America, where child porn is illegal but books on how to rape children aren't
134 replies, posted
[QUOTE=HighdefGE;25541355]I don't know why your taking this argument to a personal level.
Also, if you've taken US History I in high school, you should've read up about this: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethel_School_District_v._Fraser[/url][/QUOTE]
So you link me an example of people who are as stupid as you thinking it's ok to just not let people say what you want? How about this, you want free speech gone(and if you want ANY FUCKING CENSORSHIP YOU DO) then go tear it out of the constitution.
How about Lenny Bruce? He was a famous comedian who said fuck a lot back in the 50's, not only that, he was a fucking genius of language. Because his language was very obscene for the time, he was arrested. I suppose you support that.
[editline]20th October 2010[/editline]
And you still haven't answered a single one of my previous points.
[editline]20th October 2010[/editline]
You basically just want me to submit because you think the right to not be offended(Which doesn't exist) and the right to security(Which doesn't exist, not at a verbal level at least) should overrule free speech. That's what you're getting as best i can tell.
This argument is over in that case because I simply won't argue with someone who is so dense to think that any limit to free speech is ok.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;25541396]So you link me an example of people who are as stupid as you thinking it's ok to just not let people say what you want? How about this, you want free speech gone(and if you want ANY FUCKING CENSORSHIP YOU DO) then go tear it out of the constitution.
How about Lenny Bruce? He was a famous comedian who said fuck a lot back in the 50's, not only that, he was a fucking genius of language. Because his language was very obscene for the time, he was arrested. I suppose you support that.
[editline]20th October 2010[/editline]
And you still haven't answered a single one of my previous points.
[editline]20th October 2010[/editline]
You basically just want me to submit because you think the right to not be offended(Which doesn't exist) and the right to security(Which doesn't exist, not at a verbal level at least) should overrule free speech. That's what you're getting as best i can tell.
This argument is over in that case because I simply won't argue with someone who is so dense to think that any limit to free speech is ok.[/QUOTE]
I never said that I wanted freedom of speech to be gone. You pulled that idea from the top of your ass.
And:
[quote]So you link me an example of people who are as stupid as you thinking it's ok to just not let people say what you want?[/quote]
Sure. It's called the Bill of Rights and the constitution.
Good luck graduating middle school and take US History I when you start high school.
[QUOTE=HighdefGE;25541485]I never said that I wanted freedom of speech to be gone. You pulled that idea from the top of your ass.
And:
Sure. It's called the Bill of Rights and the constitution.
Good luck graduating middle school and take US History I when you start high school.[/QUOTE]
I'm a graduate in university thank you very much.
And no, you never said you wanted it gone, you just want censorship of certain phrases for the purposes of not being offended, and "safety" of which you simply cannot prove that will happen. Prove safety will be gained by that phrase being illegal. Prove it.
Oh, and [b]stop ignoring my fucking points and actually argue. Stop fucking nitpicking and trying ad hominem on me. [/b]
You know technically saying "the government shouldn't have the right to imprison/punish people who threaten others as a joke" because it isn't the government that decides guilt, it's the jury
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;25541396]So you link me an example of people who are as stupid as you thinking it's ok to just not let people say what you want? How about this, you want free speech gone(and if you want ANY FUCKING CENSORSHIP YOU DO) then go tear it out of the constitution.
How about Lenny Bruce? He was a famous comedian who said fuck a lot back in the 50's, not only that, he was a fucking genius of language. Because his language was very obscene for the time, he was arrested. I suppose you support that.
[editline]20th October 2010[/editline]
And you still haven't answered a single one of my previous points.
[editline]20th October 2010[/editline]
You basically just want me to submit because you think the right to not be offended(Which doesn't exist) and the right to security(Which doesn't exist, not at a verbal level at least) should overrule free speech. That's what you're getting as best i can tell.
This argument is over in that case because I simply won't argue with someone who is so dense to think that any limit to free speech is ok.[/QUOTE]
you're an idiot
The bill of rights also gauruntees the same speech that court case you showed me shot down. The bill of rights guarunteed Lenny Bruces rights. The bill of rights doesn't say "The phrase "I'm going to kill you" is illegal".
[QUOTE=StormBlade;25541541]you're an idiot[/QUOTE]
No he isn't, disagree or not he's not an idiot
[QUOTE=StormBlade;25541541]you're an idiot[/QUOTE]
Yeah, i'm an idiot for saying any limit to free speech is wrong. Why is a limit to free speech right? Someone prove to me that any level of security will be gained by making this book, the phrase "I'm going to kill you" and etc illegal. Show me how that will help.
[editline]20th October 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;25541536]You know technically saying "the government shouldn't have the right to imprison/punish people who threaten others as a joke" because it isn't the government that decides guilt, it's the jury[/QUOTE]
True, but is it totally foolproof? Not really. It would waste money, it would waste resources, it would waste time in the grand scheme of things. It would really be useless.
[editline]20th October 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;25541554]No he isn't, disagree or not he's not an idiot[/QUOTE]
:respek:
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;25541515]I'm a graduate in university thank you very much.
