|
This book isn't banned. I don't know why people are acting as if the government has placed a ban on a book, violating the First Amendment. Amazon chose to take it down; it is not BANNED. If you want to purchase this book, find a different avenue to do so. Taking this book down has nothing to do with making children safer because you can STILL buy the book somewhere else.
|
On November 12 2010 13:07 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 13:03 robertdinh wrote:On November 12 2010 13:01 jinorazi wrote:On November 12 2010 12:54 robertdinh wrote:On November 12 2010 12:51 Shakes wrote:On November 12 2010 12:43 robertdinh wrote:On November 12 2010 12:40 MerciLess wrote:On November 12 2010 12:13 SichuanPanda wrote:On November 12 2010 12:04 Avaloch wrote:On November 12 2010 11:15 jinorazi wrote:
part of me thinks this book is ok. Please inform me exactly which part of such a book do you find acceptable in any standards apart from a paedophile. People are missing the point entirely, free speech does need to be upheld and 99.9% of books that are released regardless of how abhorrent the content should be allowed. Books on pedophilia on the other hand are the firm exception to the rule, and whomever cannot figure out why this is true on their own must have the most horridly degraded moral values I could imagine. If you draw a line on free speech based on your personal opinion of it, then you've pretty much opened it up to banning anything people have a problem with, which of course everyone has a problem with something. It's more or less an all or nothing kind of deal. Either have free speech and accept that some things will offend some people, or have censorship. You can't have both, they are mutually exclusive. Yep but you can have censorship that is only applied for very severe subjects. Which may leave some freedom of speech fanatics upset, but it will save a lot of little kids from getting exploited. In america we are free to buy and drink alcohol after a certain age. It is a freedom yet it is tempered by rules. Every freedom we have can be abused, because many humans do not possess a great amount of self-control. And speech is no exception to that, you can abuse free speech to the point where it is detrimental to the progression of society. The point of freedom of speech isn't because "yay freedom good, we should get more of that shit no matter what", it's because other freedoms depend on freedom of speech. If you don't have freedom of speech you don't have freedom to speak out against any unjust infringements of your other freedoms. This may be true from an analytical standpoint but as I said every freedom can be abused to a point where it is detrimental. And also on the majority, it is because people think freedom is automatically better than censorship. They don't actually think about the reasons why, they've just been brought up to believe anything opposing any sort of freedom must automatically be bad. On November 12 2010 12:52 MerciLess wrote:On November 12 2010 12:50 robertdinh wrote:On November 12 2010 12:48 MerciLess wrote:
My point is that you can't just have censorship for "severe subjects". I mean, who decides what a severe subject is? Once you allow certain things to be censored, it isn't so far for religious groups and political groups, and anyone else with an agenda or an ideology to start censoring things they disagree with. I'd rather have books on pedophilia available than Baptists taking Harry Potter out of libraries. I don't want someone else deciding what I can and cannot view, talk about, or think about. Can most people agree pedophilia is wrong, and will most people avoid the book? Yes, of course. But I'm against telling anyone what to think, regardless of my own personal opinion. Why can't you objectively analyze what subject is so severe that it is worth censoring? Because, censoring intellectual material is necessarily something that is subjective. Ok and you can deliberate about the value of such material released into society, vs the value of not teaching pedophiles how to improve their methods. censorship isn't bad, it works. look at china and north korea, people are happy, they love their government. but americans have been so accustomed to it its hard to change. allow pot and guns in korea? shit will go haywire. ban guns in america? riots will start i assume. (i'm pro guns for america, no guns everywhere else(that already has no guns)). i would assume same for freedom of speech. in the end, all this book hating is caused by emotion, negative outlook on pedophiles and child molesters which is natural and should be seen negatively. however if we were to ban this book based on this emotion, same could be applied to many other things to a point that censorship would just take over and i'd rather not have that, i think we humans are getting smarter everyday to actually be responsible with the knowledge that we're given. I'm not in favor of removing the book because of any sort of angry emotion at the thought of pedophiles. It doesn't cause that reaction for someone like me. I am in favor of removing it because I understand as a human being that it is my responsibility to temper my freedoms if they are detrimental to others. I do not value the concept of freedom of speech over the safety of the children that may be put at risk because of this book. i understand, however i'd rather look at an alternative solution to protect children like death sentence for raping a child instead of banning this book.
Harsher penalties for crimes would obviously help to some degree to discourage criminals from committing crimes, but it still happens and I think there are many methods working together that can help with criminal behavior.
I understand the value of freedom over all, I live in one of the most educated and liberal parts of the US.
I just think a lot of people have become self-centered on the issue and think the world revolves around them.
They think they should take offense when their freedoms are violated, yet remain oblivious to the harm it can potentially cause.
I do think harsher penalties overall would help though.
|
Personally I think Amazon is being idiotic. Their simply going to lose customers because of this. The small proportion of people that will actually buy this won't be able to compensate.
edit:nvm, it's gone!
As for the actual book itself, free speech is nice and all, but their needs to be limits. This book is encouraging breaking multiple laws.
|
On November 12 2010 13:13 1Eris1 wrote:
As for the actual book itself, free speech is nice and all, but their needs to be limits. This book is encouraging breaking multiple laws.
