|
On November 12 2010 13:46 robertdinh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 13:44 Jayme wrote: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.
Nobody cares about your definition of freedom because it is not consistent with the Bill of Rights. Go read the First Amendment, please.
|
On November 12 2010 13:49 MerciLess wrote:
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.
Freedom of religion is different from freedom of speech.
Basically what you are saying is you will argue for the concept of freedom of speech, but you won't actually practice what you preach.
What you don't realize is the concept of free speech is irrelevant if you can't actually consistently apply it in living.
On November 12 2010 13:49 javy925 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 13:46 robertdinh wrote:On November 12 2010 13:44 Jayme wrote: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. Nobody cares about your definition of freedom because it is not consistent with the Bill of Rights. Go read the First Amendment, please.
So you advocate a book teaching pedophiles how to improve their methods. But you would not use your freedom of speech in an area where it might be dangerous to you.
You selectively choose when free speech applies to you and when it doesn't.
Yet you are trying to argue with the idea of people choosing when it should apply and when it doesn't.
In this case when it would be dangerous for children.
What you are conveying is a situational belief.
|
On November 12 2010 13:46 robertdinh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 13:44 Jayme wrote: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.
Dude what are you talking about? There is no illusion.
The bill of rights protects me from the goverment...THATS IT. It doesn't state anywhere that I can say what I want to whomever I want and not expect a retaliation. It says the govermnent cannot interfere with my freedom of speech.
You are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own reality, your definition of the first amendment is flat wrong.
|
On November 12 2010 13:42 robertdinh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 13:38 jinorazi wrote: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. Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 13:40 javy925 wrote: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.
the point i'm trying to get across is that, it isn't about this book and the children. its about the bigger picture. even though i do not approve of this book and dislike it and child molesters should rot in a russian jail (referring to other thread), i'm willing to look past that for the greater good of not getting censored on shit load of other things because its the result of objective analysis by someone i might not share the same perspective.
child molesters will continue to be child molesters with or without this book and some will be smart enough to figure out how to get away with it. the book isnt the issue, new laws and awareness should be created to protect the children.
|
On November 12 2010 13:54 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 13:42 robertdinh wrote:On November 12 2010 13:38 jinorazi wrote: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: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. the point i'm trying to get across is that, it isn't about this book and the children. its about the bigger picture. even though i do not approve of this book and dislike it and child molesters should rot in a russian jail (referring to other thread), i'm willing to look past that for the greater good of not getting censored on shit load of other things because its the result of objective analysis by someone i might not share the same perspective. child molesters will continue to be child molesters with or without this book and some will be smart enough to figure out how to get away with it. the book isnt the issue, new laws and awareness should be created to protect the children.
When you put children at risk for the "bigger picture" you better at least understand the implications of it all.
This book can help a pedophile go from lacking confidence and being afraid to put his feelings into action, to being confident in a method he learned and taking action.
It may help someone that would not have gotten away with it, get away with it.
As I said before it's just my personal belief that even freedoms need to be tempered intuitively. Since a lot of people lack self-control when applying freedoms.
A good example of this in practice is with the right to own a firearm. Some people have had this right stripped from them as punishment for something they have done because the law feels they are a danger to society if given that right.
Same can be said for free speech, sometimes that right has to be stripped as it can be a danger to society if not.
|
On November 12 2010 14:00 robertdinh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 13:54 jinorazi wrote:On November 12 2010 13:42 robertdinh wrote:On November 12 2010 13:38 jinorazi wrote: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: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. the point i'm trying to get across is that, it isn't about this book and the children. its about the bigger picture. even though i do not approve of this book and dislike it and child molesters should rot in a russian jail (referring to other thread), i'm willing to look past that for the greater good of not getting censored on shit load of other things because its the result of objective analysis by someone i might not share the same perspective. child molesters will continue to be child molesters with or without this book and some will be smart enough to figure out how to get away with it. the book isnt the issue, new laws and awareness should be created to protect the children. When you put children at risk for the "bigger picture" you better at least understand the implications of it all. This book can help a pedophile go from lacking confidence and being afraid to put his feelings into action, to being confident in a method he learned and taking action. It may help someone that would not have gotten away with it, get away with it. As I said before it's just my personal belief that even freedoms need to be tempered intuitively. Since a lot of people lack self-control when applying freedoms.
as i've said many times, banning this book won't help much against protecting the children(i assume). people want it banned solely for the reason of being wrong. there are alternatives to help the children than to ban this book and put freedom of speech/free from censorship in jeopardy.
if lack of self-control is the issue, guns, martial arts and other potentially harmful knowledge/tool should be banned.
|
On November 12 2010 14:00 robertdinh wrote:
This book can help a pedophile go from lacking confidence and being afraid to put his feelings into action, to being confident in a method he learned and taking action.
