting that you should murder your neighbour and the other is merely outlining what you should do, should you want to murder your neighbour?
Indeed. One of them incites a crime. The purpose for its existance, is to get its reader to commit a crime. If I were to write that book, and a reader did the crime, I'd be an accessory - I incited him - just like if I were a mob boss, and I told one of my henchmen to whack Three-Fingered Jojo, I'd be an accessory. If I were a chemistry professor, and I told my students that they should go out and build bombs, I'm pretty sure that I could be convicted for it.
The other is an informational. The purpose of its existance, is to inform its reader how to commit a crime. If I were to write that book, and a reader did the crime, I wouldn't be an accessory - I didn't incite him - I gave him knowledge, and he chose to apply it. If I were a chemistry professor, I wouldn't be an accessory to a bombing, if one of my students decides to apply some of what he learned. Or, if I were a mob boss, and I told one of my henchmen how to best commit murder... And he then went on to whack Three-Fingered Jojo, I never gave the order. I wouldn't be an accessory.
Can providing knowledge on how to commit a crime make you an accessory?
If I'm a chem prof, and my student asks me how to make a bomb that he intends to use illegally, sure I'd be an accessory.
On the other hand, if he pays attention in class, and takes home the relevant knowledge, builds a bomb, blows up a federal building, no, I wouldn't be.
A gun store is not responsible for someone buying a gun, and shooting his neighbour. A gun store is responsible for selling someone a gun, who tells them that he's going to shoot his neighbour with it.
Well obviously providing general knowledge would not get you nailed as an accessory. However, what if the chemistry professor taught a class specifically about making bombs, where to place them to cause the most damage, and how to cover your tracks so that you would not get caught by the authorities for placing it? All without ever explicitly telling them to go do it, but giving them the know how to not only do it if they wanted to, but also avoid the law.
I think specifically teaching things like where to place a bomb to cause the most damage and how to evade the law is stuff that should get you in trouble for sure. Why? Because people that aren't going to commit a crime won't need to know that (for example they could have a perfectly legitimate reason for needed to know how to build a bomb), but people that are going to commit a crime WILL need to know that. So you ARE essentially aiding and abetting a criminal to help him avoid being caught.
There are plenty of legitimate reasons to know how where a bomb would do the most damage. Curious engineers would want to know that... And keep it in mind when designing buildings. Evading police? Criminology students learn how people do that every day. Building the bomb? Completely relevant to demolition, construction, etc.
While we're here, there's no more legitimate reason to possess an automatic weapon (You don't hunt deer with those), but that doesn't make the sale of automatic firearms illegal.
There is no legitimate reason for showing someone all 3 (how where and avoid getting caught) at once.
And if he were to teach those three things in separate classes? What if three different people were doing one subject, each (With, or without knowledge of eachother.)
Even if there were no legitimate reason, it would still not be aiding in a crime, as the professor is not conspiring to commit one.
There are a lot of legal, but morally gray actions that are permitted by our justice system - because there is no particularly clear distinction between them and legal, morally clear ones, and banning them would restrict fundamental freedoms.
Why don't they just have people register with the government if they purchase this book? I mean the "Anarchist's Cookbook" is a book that you can purchase with instruction on how to make many distructive tools and weapons, you just have to register with the government if you purchase one.
Although freedom of speech is valuable it also allows evils. I think anyone involved with this book knowing what it contained, in publishing, printing, writing, distributing should be killed in a painful sadistic fashion by their governments.
Pedophilia should be banned worldwide so it doesn't interfere with freedom of speech issues.
On November 11 2010 07:46 I_Love_Bacon wrote: If you try to protect free speech, you have to protect all of it. It definitely makes shit like this disgusting, but I can't be mad at Amazon for sticking to its guns. I can, however, be mad at the author and people who purchase the book.
Freedom of speech is something that was pioneered in france during the french revolution, and it originally has been formulated as ""The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law." this book is not about ideas and opinions, its about encouraging people with bad intentions to commit illegal acts in a way that it gives them How-to tips, freedom of speech doesn't apply, and thus this book is illegal.
