| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Kletus
Canada580 Posts
On November 12 2010 09:17 Shakes wrote: So you feel the world is a better place if children are raped AND get STDs rather than just raped? In all honesty I don't think a book will push someone over the edge. These rapes will happen regardless, the book aims to make it safer for both participants. | ||
|
Dogsi
Indonesia298 Posts
I wouldn't be surprised if the books author is eventually brought up on charges along these lines. That being said, no, it shouldn't be banned. The old slippery slope thing. Deciding to ban one book or topic is arbitrary. There will always be books that borderline. A lot of the things that make western countries such wonderful places to live are often taken for advantage by those who have never lived outside their home country. Freedom of religion, the press, and speach, are all vital rights. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
Brandenburg Test Standard established in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969), to determine when inflammatory speech intending to advocate illegal action can be restricted. The standard developed determined that speech advocating the use of force or crime could only be proscribed where two conditions were satisfied: (1) the advocacy is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” and (2) the advocacy is also “likely to incite or produce such action.” | ||
|
j0k3r
United States577 Posts
On November 12 2010 09:29 Dogsi wrote: Correct me if I am wrong, but exciting others to commit crimes is a crime itself, correct? I wouldn't be surprised if the books author is eventually brought up on charges along these lines. That being said, no, it shouldn't be banned. The old slippery slope thing. Deciding to ban one book or topic is arbitrary. There will always be books that borderline. A lot of the things that make western countries such wonderful places to live are often taken for advantage by those who have never lived outside their home country. Freedom of religion, the press, and speach, are all vital rights. I don't think he'll be brought up on any charges, nowhere in the book does it command people to molest children. It only tells you how to do it, which is why books on making weapons or something like that aren't banned. IMO Amazon caved because they started realizing a lot of customers might boycott Amazon, especially since WalMart is offering free shipping on all items til Christmas. It's a purely business decision. | ||
|
Shakes
Australia557 Posts
On November 12 2010 09:37 j0k3r wrote: I don't think he'll be brought up on any charges, nowhere in the book does it command people to molest children. It only tells you how to do it, which is why books on making weapons or something like that aren't banned. IMO Amazon caved because they started realizing a lot of customers might boycott Amazon, especially since WalMart is offering free shipping on all items til Christmas. It's a purely business decision. It's a pretty short sighted business decision really, now they've shown they can be pushed around I'd expect more people with an axe to grind against something they sell to try it. | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On November 12 2010 09:29 Dogsi wrote: On most countries including mine it is explicitly a crime to encourage another crime. Not sure about the US tho. But that's not the point. Laws are imperfect anywhere and are always prone to interpretation. There's a reason why there's the word "jurisprudence" in the first place. Something is only legal or illegal once a judge declare it either way. Regardless of what your personal interpretation of the word "free" means.Correct me if I am wrong, but exciting others to commit crimes is a crime itself, correct? Every single person in this thread "defending free speech" is relying on semantics to shift the meaning of those words. Yelling fire in a crowded place is not free speech. Lying about about your finances to fraud investors in not free speech. Telling a hitman to kill for you is not free speech. Telling a person to rape someone is not free speech. Carefully choosing your words to not sound like you're telling someone to rape is still not free speech. Putting that in a book instead of saying it aloud is still not free speech. Arguing rather someone is actually gonna act upon what you told them to or not. Or arguing rather people are still gonna find ways to circumvent the ban and read the book anyway. Are completely irrelevant. "Your right ends when mine begins" | ||
|
Contagious
United States1319 Posts
| ||
|
Xanbatou
United States805 Posts
On November 12 2010 09:32 Mindcrime wrote: For everyone who thinks that the book is illegal, read this. Uhh, maybe I'm misunderstanding, but doesn't part 2 directly support what everyone is saying? | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On November 12 2010 09:58 Xanbatou wrote: Uhh, maybe I'm misunderstanding, but doesn't part 2 directly support what everyone is saying? both conditions have to be satisfied dawg | ||
|
Xanbatou
United States805 Posts
On November 12 2010 09:59 Mindcrime wrote: both conditions have to be satisfied dawg -_- sorry, fail reading on my part. Well, that's good to know. This explains why it shouldn't be illegal within the context of current laws. | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On November 12 2010 09:59 Mindcrime wrote: It's probably just me being really bad at understanding english, but why exactly isn't (1) being satisfied? Isn't the whole point that the book is inciting criminal action? Or did I just misread something?both conditions have to be satisfied dawg | ||
|
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
