How Far Can You Stretch The First Amendment?

[blackhawk]

I have noticed how far freedom of speech goes seems to depend on who is saying what about who some seem to be able to stretch the bounds a lot farther than other's with no backlash.

 

[PaulS1950]

The only limitation to free speech should be when it interferes with or attacks another persons rights.

not their sensibilities, not their moral code, and not their "feelings"

 

[Crackerjaxon]

How far can you take freedom of speech before you reach the conclusion that some speech should be banned?

The 1st Amendment means you can basically say whatever the hell you like, no matter how hateful, homophobic, or racist it might be.

But how about this - lets say a pedophile self publishes a book directed at other pedophiles, telling them how to groom a child, how to approach them, touch them, etc. Should such a book be banned because it discusses child abuse in graphic detail?
Does it fall under free speech?

How about a book written by a woman who was abused by a pedophile from the age of seven? This woman wrote a book saying she 'loved' her abuser, and wanted to marry him. She describes their first sexual encounter (she was 8) in graphic detail -

Truth or fiction? A young girl's graphic account of her 15-year relationship with a paedophile from the age of seven | Mail Online

Should that be banned?

How about this book? The Pedophiles Guide To Love And Pleasure?

Amazon Pulls Pedophilia Book Without Explanation | Video | TheBlaze.com

Freedom of speech, or going way too far?

What about books that conservatives would say promote homosexuality? Should they removed from public school libraries? What about freedom of speech, and the rights of students to read such material if they so wish?

Can people say whatever they want without fear of consequences? Or should you be permitted to say whatever you like, but have to deal with the consequences if someone doesn't like what you are saying, and decides to let you know with a right hook to the cheek?

None of those books should be banned. In the 2nd case charges should be brought against the abusers as long as the statue of limitations has not expired.

Freedom of speech is a nasty thing some times. Actions should be punished if they are criminal, not words or ideas.

And of consequences we are talking governmental consequences. If people feel like shunning said person who wrote the material, then that is thier choice. The government, however cannot get involved.

What happens if someone reads that book about how to groom a child, and acts on it? As in, follows the instructions the author has set out?

Of course, it is the person's choice that they acted on the authors writing, but if the book wasn't published...

Isn't such a book promoting pedophilia? Doesn't the rights of the child come first?

We should prosecute people for their actions, not their thoughts.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Who makes the decision on which books to ban?

The powers that be, of course. They know much better than we.