And who should be given the task of setting those "limits?" At what point should they stop setting rules? Who ensures this power isn't abused?
|
On November 12 2010 13:13 1Eris1 wrote:
Personally I think Amazon is being idiotic. Their simply going to lose customers because of this. The small proportion of people that will actually buy this won't be able to compensate.
edit:nvm, it's gone!
As for the actual book itself, free speech is nice and all, but their needs to be limits. This book is encouraging breaking multiple laws.
The sad part about it is, if it were a book that accurately described the specifics on how to effectively commit an act of terror (getting past security checks, good targets , etc) people would object much more and want it banned.
Yet when it becomes an issue that may not be a threat to their own personal lives, they preach freedom of speech.
Because apparently the safety of children isn't as important as them falling victim to a terrorist act.
If you don't agree that this post is how it is just look at how the world functions... national news gets people much more concerned than international news.
|
On November 12 2010 13:13 1Eris1 wrote:
Personally I think Amazon is being idiotic. Their simply going to lose customers because of this. The small proportion of people that will actually buy this won't be able to compensate.
edit:nvm, it's gone!
As for the actual book itself, free speech is nice and all, but their needs to be limits. This book is encouraging breaking multiple laws.
Law is a blunt stick sir.
You either have free speech or you don't. The book itself isnt actually infringing on anybodies civil rights so it should be protected under the 1st amendment.
You can't just cherry pick the bill of rights, it's not supposed to be that way.
Some guy said it much better when he was defending some book that was highly controversial. You may not like what is written but the bill of rights protects everyone equally...
|
On November 12 2010 13:21 Jayme wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 13:13 1Eris1 wrote:
Personally I think Amazon is being idiotic. Their simply going to lose customers because of this. The small proportion of people that will actually buy this won't be able to compensate.
edit:nvm, it's gone!
As for the actual book itself, free speech is nice and all, but their needs to be limits. This book is encouraging breaking multiple laws. Law is a blunt stick sir. You either have free speech or you don't. The book itself isnt actually infringing on anybodies civil rights so it should be protected under the 1st amendment. You can't just cherry pick the bill of rights, it's not supposed to be that way.
Times change, the circumstances and principles may not be applicable in the same way in the past and the present.
|
On November 12 2010 13:21 Jayme wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 13:13 1Eris1 wrote:
Personally I think Amazon is being idiotic. Their simply going to lose customers because of this. The small proportion of people that will actually buy this won't be able to compensate.
edit:nvm, it's gone!
As for the actual book itself, free speech is nice and all, but their needs to be limits. This book is encouraging breaking multiple laws. Law is a blunt stick sir. You either have free speech or you don't. The book itself isnt actually infringing on anybodies civil rights so it should be protected under the 1st amendment. You can't just cherry pick the bill of rights, it's not supposed to be that way.
Amazon removing this book does not violate anything in the Bill of Rights.
|
maybe i'm the weird one because i see no level of difference between a book on "how to fly a plane into a building" or "how to kill a dog in 5 seconds" or "how to time travel back to 0 AD and kill jesus" or this book. and i wouldn't oppose any of those though i dislike all of them. instead of banning this book and that book and shit load of other books, i'd rather have harsher punishment or other alternatives to prevent these potential situations.
|
On November 12 2010 13:22 robertdinh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 13:21 Jayme wrote:On November 12 2010 13:13 1Eris1 wrote:
Personally I think Amazon is being idiotic. Their simply going to lose customers because of this. The small proportion of people that will actually buy this won't be able to compensate.
edit:nvm, it's gone!
As for the actual book itself, free speech is nice and all, but their needs to be limits. This book is encouraging breaking multiple laws. Law is a blunt stick sir. You either have free speech or you don't. The book itself isnt actually infringing on anybodies civil rights so it should be protected under the 1st amendment. You can't just cherry pick the bill of rights, it's not supposed to be that way. Times change, the circumstances and principles may not be applicable in the same way in the past and the present.
How does free speech change exactly?
Again it's plain in simple. Is it infringing on someone's civil rights? No? Then it's protected.
I don't agree with the contents of the book and Amazon is absolutely free to remove it. If the US were to ban it though...that's kinda a different story.
|
On November 12 2010 13:17 robertdinh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 13:13 1Eris1 wrote:
Personally I think Amazon is being idiotic. Their simply going to lose customers because of this. The small proportion of people that will actually buy this won't be able to compensate.
edit:nvm, it's gone!
As for the actual book itself, free speech is nice and all, but their needs to be limits. This book is encouraging breaking multiple laws. The sad part about it is, if it were a book that accurately described the specifics on how to effectively commit an act of terror (getting past security checks, good targets , etc) people would object much more and want it banned. Yet when it becomes an issue that may not be a threat to their own personal lives, they preach freedom of speech. Because apparently the safety of children isn't as important as them falling victim to a terrorist act. If you don't agree that this post is how it is just look at how the world functions... national news gets people much more concerned than international news.
