|
On November 13 2010 03:10 robertdinh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2010 02:58 MerciLess wrote:On November 13 2010 02:53 robertdinh wrote:
It all boils down to this merciless.
If the world was completely free it would be in chaos.
All freedoms have their time and places, and some need to be tempered for the greater good.
I'm glad for you that you served in IRAQ, that doesn't mean you would exhibit your free speech in a location in america where it would put you in imminent danger.
Which means you are selective in when you choose to fight for the concept of free speech.
Which is no different than what amazon has done. I have no issue with Amazon pulling the book. It's a company, and as such can do as it likes. It's not the responsibility of corporations to uphold free speech. Being free to say what you want and being free to do what you want are two different things...I'm not an anarchist, I'm a libertarian. I believe in minimal government involvement in every facet of our lives, but that doesn't mean I don't believe in laws and punishment for breaking those laws. I'm selective in when I choose to use my free speech, however I'm not selective in choosing when to uphold the right of any American to have free speech. I'll do it anytime, anywhere. If a majority of Americans truly believe the government has the right to dictate to the American people what they read, I am appalled and saddened for this country and what it was, and what it has become. Well only you know the truth to who you are, but I highly doubt you would try to advocate free speech in certain areas where you would be in danger for doing so. Would you advocate it to someone that was holding hostages and argued that free speech shouldn't exist? No, not if you felt it would put those hostages in danger, most people wouldn't. And that's the point, we all temper our beliefs at times, in this case it would be good to temper the concept of free speech to protect the children. The government may or may not have the right to dictate anything, but they do. From who can realistically get medical treatment, to what kids learn in school, to how we perceive the world around us. They have influence in all of those things and some are influenced more than others.
What is with you and these "areas of danger!!!" DUN DUN DUHHHH
Freedom of speech would be advocated everywhere. To a hostage taker. To an invading alien force. To Jesus himself during the rapture.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. " -Voltaire
Sure it's just a quote, but seriously - TO THE DEATH!
|
On November 12 2010 21:07 Rawenkeke wrote:
Luis Theroux reporter guy did a documentary on Pedos. in USA or something, it's wierd and sick how they try to put pedos in rehab. Definetely worth checking out! Not sure what it's called tho, randomly catched 15mins of it on TV, IMDB ftw!
A Place For Paedophiles
It wasn't about paedophiles it was about convicted child molesters.
|
On November 13 2010 03:37 DoctorHelvetica wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 21:07 Rawenkeke wrote:
Luis Theroux reporter guy did a documentary on Pedos. in USA or something, it's wierd and sick how they try to put pedos in rehab. Definetely worth checking out! Not sure what it's called tho, randomly catched 15mins of it on TV, IMDB ftw! A Place For Paedophiles It wasn't about paedophiles it was about convicted child molesters.
Pedophiles** And whats the difference?
|
On November 13 2010 03:41 Almin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2010 03:37 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On November 12 2010 21:07 Rawenkeke wrote:
Luis Theroux reporter guy did a documentary on Pedos. in USA or something, it's wierd and sick how they try to put pedos in rehab. Definetely worth checking out! Not sure what it's called tho, randomly catched 15mins of it on TV, IMDB ftw! A Place For Paedophiles It wasn't about paedophiles it was about convicted child molesters. Pedophiles** And whats the difference?
I've spelled it out so many times in this thread I'm not going to bother anymore for the sake of avoiding immense redundancy.
|
On November 13 2010 03:41 Almin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2010 03:37 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On November 12 2010 21:07 Rawenkeke wrote:
Luis Theroux reporter guy did a documentary on Pedos. in USA or something, it's wierd and sick how they try to put pedos in rehab. Definetely worth checking out! Not sure what it's called tho, randomly catched 15mins of it on TV, IMDB ftw! A Place For Paedophiles It wasn't about paedophiles it was about convicted child molesters. Pedophiles** And whats the difference?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophile
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_molestation
Clear distinction between the two. Pedophile is anyone with the desire including ones who act on it and ones who don't. Child Molesters are ones who act on it.
|
It's very sad indeed that Amazon was bullied into removing this book from their site. This is a blow to free speech (albeit a small one).
|
On November 13 2010 04:04 Archduke wrote:
It's very sad indeed that Amazon was bullied into removing this book from their site. This is a blow to free speech (albeit a small one).
yes its such a terrible blow for free speech, we lovers of the free world should claim our right to read books on how to rape underage children for the sake of democracy.
do you read your posts before you post them or are you voluntarily trying to look dumb?
|
On November 13 2010 04:09 Toxi78 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2010 04:04 Archduke wrote:
It's very sad indeed that Amazon was bullied into removing this book from their site. This is a blow to free speech (albeit a small one). yes its such a terrible blow for free speech, we lovers of the free world should claim our right to read books on how to rape underage children for the sake of democracy. do you read your posts before you post them or are you voluntarily trying to look dumb?
