Amazon Stops Selling 'Paedophile's Guide'

[ItsZippy]

I think, if it encouraged illegal activity, it might. Whether or not it is constitutional, the book actively encourages the breaking of a law.

If you want to go that route, how many books, websites, publications, and even TV shows support the use of cannabis?

Support of portray? I'm fine with portraying illegal activities, so long as you do not encourage it.

 

[Watch Me Sink]

Still, a lot out there.

 

[katy perry is hot]

I think, if it encouraged illegal activity, it might. Whether or not it is constitutional, the book actively encourages the breaking of a law.

If you want to go that route, how many books, websites, publications, and even TV shows support the use of cannabis?

Support of portray? I'm fine with portraying illegal activities, so long as you do not encourage it.

There are plenty of books on marijuana and websites on marijuana. How to smoke pot, etc. All over the internet.

 

[ItsZippy]

And, as long as it is still illegal, they should not be allowed.

 

[katy perry is hot]

And, as long as it is still illegal, they should not be allowed.

So a site teaching you how to smoke pot should be censored by the government?

That's crazy, sorry. No matter if it's how to jay walk or it's how to rape someone.

 

[Watch Me Sink]

How to jaywalk:
Pick a street.
Find a crosswalk.
Cross the street where the crosswalk isn't.
Congrats!!


Are you saying that my post should be censored by the gov, Zippy?

 

[ItsZippy]

But take that in the other direction, do we allow someone to create a website telling other how to make a home-made bomb, with the best places in New York to detonate it to cause the most amount of damage and kill the most people? Perhaps, as you've demonstrated, a line might need to be drawn (and where that line is could be controversial); however, there does need to be some sort of censorship when it comes to illegal activities.

 

[katy perry is hot]

But take that in the other direction, do we allow someone to create a website telling other how to make a home-made bomb, with the best places in New York to detonate it to cause the most amount of damage and kill the most people? Perhaps, as you've demonstrated, a line might need to be drawn (and where that line is could be controversial); however, there does need to be some sort of censorship when it comes to illegal activities.

Yes. There are bomb making videos and websites all over the internet. Nothing wrong with it in my book. The internet is not owned by the government. Youtube for example censors videos on illegal stuff in most cases, so that's left to them. It's not the place of the government to censor stuff. That puts us down a very slippery slope.

 

[ItsZippy]

So you rate freedom of speech higher than the protection of civilians?

 

[SheepishWolf]

So you rate freedom of speech higher than the protection of civilians?

Yes.

I seriously doubt that anyone would become a pedophile because of the book or any pedophiles would gain...information from the book. It would humor some and help others, but it shouldn't have been taken down.

 

[ItsZippy]

You can't base your judgement on what you expect people might do, though. If the help in doing it 'effectively' was enough for just one person to harm one child, is freedom of speech worth that much?

Human rights exists to protect humans. If circumventing these human rights results in better protection, shouldn't we do this?

 

[katy perry is hot]

You can't base your judgement on what you expect people might do, though. If the help in doing it 'effectively' was enough for just one person to harm one child, is freedom of speech worth that much?

Human rights exists to protect humans. If circumventing these human rights results in better protection, shouldn't we do this?

No because it gives the government too much power and authority.

Next thing you know if you give them those rights they will be able to censor any site that has anti government information on it because it is "disruptive to public order".

 

[SheepishWolf]

You can't base your judgement on what you expect people might do, though. If the help in doing it 'effectively' was enough for just one person to harm one child, is freedom of speech worth that much?

Human rights exists to protect humans. If circumventing these human rights results in better protection, shouldn't we do this?

Many people died for it in one war or another for America, so yes freedom of speech is worth that much.

 

[Gimgak]

But take that in the other direction, do we allow someone to create a website telling other how to make a home-made bomb, with the best places in New York to detonate it to cause the most amount of damage and kill the most people? Perhaps, as you've demonstrated, a line might need to be drawn (and where that line is could be controversial); however, there does need to be some sort of censorship when it comes to illegal activities.