But why stop just at a book describing how to be an effective pedophile? Should Amazon also remove the things pedophiles use when violating children from their website as well?
On November 12 2010 13:24 Jayme wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 13:22 robertdinh wrote:On November 12 2010 13:21 Jayme wrote:On November 12 2010 13:13 1Eris1 wrote:
Personally I think Amazon is being idiotic. Their simply going to lose customers because of this. The small proportion of people that will actually buy this won't be able to compensate.
edit:nvm, it's gone!
As for the actual book itself, free speech is nice and all, but their needs to be limits. This book is encouraging breaking multiple laws. Law is a blunt stick sir. You either have free speech or you don't. The book itself isnt actually infringing on anybodies civil rights so it should be protected under the 1st amendment. You can't just cherry pick the bill of rights, it's not supposed to be that way. Times change, the circumstances and principles may not be applicable in the same way in the past and the present. How does free speech change exactly? Again it's plain in simple. Is it infringing on someone's civil rights? No? Then it's protected. I don't agree with the contents of the book and Amazon is absolutely free to remove it. If the US were to ban it though...that's kinda a different story.
Exactly.
|
On November 12 2010 13:26 javy925 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 13:17 robertdinh wrote:On November 12 2010 13:13 1Eris1 wrote:
Personally I think Amazon is being idiotic. Their simply going to lose customers because of this. The small proportion of people that will actually buy this won't be able to compensate.
edit:nvm, it's gone!
As for the actual book itself, free speech is nice and all, but their needs to be limits. This book is encouraging breaking multiple laws. The sad part about it is, if it were a book that accurately described the specifics on how to effectively commit an act of terror (getting past security checks, good targets , etc) people would object much more and want it banned. Yet when it becomes an issue that may not be a threat to their own personal lives, they preach freedom of speech. Because apparently the safety of children isn't as important as them falling victim to a terrorist act. If you don't agree that this post is how it is just look at how the world functions... national news gets people much more concerned than international news. But why stop just at a book describing how to be an effective pedophile? Should Amazon also remove the things pedophiles use when violating children from their website as well? Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 13:24 Jayme wrote:On November 12 2010 13:22 robertdinh wrote:On November 12 2010 13:21 Jayme wrote:On November 12 2010 13:13 1Eris1 wrote:
Personally I think Amazon is being idiotic. Their simply going to lose customers because of this. The small proportion of people that will actually buy this won't be able to compensate.
edit:nvm, it's gone!
As for the actual book itself, free speech is nice and all, but their needs to be limits. This book is encouraging breaking multiple laws. Law is a blunt stick sir. You either have free speech or you don't. The book itself isnt actually infringing on anybodies civil rights so it should be protected under the 1st amendment. You can't just cherry pick the bill of rights, it's not supposed to be that way. Times change, the circumstances and principles may not be applicable in the same way in the past and the present. How does free speech change exactly? Again it's plain in simple. Is it infringing on someone's civil rights? No? Then it's protected. I don't agree with the contents of the book and Amazon is absolutely free to remove it. If the US were to ban it though...that's kinda a different story. Exactly.
That's a matter of objective analyzing.... Does a book teaching pedophiles how to improve their methods directly encourage them to improve their methods?
Does selling a tent encourage their behavior in the same direct way?
On November 12 2010 13:24 Jayme wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 13:22 robertdinh wrote:On November 12 2010 13:21 Jayme wrote:On November 12 2010 13:13 1Eris1 wrote:
Personally I think Amazon is being idiotic. Their simply going to lose customers because of this. The small proportion of people that will actually buy this won't be able to compensate.
edit:nvm, it's gone!
As for the actual book itself, free speech is nice and all, but their needs to be limits. This book is encouraging breaking multiple laws. Law is a blunt stick sir. You either have free speech or you don't. The book itself isnt actually infringing on anybodies civil rights so it should be protected under the 1st amendment. You can't just cherry pick the bill of rights, it's not supposed to be that way. Times change, the circumstances and principles may not be applicable in the same way in the past and the present. How does free speech change exactly? Again it's plain in simple. Is it infringing on someone's civil rights? No? Then it's protected. I don't agree with the contents of the book and Amazon is absolutely free to remove it. If the US were to ban it though...that's kinda a different story.
Free speech changes based on the environment. Do you really think you can exhibit free speech all the time? No there are some places in america where you might get killed for saying the wrong thing.
So it isn't really FREE speech.
It is the illusion of free speech that people are in love with. "Well how do I truly exhibit free speech, oh I have to say something controversial to show that I can say controversial stuff and get away with it".
|
On November 12 2010 13:29 robertdinh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 13:26 javy925 wrote:On November 12 2010 13:17 robertdinh wrote:On November 12 2010 13:13 1Eris1 wrote:
Personally I think Amazon is being idiotic. Their simply going to lose customers because of this. The small proportion of people that will actually buy this won't be able to compensate.
edit:nvm, it's gone!