On November 12 2010 09:53 Contagious wrote: Guys, freedom of speech should only go so far. A book like this doesn't belong on Amazon (obviously why they took if off). This is just something you'd expect on 4chan or some stupid shit like that. No, there is no middle ground for freedom of speech. It's not "freedom of speech for everything except what I find offensive" It goes without saying that people support other people's rights to say things they approve of. Being in favor of freedom of speech means you support other people's rights to say things you disapprove of. And if you think it's fine that private citizens can coerce a bookstore into pulling a book from their shelves because too many people disapproved of it, then I hope you enjoy living in a world without books. Because show me anything that has been printed on paper, and I'll find someone who disapproves of it. | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On November 12 2010 10:10 Acid~ wrote: No one's arguing we should censor what we find offensive. If you say "I hate you", I'll find it offensive but I'll defend your right of saying it. You're confusing your right to be entitled to an opinion with telling someone to commit a crime. Those are completely different.No, there is no middle ground for freedom of speech. It's not "freedom of speech for everything except what I find offensive" Would you say that someone saying "Mr Hitman, kill that guy" shouldn't be arrested because of free speech? One thing has nothing to do with another. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On November 12 2010 10:09 VIB wrote: It's probably just me being really bad at understanding english, but why exactly isn't (1) being satisfied? Isn't the whole point that the book is inciting criminal action? Or did I just misread something? imminence The criminal action must be both likely to occur, and imminent. Calling for criminal action at some indeterminably far off point in the future does not meet the imminence requirement. | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On November 12 2010 10:18 Mindcrime wrote: Oh ok, now I get it, thanks. So in the US, saying "kill that guy" is a crime, but saying "kill that guy next month" isn't? Maybe Bin Laden could exploit that to prove his innocence imminence The criminal action must be both likely to occur, and imminent. Calling for criminal action at some indeterminably far off point in the future does not meet the imminence requirement.  | ||
|
lvatural
United States347 Posts
==== The principle identified in our Brandenburg opinion is that “the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Id., at 447, 89 S.Ct. 1827. While the requirement that the consequence be “imminent” is justified with *470 respect to mere advocacy, the same justification does not necessarily adhere to some speech that performs a teaching function. As our cases have long identified, the First Amendment does not prevent restrictions on speech that have “clear support in public danger.” Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 530, 65 S.Ct. 315, 89 L.Ed. 430 (1945). Long range planning of criminal enterprises-which may include oral advice, training exercises, and perhaps the preparation of written materials-involves speech that should not be glibly characterized as mere “advocacy” and certainly may create significant public danger. Our cases have not yet considered whether, and if so to what extent, the First Amendment protects such instructional speech. Our denial of certiorari in this case should not be taken as an endorsement of the reasoning of the Court of Appeals. - Stewart v. McCoy, 537 U.S. 993, 123 S. Ct. 468, 154 L. Ed. 2d 361 (2002) ==== Essentially, they're saying that this could fall outside the protection of the First since it may be a "clear support in public danger." That it doesn't fulfill the Brandenburg test isn't dispositive. Edit: *Clarification* This might not be protected by free speech. Not my opinion, just repeating what a guy on the Supreme Court said :O | ||
|
jinorazi
Korea (South)4948 Posts
free speech is not something that you can pick and choose. like many said before, take the good with the bad. if people had choice to ban books because its offensive, i'd like to nominate most religious book out there because they have caused countless war, death, murder, and whatnot. how are the bible and koran not different? (teach to hate homosexual, teach to hate non-believers, respectively). (example, not my true intentions) books on how to hack/crack, books on how to be a sneaky child molester, books on how to pirate, they're all illegal. one just is more sensitive than other...is this good enough reason to ban one but not the other? | ||
|
LunarC
United States1186 Posts
On November 12 2010 10:36 jinorazi wrote: those who want to ban this book, can you make a list of books you'd like to ban? i'd imagine there's large variety of them, depending on who comes up with a list. free speech is not something that you can pick and choose. like many said before, take the good with the bad. if people had choice to ban books because its offensive, i'd like to nominate most religious book out there because they have caused countless war, death, murder, and whatnot. how are the bible and koran not different? (teach to hate homosexual, teach to hate non-believers, respectively). (example, not my true intentions) books on how to hack/crack, books on how to be a sneaky child molester, books on how to pirate, they're all illegal. one just is more sensitive than other...is this good enough reason to ban one but not the other? Everyone's trying to be too technical. The world isn't black and white, hence people must use good judgment for these sorts of things. The book contains explicit instructions on how to commit a sexual offense. That is probably not the best thing to distribute because even though it would not necessarily cause anything, the potential to do so is clear and obvious. Also, the Bible doesn't say anything like hating on non-believers. It says nothing about hating homosexuals. It tells you to hate the idea of nonbelief and homosexuality, but to show love to all, sinner or not. It also tells you not to judge, for all have sinned. In addition, causing strife, violence and war in the name of a religion does not make the religion or book culprit unless the dogma explicitly instructs believers to do so. As a side note, I can't say I'm a Christian. However I am tired of people misunderstanding what the Bible actually says. P.S. It's widely agreed that the New Testament overrides the Old Testament in terms of adherence. | ||
|
FecalFrown
215 Posts
Get a life, please. | ||
|
LunarC
United States1186 Posts
On November 12 2010 10:50 FecalFrown wrote: All I see in this thread are sane people trying to stomp down the ever present ideologues who think that with their axioms on free speech and limited knowledge of the law they can justify the publication and widespread distribution of a book about how to rape children. Get a life, please. Your handle sucks. But you speak truth. | ||
| ||
|
|
Afreeca Starleague
Rush vs Hm
Bisu vs Shuttle
WardiTV Weekly
The Patches Monday
Afreeca Starleague
Sharp vs Shinee
Action vs Shine
GSL
PiGosaur Cup
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
BeSt vs Paralyze
Jaedong vs Speed
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