On November 12 2010 07:55 blitzkrieger wrote: Although freedom of speech is valuable it also allows evils. I think anyone involved with this book knowing what it contained, in publishing, printing, writing, distributing should be killed in a painful sadistic fashion by their governments.
Pedophilia should be banned worldwide so it doesn't interfere with freedom of speech issues.
I find your viewpoint more disgusting than that of even the sickest pedophile. Murder and torture is not the answer especially applied to those pedophiles who are no threat to society and live their lives in a positive and responsible manner.
On November 12 2010 07:52 uglymoose89 wrote: Why don't they just have people register with the government if they purchase this book? I mean the "Anarchist's Cookbook" is a book that you can purchase with instruction on how to make many distructive tools and weapons, you just have to register with the government if you purchase one.
Oh really ? Which part of the "government" exactly ? Can you show me the form you have to use to "register" your purchase ?
On November 12 2010 06:29 XeliN wrote: I want to live in a society where thoughts are not considered actions. Where the punishment of thought is considered abhorrent or laughable and where people are able to seperate feelings, urges, thoughts, ideas and beliefs from actions against others.
Ah, so I assume then that you would have no problems if you kid was in contact with a pedophile then? After all he might not abuse the kid, right. I'm sorry but I think you'll find that this is a risk most parent will not take. If a few "non-active pedophiles" get their feelings hurt because of it than that's ok in comparison.
So you'd have no problems with your mother/wife/sister being in contact with a man? After all, he might be a rapist.
On November 12 2010 08:05 Toxi78 wrote: Freedom of speech is something that was pioneered in france during the french revolution, and it originally has been formulated as ""The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law." this book is not about ideas and opinions, its about encouraging people with bad intentions to commit illegal acts in a way that it gives them How-to tips, freedom of speech doesn't apply, and thus this book is illegal.
Smart post!
Many people are confusing free speech with encouraging crimes. You are entitled to your opinion and I will defend your right to free speech to speak your opinion no matter how much I disagree with it. Teaching people how to get away with a crime is NOT free speech.
"I think loving minors is not imoral" -> your opinion, you're free to spew whatever crap you like now matter how stupid it is "Condoms are too large to stick into a boy's butt so use these alternatives bellow" -> this is a CRIME that has NOTHING to do with free speech
Anyone who read the quotes from the book and defend it as free speech, is either being ridiculously biased just for the sake of arguing endlessly or is just plain flat dumb.
On November 12 2010 08:56 VIB wrote: "Condoms are too large to stick into a boy's butt so use these alternatives bellow" -> this is a CRIME that has NOTHING to do with free speech
Which law does writing that break?
And this turns right back to the example of a novel detailing how Bob is plotting to carry out the murder of his neighbour, with very specific details of how he's going to do it - and get away with the crime. Would you ban that hypothetical novel, as well?
On November 12 2010 08:56 VIB wrote: "Condoms are too large to stick into a boy's butt so use these alternatives bellow" -> this is a CRIME that has NOTHING to do with free speech
I'm pretty sure the quoted passage is stating that it is the boy who should use those alternatives because normal sized condoms meant for adults are too large for the boy.
Also, it's pretty impressive that in a 43-page long thread where your argument has been beaten to death on nearly every page, you still trot it out as if it's valid.
On November 12 2010 08:56 VIB wrote: "Condoms are too large to stick into a boy's butt so use these alternatives bellow" -> this is a CRIME that has NOTHING to do with free speech
So you feel the world is a better place if children are raped AND get STDs rather than just raped?
On November 12 2010 08:05 Toxi78 wrote: Freedom of speech is something that was pioneered in france during the french revolution, and it originally has been formulated as ""The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law." this book is not about ideas and opinions, its about encouraging people with bad intentions to commit illegal acts in a way that it gives them How-to tips, freedom of speech doesn't apply, and thus this book is illegal.
Smart post!
Many people are confusing free speech with encouraging crimes. You are entitled to your opinion and I will defend your right to free speech to speak your opinion no matter how much I disagree with it. Teaching people how to get away with a crime is NOT free speech.
St. Augustine said that an unjust law is no law at all.
EPT