As for the actual book itself, free speech is nice and all, but their needs to be limits. This book is encouraging breaking multiple laws. The sad part about it is, if it were a book that accurately described the specifics on how to effectively commit an act of terror (getting past security checks, good targets , etc) people would object much more and want it banned. Yet when it becomes an issue that may not be a threat to their own personal lives, they preach freedom of speech. Because apparently the safety of children isn't as important as them falling victim to a terrorist act. If you don't agree that this post is how it is just look at how the world functions... national news gets people much more concerned than international news. But why stop just at a book describing how to be an effective pedophile? Should Amazon also remove the things pedophiles use when violating children from their website as well? On November 12 2010 13:24 Jayme wrote:On November 12 2010 13:22 robertdinh wrote:On November 12 2010 13:21 Jayme wrote:On November 12 2010 13:13 1Eris1 wrote:
Personally I think Amazon is being idiotic. Their simply going to lose customers because of this. The small proportion of people that will actually buy this won't be able to compensate.
edit:nvm, it's gone!
As for the actual book itself, free speech is nice and all, but their needs to be limits. This book is encouraging breaking multiple laws. Law is a blunt stick sir. You either have free speech or you don't. The book itself isnt actually infringing on anybodies civil rights so it should be protected under the 1st amendment. You can't just cherry pick the bill of rights, it's not supposed to be that way. Times change, the circumstances and principles may not be applicable in the same way in the past and the present. How does free speech change exactly? Again it's plain in simple. Is it infringing on someone's civil rights? No? Then it's protected. I don't agree with the contents of the book and Amazon is absolutely free to remove it. If the US were to ban it though...that's kinda a different story. Exactly. That's a matter of objective analyzing.... Does a book teaching pedophiles how to improve their methods directly encourage them to improve their methods? Does selling a tent encourage their behavior in the same direct way? Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 13:24 Jayme wrote:On November 12 2010 13:22 robertdinh wrote:On November 12 2010 13:21 Jayme wrote:On November 12 2010 13:13 1Eris1 wrote:
Personally I think Amazon is being idiotic. Their simply going to lose customers because of this. The small proportion of people that will actually buy this won't be able to compensate.
edit:nvm, it's gone!
As for the actual book itself, free speech is nice and all, but their needs to be limits. This book is encouraging breaking multiple laws. Law is a blunt stick sir. You either have free speech or you don't. The book itself isnt actually infringing on anybodies civil rights so it should be protected under the 1st amendment. You can't just cherry pick the bill of rights, it's not supposed to be that way. Times change, the circumstances and principles may not be applicable in the same way in the past and the present. How does free speech change exactly? Again it's plain in simple. Is it infringing on someone's civil rights? No? Then it's protected. I don't agree with the contents of the book and Amazon is absolutely free to remove it. If the US were to ban it though...that's kinda a different story. Free speech changes based on the environment. Do you really think you can exhibit free speech all the time? No there are some places in america where you might get killed for saying the wrong thing. So it isn't really FREE speech.
so, are you saying anything that violates children should be banned and others are ok? what else is there that you think should be banned? how too cook dogs? how to eat humans? how to rape and get away with it? as said by many people, banning one subject will lead to banning others and the result of objective analyzing will be different for many people/society/community/individual/civilization.
list goes on and on...my point was children is important but its not the only issue and how to limit freedom of speech should not revolve around one subject.
only thing i like about "free speech" is "free from censorship", at least its not like in china or north korea. though it may work, i dont like it.
|
On November 12 2010 13:01 javy925 wrote:
Amazon is a private entity and can choose to sell whatever they want. Taking this book down is NOT a violation of freedom of speech.
This entire thread has devolved into a completely meaningless argument. If Amazon feels that the book violated one of its rules, which it did, then they have every right to take the book down--simple as that.
the argument isn't meaningless at all nobody is questioning amazons right to not sell the book why don't you read the thread. the argument is about whether or not that was the right thing to do if you think thats a stupid argument to have why are you even posting?
Also MerciLess is absolutely right about everything he has said.
|
On November 12 2010 13:29 robertdinh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 13:26 javy925 wrote:On November 12 2010 13:17 robertdinh wrote:On November 12 2010 13:13 1Eris1 wrote:
Personally I think Amazon is being idiotic. Their simply going to lose customers because of this. The small proportion of people that will actually buy this won't be able to compensate.
edit:nvm, it's gone!
As for the actual book itself, free speech is nice and all, but their needs to be limits. This book is encouraging breaking multiple laws. The sad part about it is, if it were a book that accurately described the specifics on how to effectively commit an act of terror (getting past security checks, good targets , etc) people would object much more and want it banned. Yet when it becomes an issue that may not be a threat to their own personal lives, they preach freedom of speech. Because apparently the safety of children isn't as important as them falling victim to a terrorist act. If you don't agree that this post is how it is just look at how the world functions... national news gets people much more concerned than international news. But why stop just at a book describing how to be an effective pedophile? Should Amazon also remove the things pedophiles use when violating children from their website as well? On November 12 2010 13:24 Jayme wrote:On November 12 2010 13:22 robertdinh wrote:On November 12 2010 13:21 Jayme wrote:On November 12 2010 13:13 1Eris1 wrote:
Personally I think Amazon is being idiotic. Their simply going to lose customers because of this. The small proportion of people that will actually buy this won't be able to compensate.
edit:nvm, it's gone!