One could ask you the very same question...
|
On November 13 2010 03:10 robertdinh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2010 02:58 MerciLess wrote:On November 13 2010 02:53 robertdinh wrote:
It all boils down to this merciless.
If the world was completely free it would be in chaos.
All freedoms have their time and places, and some need to be tempered for the greater good.
I'm glad for you that you served in IRAQ, that doesn't mean you would exhibit your free speech in a location in america where it would put you in imminent danger.
Which means you are selective in when you choose to fight for the concept of free speech.
Which is no different than what amazon has done. I have no issue with Amazon pulling the book. It's a company, and as such can do as it likes. It's not the responsibility of corporations to uphold free speech. Being free to say what you want and being free to do what you want are two different things...I'm not an anarchist, I'm a libertarian. I believe in minimal government involvement in every facet of our lives, but that doesn't mean I don't believe in laws and punishment for breaking those laws. I'm selective in when I choose to use my free speech, however I'm not selective in choosing when to uphold the right of any American to have free speech. I'll do it anytime, anywhere. If a majority of Americans truly believe the government has the right to dictate to the American people what they read, I am appalled and saddened for this country and what it was, and what it has become. Well only you know the truth to who you are, but I highly doubt you would try to advocate free speech in certain areas where you would be in danger for doing so. Would you advocate it to someone that was holding hostages and argued that free speech shouldn't exist? No, not if you felt it would put those hostages in danger, most people wouldn't. And that's the point, we all temper our beliefs at times, in this case it would be good to temper the concept of free speech to protect the children. The government may or may not have the right to dictate anything, but they do. From who can realistically get medical treatment, to what kids learn in school, to how we perceive the world around us. They have influence in all of those things and some are influenced more than others.
The presumption behind the idea of Free Speech is that opinions and beliefs are not valid forms of threats to be countered with legal force.
When extended to information, the general presumption is a bit more uncertain. Information is potentially powerful. This means it falls under some of the same concept of the second amendment. The government doesn't hand out guns to enemy foreign nations or criminals, but stopping law abiding citizens from getting them concentrates the power in the hands of the government.
So just like the right to bear arms doesn't mean that a cop must hand the hostage taker a gun, but it does mean he can't stop someone from getting a gun unless he reasonably believes he will take hostages. The right to free speech means cop could stop a hostage taker from communicating ideas, if and only if he believed that might further the harm to the hostages/ability of the taker to get away.
Same as a cop can stop you from going to the voting booth if there is a reasonable belief (probably because you are a convicted felon in a state that has those rules) you intend to use going to the voting booth to commit a crime... but not in any other case.
The idea behind speaking or voting as rights.. is that they can't be crimes themselves, they can only be criminal when specifically in support of other crimes.
|
Everyone here missed something important on page 44. What was said officially ends the debate over whether or not what he did was "legal":
The principle identified in our Brandenburg opinion is that “the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Id., at 447, 89 S.Ct. 1827. While the requirement that the consequence be “imminent” is justified with *470 respect to mere advocacy, the same justification does not necessarily adhere to some speech that performs a teaching function. As our cases have long identified, the First Amendment does not prevent restrictions on speech that have “clear support in public danger.” Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 530, 65 S.Ct. 315, 89 L.Ed. 430 (1945). Long range planning of criminal enterprises-which may include oral advice, training exercises, and perhaps the preparation of written materials-involves speech that should not be glibly characterized as mere “advocacy” and certainly may create significant public danger. Our cases have not yet considered whether, and if so to what extent, the First Amendment protects such instructional speech. Our denial of certiorari in this case should not be taken as an endorsement of the reasoning of the Court of Appeals.