Pertinent question here: have you actually read the book in question, or are you just guessing?
Because if you haven't read the book your standard to ban something is a hunch that it may contain information that you speculate might cause someone to feel confident enough to commit a crime.
By that sort of standard of proof we may as well shut down the libraries.
|
On November 12 2010 14:04 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 14:00 robertdinh wrote:On November 12 2010 13:54 jinorazi wrote:On November 12 2010 13:42 robertdinh wrote:On November 12 2010 13:38 jinorazi wrote: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:
[quote]
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: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:
[quote]
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. the point i'm trying to get across is that, it isn't about this book and the children. its about the bigger picture. even though i do not approve of this book and dislike it and child molesters should rot in a russian jail (referring to other thread), i'm willing to look past that for the greater good of not getting censored on shit load of other things because its the result of objective analysis by someone i might not share the same perspective. child molesters will continue to be child molesters with or without this book and some will be smart enough to figure out how to get away with it. the book isnt the issue, new laws and awareness should be created to protect the children. When you put children at risk for the "bigger picture" you better at least understand the implications of it all. This book can help a pedophile go from lacking confidence and being afraid to put his feelings into action, to being confident in a method he learned and taking action. It may help someone that would not have gotten away with it, get away with it. As I said before it's just my personal belief that even freedoms need to be tempered intuitively. Since a lot of people lack self-control when applying freedoms. as i've said many times, banning this book won't help much against protecting the children(i assume). people want it banned solely for the reason of being wrong. there are alternatives to help the children than to ban this book and put freedom of speech/free from censorship in jeopardy.
That freedom of speech is just an idea though, as i've shown many of the advocates will not always perpetuate that freedom, it all depends on whether it's safe for them to or not. They would temper what they say in certain parts of america for example.
Also if there were books detailing the specifics on how to execute a massive act of terror on america many people would neglect free speech in that case.
It's all a matter of people valuing their perceived freedom except when it puts themselves in danger.
If you truly advocate free speech in america you will advocate it anywhere and everywhere in america
If you don't you are just selective in when your beliefs apply and when they don't.
|
Unbelievable. I will use my free speech to say Im speechless. Dude needs to spend life in jail.
|
On November 12 2010 13:42 robertdinh wrote:
I'm saying people can objectively analyze what people should censor and what they should not.
Advocates for censorship of certain books should realize that some type of moral authority needs to be in place to undertake this task. Censoring not only this book but every book it judges to be offensive/dangerous - for the greater good of society.
If you're willing to accept this, you must also accept the fact that your own personal standards are now being decided for you by a third party.
|
I'm kinda hoping that I'm being repetitive here, otherwise I would be saddened if this thread has gone 48 pages under the assumption that there are not limits to free speech (at least under the US Constitution's 1st Amendment). As ruled over dozens of Supreme Court cases over the centuries, free speech can limited under 5 criteria: 1) clear and present danger 2) fighting words 3) libel and slander 4) obscenity 5) conflict with societal or governmental interests.
A previous post asked "who sets the limits?" That's pretty obvious - the Supreme Court. Also note that despite the quick summarized taglines for each of the criteria, they each are much more complex than a literal reading, often with much more stringent/specific requirements (for instance, libel and slander necessitating both reckless disregard of the truth as well as malicious intent as just two of several requirements), so inb4"OMG#5JUSTIFIES-NAZIS-BECAUSE-ANYTHING-CAN-BE-SAID-TO-OPPOSE-GOVERNMENT-INTEREST""
|
On November 12 2010 14:09 robertdinh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 14:04 jinorazi wrote:On November 12 2010 14:00 robertdinh wrote:On November 12 2010 13:54 jinorazi wrote:On November 12 2010 13:42 robertdinh wrote:On November 12 2010 13:38 jinorazi wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. the point i'm trying to get across is that, it isn't about this book and the children. its about the bigger picture. even though i do not approve of this book and dislike it and child molesters should rot in a russian jail (referring to other thread), i'm willing to look past that for the greater good of not getting censored on shit load of other things because its the result of objective analysis by someone i might not share the same perspective. child molesters will continue to be child molesters with or without this book and some will be smart enough to figure out how to get away with it. the book isnt the issue, new laws and awareness should be created to protect the children. When you put children at risk for the "bigger picture" you better at least understand the implications of it all. This book can help a pedophile go from lacking confidence and being afraid to put his feelings into action, to being confident in a method he learned and taking action. It may help someone that would not have gotten away with it, get away with it. As I said before it's just my personal belief that even freedoms need to be tempered intuitively. Since a lot of people lack self-control when applying freedoms. as i've said many times, banning this book won't help much against protecting the children(i assume). people want it banned solely for the reason of being wrong. there are alternatives to help the children than to ban this book and put freedom of speech/free from censorship in jeopardy. That freedom of speech is just an idea though, as i've shown many of the advocates will not always perpetuate that freedom, it all depends on whether it's safe for them to or not. They would temper what they say in certain parts of america for example. Also if there were books detailing the specifics on how to execute a massive act of terror on america many people would neglect free speech in that case.