Never heard of the anarchist's cookbook or http://textfiles.com ?

 

[Watch Me Sink]

You can't base your judgement on what you expect people might do, though. If the help in doing it 'effectively' was enough for just one person to harm one child, is freedom of speech worth that much?

Human rights exists to protect humans. If circumventing these human rights results in better protection, shouldn't we do this?

Many people died for it in one war or another for America, so yes freedom of speech is worth that much.

However, if it causes American deaths (eg if a Wikileaks lead to the killing of a US spy) I believe freedom of speech goes too far.

 

[Gimgak]

Which has caused more deaths, the wikileaks release, or our latest, unnecessary war(s).

 

[SheepishWolf]

You can't base your judgement on what you expect people might do, though. If the help in doing it 'effectively' was enough for just one person to harm one child, is freedom of speech worth that much?

Human rights exists to protect humans. If circumventing these human rights results in better protection, shouldn't we do this?

Many people died for it in one war or another for America, so yes freedom of speech is worth that much.

However, if it causes American deaths (eg if a Wikileaks lead to the killing of a US spy) I believe freedom of speech goes too far.

With or without freedom of speech there will be deaths. Not to sound cruel (although it'll probably come across sounding that way regardless) but we're all going to die regardless, so if that spy got killed for it..well, he was going to die anyway. Frankly, we're all going to die, whether it's by being killed for being a spy or whatever. Without freedom of speech chances are there would be more fights and arguments and all that fun stuff - with or without will result for death someone somewhere.

 

[Deleted member 1609]

Without freedom, life isn't worth living anyway.

 

[katy perry is hot]

You can't base your judgement on what you expect people might do, though. If the help in doing it 'effectively' was enough for just one person to harm one child, is freedom of speech worth that much?

Human rights exists to protect humans. If circumventing these human rights results in better protection, shouldn't we do this?

Many people died for it in one war or another for America, so yes freedom of speech is worth that much.

However, if it causes American deaths (eg if a Wikileaks lead to the killing of a US spy) I believe freedom of speech goes too far.

With or without freedom of speech there will be deaths. Not to sound cruel (although it'll probably come across sounding that way regardless) but we're all going to die regardless, so if that spy got killed for it..well, he was going to die anyway. Frankly, we're all going to die, whether it's by being killed for being a spy or whatever. Without freedom of speech chances are there would be more fights and arguments and all that fun stuff - with or without will result for death someone somewhere.

Sorry I really disagree with that notion. That's the same thing as "oh well she was going to die anyway so don't charge the rapist/murderer"

 

[ItsZippy]

You can't base your judgement on what you expect people might do, though. If the help in doing it 'effectively' was enough for just one person to harm one child, is freedom of speech worth that much?

Human rights exists to protect humans. If circumventing these human rights results in better protection, shouldn't we do this?

No because it gives the government too much power and authority.

Next thing you know if you give them those rights they will be able to censor any site that has anti government information on it because it is "disruptive to public order".

The slippery slope argument never convinces me. Just draw a clear line somewhere. I know it is hard to draw that line, but one must be drawn. As we live in a democracy, if the government attempts to go far, the people will stop them. Don't underestimate the public.

You can't base your judgement on what you expect people might do, though. If the help in doing it 'effectively' was enough for just one person to harm one child, is freedom of speech worth that much?

Human rights exists to protect humans. If circumventing these human rights results in better protection, shouldn't we do this?

Many people died for it in one war or another for America, so yes freedom of speech is worth that much.

So people died to get freedom of speech? How does that matter? In the American civil war, people died over their right to keep slaves...

Which has caused more deaths, the wikileaks release, or our latest, unnecessary war(s).

Yes, but are the damage to international democracy worth it? So far, only the Turkish have taken much offence; what happens if China get seriously offended?