And no, you never said you wanted it gone, you just want censorship of certain phrases for the purposes of not being offended, and "safety" of which you simply cannot prove that will happen. Prove safety will be gained by that phrase being illegal. Prove it.
Oh, and [b]stop ignoring my fucking points and actually argue. Stop fucking nitpicking and trying ad hominem on me. [/b][/QUOTE]
You sure as well don't act like you're a graduate in a university. Also, I've noticed you haven't taken time reading that article I linked you, something we educated people learned in a basic US History class. It also seems you're ignoring me and pulling ideas from the top of your mind. I said that freedom of speech can go to an extend until it begins to seriously threaten or harm another.
You're still in middle school to me. Have fun flipping burgers at McDonalds.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;25541567]I HATE AMERICA
[/QUOTE]
ur a terrorist
Prove to me that a measuable level of security and safety will be found in limiting obscene and threatening speech like you want to do, prove to me that is a good thing, prove that rights are sacraficed simply to restore security.
I personally doubt that anything will happen if you censor those words, these books, etc. Nothing good will come out of it. Nothing good can come out of censorship. Sure, things that come out of free speech aren't good, but they don't kill people or ruin their rights. Taking away rights is... taking away rights.
[QUOTE=HighdefGE;25541638]You sure as well don't act like you're a graduate in a university. Also, I've noticed you haven't taken time reading that article I linked you, something we educated people learned in a basic US History class. It also seems you're ignoring me and pulling ideas from the top of your mind. I said that freedom of speech can go to an extend until it begins to seriously threaten or harm another.
You're still in middle school to me. Have fun flipping burgers at McDonalds.[/QUOTE]
Why do you feel the need to personally insult someone who disagrees with you? If he wasn't even trying to argue with you with valid points then I'd understand, but he is.
[QUOTE=HighdefGE;25541638]You sure as well don't act like you're a graduate in a university. Also, I've noticed you haven't taken time reading that article I linked you, something we educated people learned in a basic US History class. It also seems you're ignoring me and pulling ideas from the top of your mind. I said that freedom of speech can go to an extend until it begins to seriously threaten or harm another.
You're still in middle school to me. Have fun flipping burgers at McDonalds.[/QUOTE]
you're not educated idiot
[QUOTE=HighdefGE;25541638]You sure as well don't act like you're a graduate in a university. Also, I've noticed you haven't taken time reading that article I linked you, something we educated people learned in a basic US History class. It also seems you're ignoring me and pulling ideas from the top of your mind. I said that freedom of speech can go to an extend until it begins to seriously threaten or harm another.
You're still in middle school to me. Have fun flipping burgers at McDonalds.[/QUOTE]
Lets see how many of my points you've responded to... You ignored lenny bruce, Benjamen Franklin, you've basically ignored every precedent that says free speech shouldn't be infringed.
Yeah, I don't live in the US, so you might want to stop acting like you're superior because you learned something in a course I didn't take, or even have the chance to take. By the way, I took 3 history courses and aced all of them, just because it isn't the same history you learnt means shit all.
Does restricting that speech save lives? Does it help? Show me.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;25541661]Prove to me that a measuable level of security and safety will be found in limiting obscene and threatening speech like you want to do, prove to me that is a good thing, prove that rights are sacraficed simply to restore security.
I personally doubt that anything will happen if you censor those words, these books, etc. Nothing good will come out of it. Nothing good can come out of censorship. Sure, things that come out of free speech aren't good, but they don't kill people or ruin their rights. Taking away rights is... taking away rights.[/QUOTE]
I just did prove it to you. Scroll up and click on that link.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;25541670]Why do you feel the need to personally insult someone who disagrees with you? If he wasn't even trying to argue with you with valid points then I'd understand, but he is.[/QUOTE]
I could say it's the other way around as well.
[QUOTE=HighdefGE;25541738]I just did prove it to you. Scroll up and click on that link.
I could say it's the other way around as well.[/QUOTE]
Indeed you could, and this is to both sides, insulting your opposition does nothing but make them want to defy you because you're an asshole to them
I've seen this manual or one with that exact description. I know where it was found, is there any way to contact the authorities?
It's because this is protected under freedom of speech, but child porn has a victim.
[QUOTE=HighdefGE;25541738]I just did prove it to you. Scroll up and click on that link.
I could say it's the other way around as well.[/QUOTE]
Telling a kid that his speech filled with lewd double entendres is wrong, and censoring him for it isn't saving lives. It's censoring a kid.
Hell, the kid's speech wasn't violent, it was lewd, so your point is nil. Unless you're talking about a totally different link I didn't catch, you're clinging to straws.
[editline]20th October 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=shatteredwindow;25541777]It's because this is protected under freedom of speech, but child porn has a victim.[/QUOTE]
To some people here, thinking about it, or, talking about is just as bad as doing it, and should be punished appropriately.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;25541782]Telling a kid that his speech filled with lewd double entendres is wrong, and censoring him for it isn't saving lives. It's censoring a kid.
Hell, the kid's speech wasn't violent, it was lewd, so your point is nil. Unless you're talking about a totally different link I didn't catch, you're clinging to straws.