if theres a manual on massive act of terror, it'll be removed for being a threat to national security and would do little against freedom of speech. however if it was a movie portraying a perfect execution of a massive terror act, i think many won't be against it.
if the government wants to ban this book and this book only, i'm all for it but that won't be the case, more bans will come.
people would advocate something publicly if it really mattered to them. for example, for me, i would protest publicly if evolution was banned from the class rooms and replaced with creationism/intelligent design. removing evolution violates freedom of speech( i think) and shows total ignorance, and i will fight for it to be corrected.
|
On November 12 2010 14:13 SilverLeagueElite wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 13:42 robertdinh wrote:
I'm saying people can objectively analyze what people should censor and what they should not.
Advocates for censorship of certain books should realize that some type of moral authority needs to be in place to undertake this task. Censoring not only this book but every book it judges to be offensive/dangerous - for the greater good of society. If you're willing to accept this, you must also accept the fact that your own personal standards are now being decided for you by a third party.
Obviously censorship can be abused, but there are times where it is better to censor than it is not to, and times when it is better not to censor than it is to.
But people who hide behind the guise of free speech as if they want to protect the integrity of it no matter what, yet would temper it only when it puts them in danger aren't really protecting the integrity of it.
On November 12 2010 14:15 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 14:09 robertdinh wrote:On November 12 2010 14:04 jinorazi wrote:On November 12 2010 14:00 robertdinh wrote:On November 12 2010 13:54 jinorazi wrote:On November 12 2010 13:42 robertdinh wrote:On November 12 2010 13:38 jinorazi wrote:On November 12 2010 13:29 robertdinh wrote:On November 12 2010 13:26 javy925 wrote:On November 12 2010 13:17 robertdinh wrote:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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:On November 12 2010 13:29 robertdinh wrote:On November 12 2010 13:26 javy925 wrote:On November 12 2010 13:17 robertdinh wrote:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. the point i'm trying to get across is that, it isn't about this book and the children. its about the bigger picture. even though i do not approve of this book and dislike it and child molesters should rot in a russian jail (referring to other thread), i'm willing to look past that for the greater good of not getting censored on shit load of other things because its the result of objective analysis by someone i might not share the same perspective. child molesters will continue to be child molesters with or without this book and some will be smart enough to figure out how to get away with it. the book isnt the issue, new laws and awareness should be created to protect the children. When you put children at risk for the "bigger picture" you better at least understand the implications of it all. This book can help a pedophile go from lacking confidence and being afraid to put his feelings into action, to being confident in a method he learned and taking action. It may help someone that would not have gotten away with it, get away with it. As I said before it's just my personal belief that even freedoms need to be tempered intuitively. Since a lot of people lack self-control when applying freedoms. as i've said many times, banning this book won't help much against protecting the children(i assume). people want it banned solely for the reason of being wrong. there are alternatives to help the children than to ban this book and put freedom of speech/free from censorship in jeopardy. That freedom of speech is just an idea though, as i've shown many of the advocates will not always perpetuate that freedom, it all depends on whether it's safe for them to or not. They would temper what they say in certain parts of america for example. Also if there were books detailing the specifics on how to execute a massive act of terror on america many people would neglect free speech in that case. if theres a manual on massive act of terror, it'll be removed for being a threat to national security and would do little against freedom of speech. however if it was a movie portraying a perfect execution of a massive terror act, i think many won't be against it. people would advocate something publicly if it really mattered to them. for example, for me, i would protest publicly if evolution was banned from the class rooms and replaced with creationism/intelligent design.
This book is a risk too it apparently details the specifics on how to practice pedophilia and get away with it.
I'm glad you would stand up for your beliefs, making them true beliefs, I just feel some of the people here are selectively applying their "beliefs" only when it is convenient to them.