As for the actual book itself, free speech is nice and all, but their needs to be limits. This book is encouraging breaking multiple laws. Law is a blunt stick sir. You either have free speech or you don't. The book itself isnt actually infringing on anybodies civil rights so it should be protected under the 1st amendment. You can't just cherry pick the bill of rights, it's not supposed to be that way. Times change, the circumstances and principles may not be applicable in the same way in the past and the present. How does free speech change exactly? Again it's plain in simple. Is it infringing on someone's civil rights? No? Then it's protected. I don't agree with the contents of the book and Amazon is absolutely free to remove it. If the US were to ban it though...that's kinda a different story. Exactly. That's a matter of objective analyzing.... Does a book teaching pedophiles how to improve their methods directly encourage them to improve their methods? Does selling a tent encourage their behavior in the same direct way? Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 13:24 Jayme wrote:On November 12 2010 13:22 robertdinh wrote:On November 12 2010 13:21 Jayme wrote:On November 12 2010 13:13 1Eris1 wrote:
Personally I think Amazon is being idiotic. Their simply going to lose customers because of this. The small proportion of people that will actually buy this won't be able to compensate.
edit:nvm, it's gone!
As for the actual book itself, free speech is nice and all, but their needs to be limits. This book is encouraging breaking multiple laws. Law is a blunt stick sir. You either have free speech or you don't. The book itself isnt actually infringing on anybodies civil rights so it should be protected under the 1st amendment. You can't just cherry pick the bill of rights, it's not supposed to be that way. Times change, the circumstances and principles may not be applicable in the same way in the past and the present. How does free speech change exactly? Again it's plain in simple. Is it infringing on someone's civil rights? No? Then it's protected. I don't agree with the contents of the book and Amazon is absolutely free to remove it. If the US were to ban it though...that's kinda a different story. Free speech changes based on the environment. Do you really think you can exhibit free speech all the time? No there are some places in america where you might get killed for saying the wrong thing. So it isn't really FREE speech. It is the illusion of free speech that people are in love with. "Well how do I truly exhibit free speech, oh I have to say something controversial to show that I can say controversial stuff and get away with it".
You are twisting the definition of free speech into your own. The First Amendment does not define "FREE" as not getting you killed. Whether or not saying something gets you killed has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech. The ability to say something without repercussion from the government is free speech.
|
On November 12 2010 13:38 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 13:29 robertdinh wrote:On November 12 2010 13:26 javy925 wrote:On November 12 2010 13:17 robertdinh wrote:On November 12 2010 13:13 1Eris1 wrote:
Personally I think Amazon is being idiotic. Their simply going to lose customers because of this. The small proportion of people that will actually buy this won't be able to compensate.
edit:nvm, it's gone!
As for the actual book itself, free speech is nice and all, but their needs to be limits. This book is encouraging breaking multiple laws. The sad part about it is, if it were a book that accurately described the specifics on how to effectively commit an act of terror (getting past security checks, good targets , etc) people would object much more and want it banned. Yet when it becomes an issue that may not be a threat to their own personal lives, they preach freedom of speech. Because apparently the safety of children isn't as important as them falling victim to a terrorist act. If you don't agree that this post is how it is just look at how the world functions... national news gets people much more concerned than international news. But why stop just at a book describing how to be an effective pedophile? Should Amazon also remove the things pedophiles use when violating children from their website as well? On November 12 2010 13:24 Jayme wrote:On November 12 2010 13:22 robertdinh wrote:On November 12 2010 13:21 Jayme wrote:On November 12 2010 13:13 1Eris1 wrote:
Personally I think Amazon is being idiotic. Their simply going to lose customers because of this. The small proportion of people that will actually buy this won't be able to compensate.
edit:nvm, it's gone!
As for the actual book itself, free speech is nice and all, but their needs to be limits. This book is encouraging breaking multiple laws. Law is a blunt stick sir. You either have free speech or you don't. The book itself isnt actually infringing on anybodies civil rights so it should be protected under the 1st amendment. You can't just cherry pick the bill of rights, it's not supposed to be that way. Times change, the circumstances and principles may not be applicable in the same way in the past and the present. How does free speech change exactly? Again it's plain in simple. Is it infringing on someone's civil rights? No? Then it's protected. I don't agree with the contents of the book and Amazon is absolutely free to remove it. If the US were to ban it though...that's kinda a different story. Exactly. That's a matter of objective analyzing.... Does a book teaching pedophiles how to improve their methods directly encourage them to improve their methods? Does selling a tent encourage their behavior in the same direct way? On November 12 2010 13:24 Jayme wrote:On November 12 2010 13:22 robertdinh wrote:On November 12 2010 13:21 Jayme wrote:On November 12 2010 13:13 1Eris1 wrote:
Personally I think Amazon is being idiotic. Their simply going to lose customers because of this. The small proportion of people that will actually buy this won't be able to compensate.
edit:nvm, it's gone!