[editline]20th October 2010[/editline]
To some people here, thinking about it, or, talking about is just as bad as doing it, and should be punished appropriately.[/QUOTE]
It offended somebody, and he got punished for it. Therefore, you saying that this has never happened is nil.
On to a similar topic, a book about how to molest a child is gruesome, where actual child porn involves a victim. Then again, it makes you wonder that the author of this book has some experience in molestation if he's dedicated into writing a 170-page book about it.
[QUOTE=HighdefGE;25541869]It offended somebody, and he got punished for it. Therefore, you saying that this has never happened is nil.
On to a similar topic, a book about how to molest a child is gruesome, where actual child porn involves a victim. Then again, it makes you wonder that the author of this book has some experience in molestation if he's dedicated into writing a 170-page book about it.[/QUOTE]
My point wasn't that it never happened, my point was that it shouldn't happen. Stopping his speech DOESN'T DO ANYTHING. It's simply stifiling creativity. Look up Lenny Bruce, you clearly don't know anything about freedom of speech if you don't about Mr. Bruce.
And you still seem to be supporting(From where I'm standing) that making certain phrases illegal, making lewd and obscene speech illegal is a good thing. It's not.
If the author does have experience, he should be arrested as such, he committed a crime. However, writing that book isn't a crime because that book isn't damaging. It has the potential to be, just like having a tall bridge is potential for suicide jumps, it's the same thing.
[editline]20th October 2010[/editline]
You have more of a point when you stick to violent phrases being illegal, not obscene ones.
Go watch a documentary called [i]The F Bomb, A documentary[/i]. Maybe that will knock some sense into you about why it's wrong to make obscene and even violent speech illegal. It's about the word fuck, but it's about freedom of speech just as much.
[editline]20th October 2010[/editline]
Also, Lenny Bruce offended a LOOOOOOT of people, he offended a lot more people than a senior at a high school(It being a school is likely why he got punished) and he was given a posthumous pardon by the government, obviously endorsing the fact you can't limit speech based on obscenity laws.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;25541908]My point wasn't that it never happened, my point was that it shouldn't happen. Stopping his speech DOESN'T DO ANYTHING. It's simply stifiling creativity. Look up Lenny Bruce, you clearly don't know anything about freedom of speech if you don't about Mr. Bruce.
And you still seem to be supporting(From where I'm standing) that making certain phrases illegal, making lewd and obscene speech illegal is a good thing. It's not.
If the author does have experience, he should be arrested as such, he committed a crime. However, writing that book isn't a crime because that book isn't damaging. It has the potential to be, just like having a tall bridge is potential for suicide jumps, it's the same thing.
[editline]20th October 2010[/editline]
You have more of a point when you stick to violent phrases being illegal, not obscene ones.
Go watch a documentary called [i]The F Bomb, A documentary[/i]. Maybe that will knock some sense into you about why it's wrong to make obscene and even violent speech wrong. It's about the word fuck, but it's about freedom of speech just as much.[/QUOTE]
I don't support certain phrases being blocked out, I'd say it would be understandable from a politician's point of view.
The book also has the potential to victimize another child.
[QUOTE=StormBlade;25541541]you're an idiot[/QUOTE]
own
[QUOTE=HighdefGE;25542005]I don't support certain phrases being blocked out, I'd say it would be understandable from a politician's point of view.
The book also has the potential to victimize another child.[/QUOTE]
The book has the potential in the same way a fork does. If used by the wrong person at the right time, it's going to hurt someone. Doesn't mean you make it illegal.
It's not understandable from a politicians view unless their a social conservative anyways. That instantly takes away the idea of right to free speech once you censor based on being offended.
I highly recommend you watch that documentary. Not just for the sake of it being about this topic, but because it might show you some things you didn't, or don't know or realize. Who knows. Give it a shot at least.
I also reread that wiki link and read on the side that it was the first amendment applied through the 14th, which does come down to it being a school, and not due to his speech, even though it's still wrong.
holy shit my typing is getting ragged. I've over typed today.
--snip--
An American has unlimited rights so long as they aren't listed as illegal in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and any sort of National or state law. However, you only have as much freedom within these rights as long as they do not impede on the rights of others.
ie. -Disturbing the peace despite having the freedom of expression
-Police are able to disband protests (with given cause)
[editline]20th October 2010[/editline]
Things like this book are able to get past because there is the freedom of the press and expression, and it cannot be denied because people have a choice to purchase the book. If he went around putting the book and everyone's doorstep or posting flyers on the doors, then he would be in trouble.
[editline]20th October 2010[/editline]
Also, this book should be put in its own section with OJ's "If I did do it" book, call it Useful but unconventional.
Why are the police looking at child porn when it's illegal? They are looking at the pictures when they investigating. They are pedos.
[QUOTE=Siminov;25531924]Great, And I live in brevard county...[/QUOTE]
So do I... :ohdear:
They should ban the book.
Then it'll get onto the list for "Banned Book Week"
High schools around the nation reading the book.
Frankly I think it is ridiculous to say that free speech should be protected in all cases, it is the least important of the human right, since it can lead to incitement of hatred and violence. There's no opint in having the death of people for an idealistic ideology.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.