|
On November 13 2010 04:39 Xanbatou wrote:Everyone here missed something important on page 44. What was said officially ends the debate over whether or not what he did was "legal": Show nested quote +The principle identified in our Brandenburg opinion is that “the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Id., at 447, 89 S.Ct. 1827. While the requirement that the consequence be “imminent” is justified with *470 respect to mere advocacy, the same justification does not necessarily adhere to some speech that performs a teaching function. As our cases have long identified, the First Amendment does not prevent restrictions on speech that have “clear support in public danger.” Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 530, 65 S.Ct. 315, 89 L.Ed. 430 (1945). Long range planning of criminal enterprises-which may include oral advice, training exercises, and perhaps the preparation of written materials-involves speech that should not be glibly characterized as mere “advocacy” and certainly may create significant public danger. Our cases have not yet considered whether, and if so to what extent, the First Amendment protects such instructional speech. Our denial of certiorari in this case should not be taken as an endorsement of the reasoning of the Court of Appeals.
Actually that doesn't END the debate, it leaves the debate open.
That means that what would need to be decided in court to go against the guy
1. Are the materials instructional in nature vs. advocacy? [here it seems simple, but I only know the title]
2. Does the banning this particular instructional material involve clear support in public danger... ie is there anything there that is at all significant that you can't find out on cop shows/psychology papers/etc. on the internet on how to seduce children
|
On November 13 2010 04:47 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2010 04:39 Xanbatou wrote:Everyone here missed something important on page 44. What was said officially ends the debate over whether or not what he did was "legal": The principle identified in our Brandenburg opinion is that “the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Id., at 447, 89 S.Ct. 1827. While the requirement that the consequence be “imminent” is justified with *470 respect to mere advocacy, the same justification does not necessarily adhere to some speech that performs a teaching function. As our cases have long identified, the First Amendment does not prevent restrictions on speech that have “clear support in public danger.” Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 530, 65 S.Ct. 315, 89 L.Ed. 430 (1945). Long range planning of criminal enterprises-which may include oral advice, training exercises, and perhaps the preparation of written materials-involves speech that should not be glibly characterized as mere “advocacy” and certainly may create significant public danger. Our cases have not yet considered whether, and if so to what extent, the First Amendment protects such instructional speech. Our denial of certiorari in this case should not be taken as an endorsement of the reasoning of the Court of Appeals. Actually that doesn't END the debate, it leaves the debate open. That means that what would need to be decided in court to go against the guy 1. Are the materials instructional in nature vs. advocacy? [here it seems simple, but I only know the title] 2. Does the banning this particular instructional material involve clear support in public danger... ie is there anything there that is at all significant that you can't find out on cop shows/psychology papers/etc. on the internet on how to seduce children
1. This is obvious, as you have admitted.
2. Regardless of what instructions have been presented in the book, it's pretty clear that this would give closet pedos more confidence and could cause some of them to act out when they would not have before. So clearly, there is danger to the public with this.
|
On November 13 2010 04:21 Krikkitone wrote:
The presumption behind the idea of Free Speech is that opinions and beliefs are not valid forms of threats to be countered with legal force. Krikkitone, we're not arguing that opinions and beliefs are a threat. We're arguing that inciting crimes are a threat. Inciting crimes is not expressing your opinion. I defend your right to free speech, I defend your right to express your opinion even if I disagree with it. But I will not defend your right to incite violence. Be it spoken or written. Explicit or disguised as a helpful guide. Writing a book to profit from inciting a crime is NOT free speech.
It's easy to confuse one thing with another but they're completely different.
|
Just to be clear:
- If you write a book presenting your opinion about pedophilia. Saying that you think pedophilia is not as bad as most think. Advocating for decriminalization of sex with minors. I will disagree with your opinion. But I will defend your right to write such book. You're just expressing your opinion. This is free speech.
- If you write a book teaching pedophiles how to molest children and get away with it. I think you should be arrested. You're inciting a crime. This is not free speech.
|
United States5162 Posts
To those who say books such as this should be banned, I sincerely ask for you to explain how you would do such a thing. I quoted a previous post that posed some of the problems with banning crime instruction manuals and would like to hear how you would deal with this.
On November 12 2010 23:10 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 22:45 Zoler wrote:
I wouldn't approve of a book that gives tips on murder or robbery either. Anything that helps someone committing crimes should be banned. Yes, because a book clearly must be written as an instruction manual for people to take any knowledge away from it. /sarcasm Seriously, unless you're going to ban any book that gives any factual information about committing crime it's senseless and hypocritical to ban a book such as this. Does a fiction story that tells of how a person got away with child molestation in very specific detail deserve to be banned? How about a non-fiction autobiography of a child molester? Should we never publicly discuss the process of child molestation because it may give some creep ideas? That's only the tip of the iceberg of the Pandora's box of issues banning a objectionable book creates.
|
On November 13 2010 04:04 Archduke wrote:
It's very sad indeed that Amazon was bullied into removing this book from their site. This is a blow to free speech (albeit a small one).