As in it is ok to stand up for free speech when it clearly puts children at risk, but it's also ok not to stand up for it if they are in a part of america where saying certain things may get them personally harmed.
|
I may hate and despise everything Fred Phelps does, but until he breaks an actual law I will uphold his right to say it. Oh wait wrong person right?
Amazon has a right to remove this book, but many of the people are talking government intervention to banning this book. Of course for the "protection" of children.
http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/banned/bannedbooksweek/index.cfm
Also I've seen the poor idea of tougher sentences equals reduce crime. Which is totally false.
http://www.edubook.com/do-tough-sentences-reduce-crime/9531/
Also removing this book from amazon with such a ruckus will only allow the author to sell more items. Which seems to be the opposite of what a lot of people in this thread wants. There should be no limit on free speech. As long as no actual damage is done. The idea of theoretical damage through actions as the result of this book is ridiculous.
|
Yeah, definitely lines should be drawn on free speach, how is this okay by any means? I mean okayin the freedom in this particular case?
|
It's simply fake and stupid libertarianism to allow the sale of a book instructing techniques of a most sinister crime so as to allow psychopaths to commit the crime and get away with it.
Freedom nuts need to get raped by someone who reads a book of this nature and the criminal needs to escape judgment. Then we'll ask for their opinion again. I somehow doubt it'll be 'this guy raped my son/daughter/sibling and got away because of a book like this but allow the sale of this book anyway'.
|
On November 12 2010 17:09 mikado wrote:
It's simply fake and stupid libertarianism to allow the sale of a book instructing techniques of a most sinister crime so as to allow psychopaths to commit the crime and get away with it.
Freedom nuts need to get raped by someone who reads a book of this nature and the criminal needs to escape judgment. Then we'll ask for their opinion again. I somehow doubt it'll be 'this guy raped my son/daughter/sibling and got away because of a book like this but allow the sale of this book anyway'.
And once advocates of banning this book spend some time in a country that does not have the freedoms they take for granted, they may change their mind about the benevolence of state censorship, and the virtue of thoughtpolice.
|
On November 12 2010 17:09 mikado wrote:
It's simply fake and stupid libertarianism to allow the sale of a book instructing techniques of a most sinister crime so as to allow psychopaths to commit the crime and get away with it.
Freedom nuts need to get raped by someone who reads a book of this nature and the criminal needs to escape judgment. Then we'll ask for their opinion again. I somehow doubt it'll be 'this guy raped my son/daughter/sibling and got away because of a book like this but allow the sale of this book anyway'.
You're using a logical fallacy in your incredibly stupid argument. Your logical fallacy is that this book is a magic totem that will guarantee that anyone reading it doesn't get in trouble for the crimes it(supposedly as I've doubt you've read it) instructs on. The book is not a get out of jail free card, or a magical magnet for children. It's paper, paper on which is written ideas. Wanting freedom as specified in the constitution, and bill of rights, does not make me a freedom nut. Being okay with banning books and "raping" people who don't agree with you, does however, make you a fascist.
|
On November 12 2010 19:48 MerciLess wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 17:09 mikado wrote:
It's simply fake and stupid libertarianism to allow the sale of a book instructing techniques of a most sinister crime so as to allow psychopaths to commit the crime and get away with it.
Freedom nuts need to get raped by someone who reads a book of this nature and the criminal needs to escape judgment. Then we'll ask for their opinion again. I somehow doubt it'll be 'this guy raped my son/daughter/sibling and got away because of a book like this but allow the sale of this book anyway'. You're using a logical fallacy in your incredibly stupid argument. Your logical fallacy is that this book is a magic totem that will guarantee that anyone reading it doesn't get in trouble for the crimes it(supposedly as I've doubt you've read it) instructs on. The book is not a get out of jail free card, or a magical magnet for children. It's paper, paper on which is written ideas. Wanting freedom as specified in the constitution, and bill of rights, does not make me a freedom nut. Being okay with banning books and "raping" people who don't agree with you, does however, make you a fascist.
The point is that your idea of freedom of speech is just a concept that most people themselves won't practice if it provides danger to themselves, however, when it potentially provides danger to children, all of a sudden they are protecting it.
It is silly to perpetuate freedom of speech when it may harm others, yet to shy away when it might harm yourself.
If someone perpetuates freedom of speech in all scenarios, then I will commend him for having the courage of his convictions, but if he only perpetuates it when he himself is not in danger, then he is selective in his belief, which is no different than amazon being selective in when they should remove books.
|
Why do you people keep insisting we would only support freedom until we are risking something? I'm genuinely confused as to where that came from. I served 15 months in Iraq and I never thought CNN should be censored for showing aerial views of our bases. Don't argue things you cannot prove please.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