As for the actual book itself, free speech is nice and all, but their needs to be limits. This book is encouraging breaking multiple laws. Law is a blunt stick sir. You either have free speech or you don't. The book itself isnt actually infringing on anybodies civil rights so it should be protected under the 1st amendment. You can't just cherry pick the bill of rights, it's not supposed to be that way. Times change, the circumstances and principles may not be applicable in the same way in the past and the present. How does free speech change exactly? Again it's plain in simple. Is it infringing on someone's civil rights? No? Then it's protected. I don't agree with the contents of the book and Amazon is absolutely free to remove it. If the US were to ban it though...that's kinda a different story. Free speech changes based on the environment. Do you really think you can exhibit free speech all the time? No there are some places in america where you might get killed for saying the wrong thing. So it isn't really FREE speech. so, are you saying anything that violates children should be banned and others are ok? what else is there that you think should be banned? how too cook dogs? how to eat humans? how to rape and get away with it? as said by many people, banning one subject will lead to banning others and the result of objective analyzing will be different for many people/society/community/individual/civilization. list goes on and on...my point was children is important but its not the only issue and how to limit freedom of speech should not revolve around one subject. only thing i like about "free speech" is "free from censorship", at least its not like in china or north korea.
I'm saying people can objectively analyze what people should censor and what they should not.
People can advocate free speech from the safety of their own computer quite easily, but would they also advocate it in a part of america where it is dangerous to say certain things?
Nope, because there would be imminent danger to themselves in that scenario, yet it is ok to advocate it when it doesn't impact them personally, though it may impact young children in this case.
On November 12 2010 13:40 javy925 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 13:29 robertdinh wrote:On November 12 2010 13:26 javy925 wrote:On November 12 2010 13:17 robertdinh wrote:On November 12 2010 13:13 1Eris1 wrote:
Personally I think Amazon is being idiotic. Their simply going to lose customers because of this. The small proportion of people that will actually buy this won't be able to compensate.
edit:nvm, it's gone!
As for the actual book itself, free speech is nice and all, but their needs to be limits. This book is encouraging breaking multiple laws. The sad part about it is, if it were a book that accurately described the specifics on how to effectively commit an act of terror (getting past security checks, good targets , etc) people would object much more and want it banned. Yet when it becomes an issue that may not be a threat to their own personal lives, they preach freedom of speech. Because apparently the safety of children isn't as important as them falling victim to a terrorist act. If you don't agree that this post is how it is just look at how the world functions... national news gets people much more concerned than international news. But why stop just at a book describing how to be an effective pedophile? Should Amazon also remove the things pedophiles use when violating children from their website as well? On November 12 2010 13:24 Jayme wrote:On November 12 2010 13:22 robertdinh wrote:On November 12 2010 13:21 Jayme wrote:On November 12 2010 13:13 1Eris1 wrote:
Personally I think Amazon is being idiotic. Their simply going to lose customers because of this. The small proportion of people that will actually buy this won't be able to compensate.
edit:nvm, it's gone!
As for the actual book itself, free speech is nice and all, but their needs to be limits. This book is encouraging breaking multiple laws. Law is a blunt stick sir. You either have free speech or you don't. The book itself isnt actually infringing on anybodies civil rights so it should be protected under the 1st amendment. You can't just cherry pick the bill of rights, it's not supposed to be that way. Times change, the circumstances and principles may not be applicable in the same way in the past and the present. How does free speech change exactly? Again it's plain in simple. Is it infringing on someone's civil rights? No? Then it's protected. I don't agree with the contents of the book and Amazon is absolutely free to remove it. If the US were to ban it though...that's kinda a different story. Exactly. That's a matter of objective analyzing.... Does a book teaching pedophiles how to improve their methods directly encourage them to improve their methods? Does selling a tent encourage their behavior in the same direct way? On November 12 2010 13:24 Jayme wrote:On November 12 2010 13:22 robertdinh wrote:On November 12 2010 13:21 Jayme wrote:On November 12 2010 13:13 1Eris1 wrote:
Personally I think Amazon is being idiotic. Their simply going to lose customers because of this. The small proportion of people that will actually buy this won't be able to compensate.
edit:nvm, it's gone!
As for the actual book itself, free speech is nice and all, but their needs to be limits. This book is encouraging breaking multiple laws. Law is a blunt stick sir. You either have free speech or you don't. The book itself isnt actually infringing on anybodies civil rights so it should be protected under the 1st amendment. You can't just cherry pick the bill of rights, it's not supposed to be that way. Times change, the circumstances and principles may not be applicable in the same way in the past and the present. How does free speech change exactly? Again it's plain in simple. Is it infringing on someone's civil rights? No? Then it's protected. I don't agree with the contents of the book and Amazon is absolutely free to remove it. If the US were to ban it though...that's kinda a different story. Free speech changes based on the environment. Do you really think you can exhibit free speech all the time? No there are some places in america where you might get killed for saying the wrong thing. So it isn't really FREE speech. It is the illusion of free speech that people are in love with. "Well how do I truly exhibit free speech, oh I have to say something controversial to show that I can say controversial stuff and get away with it". You are twisting the definition of free speech into your own. The First Amendment does not define "FREE" as not getting you killed. Whether or not saying something gets you killed has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech. The ability to say something without repercussion from the government is free speech.