Not really a big blow for free speech, as it was just market pressure that caused it and not the government, perhaps you were thinking of something else? This was in fact the majority exercising their freedom to say, if you do this amazon, we won't like you and might not buy your goods.
The book still exists, and I'm sure there are ways to buy it, just not on amazon. Free speech is safe.
Now if the government had stepped in somewhere along there, I'd be saddened and upset.
|
There should be limits to free speech for media that disseminates really obviously potentially harmful material like how to rape children without getting caught.
|
On November 13 2010 04:51 Xanbatou wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2010 04:47 Krikkitone wrote:On November 13 2010 04:39 Xanbatou wrote:Everyone here missed something important on page 44. What was said officially ends the debate over whether or not what he did was "legal": The principle identified in our Brandenburg opinion is that “the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Id., at 447, 89 S.Ct. 1827. While the requirement that the consequence be “imminent” is justified with *470 respect to mere advocacy, the same justification does not necessarily adhere to some speech that performs a teaching function. As our cases have long identified, the First Amendment does not prevent restrictions on speech that have “clear support in public danger.” Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 530, 65 S.Ct. 315, 89 L.Ed. 430 (1945). Long range planning of criminal enterprises-which may include oral advice, training exercises, and perhaps the preparation of written materials-involves speech that should not be glibly characterized as mere “advocacy” and certainly may create significant public danger. Our cases have not yet considered whether, and if so to what extent, the First Amendment protects such instructional speech. Our denial of certiorari in this case should not be taken as an endorsement of the reasoning of the Court of Appeals. Actually that doesn't END the debate, it leaves the debate open. That means that what would need to be decided in court to go against the guy 1. Are the materials instructional in nature vs. advocacy? [here it seems simple, but I only know the title] 2. Does the banning this particular instructional material involve clear support in public danger... ie is there anything there that is at all significant that you can't find out on cop shows/psychology papers/etc. on the internet on how to seduce children 1. This is obvious, as you have admitted. 2. Regardless of what instructions have been presented in the book, it's pretty clear that this would give closet pedos more confidence and could cause some of them to act out when they would not have before. So clearly, there is danger to the public with this.
#2 could be stated about far too broad a body of material (GTA 4 gives closet sociopaths [murderers/rapists/bad drivers] more confidence and could cause some of them to act out when they would not have before. Teaching students about the holocaust could give closet mass murderers more confidence and cause some of them to act out when they would not have before)
Now if the information in the book is such that it would provide knowledge resources that pedophiles would not otherwise have, then it falls into that category... but when you have public safety announcements giving out some of that same information (how to prevent your child from being seduced)... its like saying the US govenrment should disallow teaching nuclear physics because people might learn how to build a nuke... its too late for that.
The (cliche) book can't be judged by its cover(cliche) or even a bunch of exerpts. If the government decided to ban this, they would need to find some important bit of info that is not already known to any marginally competent child molester.
Now... Amazon dropping it.... was a Very good decision, both as a business decision (child molesters are the witches/communists of the modern age... ie worst thing to be accused of/associated with) and morally (I strongly disagree with the position and am therefore glad when someone stops supporting it)
The government banning it.... that I think would be a bad decision both legally (because it probably doesn't provide key info), and practically (don't make pedophilia an anti-establishment concept)
|
Many here seem not to understand what the concept of Free Speech actually means.
This, (amazon pulling the book) is not a blow to free speech.
By agreeing to sell the book Amazon was making a statement (expressing their speech.)
By not agreeing to sell the book Amazon is making a statement (expressing their speech.)
Amazon is a private company that can do what it wants (just like Teamliquid.) This actually has NOTHING to do with free speech. It only has to do with common decency, and that is something Amazon has demonstrated by caving to public opinion.
If you owned a book store and refused to sell this pedophile book, would that be a blow to free speech?
No, because it is your decision. There is no censorship here at all, except by Amazon, of itself, in response to justified public outcry.
|
Amazon was bullied into removing this book? A huge blow for free speech?
Are you fucking serious? It's a manual for pedophiles. I can't believe what some people are saying here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
