How Far Can You Stretch The First Amendment?

[Quantum Windbag]

Short answer, yes.

You are aware that books on how to make home made bombs are legal right? How to organize a resistance group, how to train a Resistance group , how to peacefully and violently oppose a Government? I don't see you complaining about them.

As for censure ship that is a dangerous road to go down, who gets to decide what is PC enough to be printed?

I don't think books telling people how to make bombs should be sold, especially after the terrorist attacks in the past few years. Things like that should be obvious - ban them.

As for who decides what is censored and what isn't, I don't know, but one would think that anything promoting pedophilia and child abuse etc would be taken off the shelves and burned.

You don't think they should be able to sell chemistry and physics textbooks? How are people supposed to study science, magic?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

It is settled and accepted case law that child pornography is not protected free speech. See: New York v. Ferber (1982).

The book by the abused woman, on the other hand, is protected free expression, as it’s her own personal account of abuse, there are no other children involved in sexual conduct, and no other children are at risk.

When the government seeks to restrict, curtail, preempt, or limit a given fundamental right, it must have a compelling interest, a legitimate legislative purpose, and be motivated by facts and documented evidence.

Clearly the state’s interest to protect children from abuse in the context of sexual exploitation is both compelling and legitimate, and such restrictions placed on the First Amendment are valid.

It is not settled because the court has issued contrary rulings on the issue of depicting child porn without actually using children, but thanks for proving how much you like to misquote case law.

 

[eots]

Understanding modus operandi of a pedophile could be useful in protecting children from them..maybe we should encourage them all to write books

 

[Noomi]

THIS GUY HAS PUBLISHED A NUMBER OF BOOKS IN AUSTRALIA THEY ARE AVAILABLE IN THE PUBLICLY LIBRARY

Most scary kiddy fiddler - YouTube

He should never have been released from prison. Its actually the first I have heard of him. What a sick freak, and those books of his should be burned.

 

[Noomi]

Short answer, yes.

You are aware that books on how to make home made bombs are legal right? How to organize a resistance group, how to train a Resistance group , how to peacefully and violently oppose a Government? I don't see you complaining about them.

As for censure ship that is a dangerous road to go down, who gets to decide what is PC enough to be printed?

I don't think books telling people how to make bombs should be sold, especially after the terrorist attacks in the past few years. Things like that should be obvious - ban them.

As for who decides what is censored and what isn't, I don't know, but one would think that anything promoting pedophilia and child abuse etc would be taken off the shelves and burned.

You don't think they should be able to sell chemistry and physics textbooks? How are people supposed to study science, magic?

They don't give step by step instructions in how to make a bomb, do they?

 

[Wake]

It's a good question, Noomi, but I think in order to keep us as free as possible we should be allowed to voice any thoughts or opinions we have. Some fear that some on the Left will manipulate the 1st Ammendment in order to control the nationwide dialogue... it's deliberate. Even now America suffers from the spectre of political correctness. Imagine, Noomi, if instead it were primarily members of the political Right who chose for you what was and wasn't acceptable to even say. America should keep wide open the floodgates of discussion, because that is what will keep us free. And, if even the vulgar opinions and arguments are allowed, they will be obliterated in the arena of ideological discourse. Allow a KKK member or Black Panther to make stupid comments, and you can be sure there will be those who challenge them openly and thoroughly.

 

[editec]

FREE SPEECH is a tool.

Like any tool it can be abused.

We have laws (not very strong ones) that in theory protect us from liable and defamation.

 

[Kondor3]

"...those books of his should be burned."

Oooohhh... be careful with fire, in that context, yes?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7_Ai6hLWks]Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade - Nazi Parade & Burning Books (Königgrätzer Marsch) - YouTube[/ame]

Just the thought of that sends a chill down the spine of some folks...

 

[FA_Q2]

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?

Totally off base with that one. It is not stretching the first at all but simply bothering to follow it. The first does not protect reasonable speech – that needs no protection. The first protects speech that is not liked because you cannot have the free exchange of ideas when the government gets to remove, ban and otherwise eliminate speech it finds offensive. Like has been said earlier, do that and you might one day wake up realizing that speaking about the “slaughter of children” (known before it was banned as abortion) is completely illegal. If you control the language you can control people. Why do you think that almost every totalitarian regime tightly controls the media and speech? Without those, you have no freedoms at all.

I don't think books telling people how to make bombs should be sold, especially after the terrorist attacks in the past few years. Things like that should be obvious - ban them.

As for who decides what is censored and what isn't, I don't know, but one would think that anything promoting pedophilia and child abuse etc would be taken off the shelves and burned.

You don't think they should be able to sell chemistry and physics textbooks? How are people supposed to study science, magic?

They don't give step by step instructions in how to make a bomb, do they?

Yes they do. Just because they are missing the one step that says place in a pipe and screw caps on the ends does not mean the recipe is there. Are you now beginning to understand how arbitrary your ‘banned’ subjects are?

That is why such a concept is absolutely a terrible idea.

 

[martybegan]

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?

It is settled and accepted case law that child pornography is not protected free speech. See: New York v. Ferber (1982).

The book by the abused woman, on the other hand, is protected free expression, as it’s her own personal account of abuse, there are no other children involved in sexual conduct, and no other children are at risk.

When the government seeks to restrict, curtail, preempt, or limit a given fundamental right, it must have a compelling interest, a legitimate legislative purpose, and be motivated by facts and documented evidence.