Nope that would be the illusion of free speech, in reality if you say something and it gets you killed you weren't really "free" to say it, since the cost was your life.
Sorta like how in reality you may feel you are "free" to advocate the allowance of a guide on pedophilia to be distributed for the sake of free speech, but in reality the cost may be the exploitation of kids.
|
On November 12 2010 13:29 robertdinh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 13:26 javy925 wrote:On November 12 2010 13:17 robertdinh wrote:On November 12 2010 13:13 1Eris1 wrote:
Personally I think Amazon is being idiotic. Their simply going to lose customers because of this. The small proportion of people that will actually buy this won't be able to compensate.
edit:nvm, it's gone!
As for the actual book itself, free speech is nice and all, but their needs to be limits. This book is encouraging breaking multiple laws. The sad part about it is, if it were a book that accurately described the specifics on how to effectively commit an act of terror (getting past security checks, good targets , etc) people would object much more and want it banned. Yet when it becomes an issue that may not be a threat to their own personal lives, they preach freedom of speech. Because apparently the safety of children isn't as important as them falling victim to a terrorist act. If you don't agree that this post is how it is just look at how the world functions... national news gets people much more concerned than international news. But why stop just at a book describing how to be an effective pedophile? Should Amazon also remove the things pedophiles use when violating children from their website as well? On November 12 2010 13:24 Jayme wrote:On November 12 2010 13:22 robertdinh wrote:On November 12 2010 13:21 Jayme wrote:On November 12 2010 13:13 1Eris1 wrote:
Personally I think Amazon is being idiotic. Their simply going to lose customers because of this. The small proportion of people that will actually buy this won't be able to compensate.
edit:nvm, it's gone!
As for the actual book itself, free speech is nice and all, but their needs to be limits. This book is encouraging breaking multiple laws. Law is a blunt stick sir. You either have free speech or you don't. The book itself isnt actually infringing on anybodies civil rights so it should be protected under the 1st amendment. You can't just cherry pick the bill of rights, it's not supposed to be that way. Times change, the circumstances and principles may not be applicable in the same way in the past and the present. How does free speech change exactly? Again it's plain in simple. Is it infringing on someone's civil rights? No? Then it's protected. I don't agree with the contents of the book and Amazon is absolutely free to remove it. If the US were to ban it though...that's kinda a different story. Exactly. That's a matter of objective analyzing.... Does a book teaching pedophiles how to improve their methods directly encourage them to improve their methods? Does selling a tent encourage their behavior in the same direct way? Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 13:24 Jayme wrote:On November 12 2010 13:22 robertdinh wrote:On November 12 2010 13:21 Jayme wrote:On November 12 2010 13:13 1Eris1 wrote:
Personally I think Amazon is being idiotic. Their simply going to lose customers because of this. The small proportion of people that will actually buy this won't be able to compensate.
edit:nvm, it's gone!
As for the actual book itself, free speech is nice and all, but their needs to be limits. This book is encouraging breaking multiple laws. Law is a blunt stick sir. You either have free speech or you don't. The book itself isnt actually infringing on anybodies civil rights so it should be protected under the 1st amendment. You can't just cherry pick the bill of rights, it's not supposed to be that way. Times change, the circumstances and principles may not be applicable in the same way in the past and the present. How does free speech change exactly? Again it's plain in simple. Is it infringing on someone's civil rights? No? Then it's protected. I don't agree with the contents of the book and Amazon is absolutely free to remove it. If the US were to ban it though...that's kinda a different story. Free speech changes based on the environment. Do you really think you can exhibit free speech all the time? No there are some places in america where you might get killed for saying the wrong thing. So it isn't really FREE speech. It is the illusion of free speech that people are in love with. "Well how do I truly exhibit free speech, oh I have to say something controversial to show that I can say controversial stuff and get away with it".
Yes if I go to the east side of san antonio and scream at one of the gang members there with a ton of racial slurs chances are I'm going to end up stabbed at best and killed at worst.
What's your point?
Free Speech is the freedom to say what you want without the threat of going to jail because the government doesn't like what you say. It has nothing to do with how a random individual will act upon what you say.
|
On November 12 2010 13:44 Jayme wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 13:29 robertdinh wrote:On November 12 2010 13:26 javy925 wrote:On November 12 2010 13:17 robertdinh wrote:On November 12 2010 13:13 1Eris1 wrote:
Personally I think Amazon is being idiotic. Their simply going to lose customers because of this. The small proportion of people that will actually buy this won't be able to compensate.
edit:nvm, it's gone!