Clearly the state’s interest to protect children from abuse in the context of sexual exploitation is both compelling and legitimate, and such restrictions placed on the First Amendment are valid.

It is not settled because the court has issued contrary rulings on the issue of depicting child porn without actually using children, but thanks for proving how much you like to misquote case law.

If the pornography involves actual children, then there is a base crime involved, and thus ownership of said pornography is an extension of said crime.

If its a cartoon, then no base crime has been committed, and the possession of such material is not illegal.

You could say the same for snuff films (real ones) as the material is the result of a physical crime.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't think books telling people how to make bombs should be sold, especially after the terrorist attacks in the past few years. Things like that should be obvious - ban them.

As for who decides what is censored and what isn't, I don't know, but one would think that anything promoting pedophilia and child abuse etc would be taken off the shelves and burned.

You don't think they should be able to sell chemistry and physics textbooks? How are people supposed to study science, magic?

They don't give step by step instructions in how to make a bomb, do they?

My high school chemistry book contained specific instructions on how to avoid blowing yourself up using a single common household first aid product.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

FREE SPEECH is a tool.

Like any tool it can be abused.

We have laws (not very strong ones) that in theory protect us from liable and defamation.

What makes you think the laws against libel and/or defamation aren't strong enough?

 

[BobPlumb]

"...those books of his should be burned."

Oooohhh... be careful with fire, in that context, yes?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7_Ai6hLWks]Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade - Nazi Parade & Burning Books (Königgrätzer Marsch) - YouTube[/ame]

Just the thought of that sends a chill down the spine of some folks...

Just don't arrange the books in the shape of a cross as they burn on the lawn belonging to black people. That would be illegal (in the US).

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It is settled and accepted case law that child pornography is not protected free speech. See: New York v. Ferber (1982).

The book by the abused woman, on the other hand, is protected free expression, as it’s her own personal account of abuse, there are no other children involved in sexual conduct, and no other children are at risk.

When the government seeks to restrict, curtail, preempt, or limit a given fundamental right, it must have a compelling interest, a legitimate legislative purpose, and be motivated by facts and documented evidence.

Clearly the state’s interest to protect children from abuse in the context of sexual exploitation is both compelling and legitimate, and such restrictions placed on the First Amendment are valid.

It is not settled because the court has issued contrary rulings on the issue of depicting child porn without actually using children, but thanks for proving how much you like to misquote case law.

If the pornography involves actual children, then there is a base crime involved, and thus ownership of said pornography is an extension of said crime.

If its a cartoon, then no base crime has been committed, and the possession of such material is not illegal.

You could say the same for snuff films (real ones) as the material is the result of a physical crime.

That is the basic argument, but the application of the laws is so screwed up that it can be illegal to own manga bit legal to own real pornography that uses actors that have been computer enhanced to look younger.

 

[eflatminor]

I don't think books telling people how to make bombs should be sold, especially after the terrorist attacks in the past few years. Things like that should be obvious - ban them.

As for who decides what is censored and what isn't, I don't know, but one would think that anything promoting pedophilia and child abuse etc would be taken off the shelves and burned.

Spoken like a true central planner that is just SURE it knows what's best for everyone else.

Pass.

 

[Rozman]

Who makes the decision on which books to ban?

 

[Rozman]

I remember one mother who wanted the fox TV show Married with Children taken off the air.
And another who wanted the same for the Howard Stern Show.

You don't like the show,the book...Don't buy the book,don't listen or watch the show.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

None of those books should be banned.

Freedom is a messy thing because it allows people to do things that are bad for themselves (and, occasionally, others), but it is infinitely better than oppression which often comes about because people don't like such mess.

 

[asaratis]

Who makes the decision on which books to ban?

Privately owned bookstores can select which books they will and will not market. Parents can choose which books their children are allowed to read. Private schools can select which books will be available in their libraries.

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?

Freedom of speech is not unlimited. The old truism about shouting "fire" in a crowed theater comes to mind. Liable and slander are punishable by law.

Lying is not illegal. If it were, all politicians would be in jail.

Obscene signs and posters are subject to legal action. Child pornography is illegal. Disclosure of top secret information is illegal. Public nudity is illegal (though considered by some to be a form of free speech).

There are limits in any government that has a moral compass.

 

[Two Thumbs]

How Far Can You Stretch The First Amendment? All the way to infinity.
How far can you take freedom of speech before you reach the conclusion that some speech should be banned? banning speech is the opposite of freedom

The 1st Amendment means you can basically say whatever the hell you like, no matter how hateful, homophobic, or racist it might be. That's why the cops can't arrest us for posting on facebook for thought crimes.

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? Creepy[, but it's covered. anyway, how many people do you think would read such a thing?/COLOR]
Does it fall under free speech? clearly

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 -weird and isolated, but freedom

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? no

How about this book? The Pedophiles Guide To Love And Pleasure? no

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

Freedom of speech, or going way too far? freedom

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?There used to be a time where if you went to far, you got called out, legally, in a duel to the death. It happened to Abe Lincoln, he was so moved by what he had caused, that even though the duel was cancelled he never publically spoke ill of another person. He wrote bile filled letters to his failing generals, many of them, and after his death, they were found in his desk, never sent. 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? yes and yes, I think people that go to far should get punched the in face, but still be allowed to say what they want

Why do you seemingly, hate freedom?