As for the actual book itself, free speech is nice and all, but their needs to be limits. This book is encouraging breaking multiple laws. The sad part about it is, if it were a book that accurately described the specifics on how to effectively commit an act of terror (getting past security checks, good targets , etc) people would object much more and want it banned. Yet when it becomes an issue that may not be a threat to their own personal lives, they preach freedom of speech. Because apparently the safety of children isn't as important as them falling victim to a terrorist act. If you don't agree that this post is how it is just look at how the world functions... national news gets people much more concerned than international news. But why stop just at a book describing how to be an effective pedophile? Should Amazon also remove the things pedophiles use when violating children from their website as well? On November 12 2010 13:24 Jayme wrote:On November 12 2010 13:22 robertdinh wrote:On November 12 2010 13:21 Jayme wrote:On November 12 2010 13:13 1Eris1 wrote:
Personally I think Amazon is being idiotic. Their simply going to lose customers because of this. The small proportion of people that will actually buy this won't be able to compensate.
edit:nvm, it's gone!
As for the actual book itself, free speech is nice and all, but their needs to be limits. This book is encouraging breaking multiple laws. Law is a blunt stick sir. You either have free speech or you don't. The book itself isnt actually infringing on anybodies civil rights so it should be protected under the 1st amendment. You can't just cherry pick the bill of rights, it's not supposed to be that way. Times change, the circumstances and principles may not be applicable in the same way in the past and the present. How does free speech change exactly? Again it's plain in simple. Is it infringing on someone's civil rights? No? Then it's protected. I don't agree with the contents of the book and Amazon is absolutely free to remove it. If the US were to ban it though...that's kinda a different story. Exactly. That's a matter of objective analyzing.... Does a book teaching pedophiles how to improve their methods directly encourage them to improve their methods? Does selling a tent encourage their behavior in the same direct way? On November 12 2010 13:24 Jayme wrote:On November 12 2010 13:22 robertdinh wrote:On November 12 2010 13:21 Jayme wrote:On November 12 2010 13:13 1Eris1 wrote:
Personally I think Amazon is being idiotic. Their simply going to lose customers because of this. The small proportion of people that will actually buy this won't be able to compensate.
edit:nvm, it's gone!
As for the actual book itself, free speech is nice and all, but their needs to be limits. This book is encouraging breaking multiple laws. Law is a blunt stick sir. You either have free speech or you don't. The book itself isnt actually infringing on anybodies civil rights so it should be protected under the 1st amendment. You can't just cherry pick the bill of rights, it's not supposed to be that way. Times change, the circumstances and principles may not be applicable in the same way in the past and the present. How does free speech change exactly? Again it's plain in simple. Is it infringing on someone's civil rights? No? Then it's protected. I don't agree with the contents of the book and Amazon is absolutely free to remove it. If the US were to ban it though...that's kinda a different story. Free speech changes based on the environment. Do you really think you can exhibit free speech all the time? No there are some places in america where you might get killed for saying the wrong thing. So it isn't really FREE speech. It is the illusion of free speech that people are in love with. "Well how do I truly exhibit free speech, oh I have to say something controversial to show that I can say controversial stuff and get away with it". Yes if I go to the east side of san antonio and scream at one of the gang members there with a ton of racial slurs chances are I'm going to end up stabbed at best and killed at worst. What's your point? Free Speech is the freedom to say what you want without the threat of going to jail because the government doesn't like what you say. It has nothing to do with how a random individual will act upon what you say.
Yea that's what I call the illusion of freedom.
Being able to do something freely in concept is a lot different than in practice.
Why would you be content with theoretically being able to freely speak, when in reality you can not.
|
On November 12 2010 13:06 robertdinh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 13:03 Shakes wrote:On November 12 2010 12:54 robertdinh wrote:
Ok and you can deliberate about the value of such material released into society, vs the value of not teaching pedophiles how to improve their methods.
The problem is you're looking at the issue on a work by work basis. I think most people who are taking the pro-free speech stance would agree that there are some works the world would be better off without. The problem is you need someone to make the decision on what those works are, and by investing that authority in them you give them power to do greater harm than any book being published. Well first off it should be on a work by work basis, some rules just aren't efficient all of the time. Second off, can you really say it would do greater harm than any book being published, you assume so because freedom is a sacred concept, but in reality how do you measure freedom and censorship vs children being put at risk. It's simply a matter of people valuing their own beliefs more than the safety of the children.
I don't consider freedom to be a sacred concept, there is no way to build a logically sound philosophy around such a thing. As soon as you get more than one person in the world one person's rights are going to conflict with another's, and you'll have a situation where increasing freedom for some decreases it for others.
My point on freedom of speech is a purely practical one, as soon as you allow someone to censor you give that person a great deal of power, as they control what other people can and can not see & hear. There is an enormous potential for abuse of power in a situation like that. I don't support freedom of speech because I think there's something profound in allowing people to say whatever they want, I support it because I fear the consequences if they can't.
|
You know you've lost the argument when you start taking things literally in order to create some sort of absurdity to throw at other people. Freedom of speech doesn't literally mean I can say what ever I want, whenever I want, and shouldn't expect any repercussions. The concept of freedom of speech means that the government and/or other people cannot dictate what I say/write/read/think legislatively. If I choose to use my freedom of speech in an unintelligent manner, and an individual takes issue with what I say, I deserve what I get. I wouldn't use my freedom of religion to spread the more radical forms of Islam in an airport just prior to a flight. It may be legal, but it is not prudent. If you can't think of a decent, logical argument, simply accept the fact that you are wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
