Amazon Stops Selling 'Paedophile's Guide'

[ItsZippy]

ItsZippy have you read the book and verified that it has step by step guidelines to becoming a wonderful member of society and hiding from the party van?

Well being respectful to zippy, it does do that. The book is all about different steps on how to get people to trust you, and how to be a pedophile without people turning an eye. That said, I still stand by my point that amazon can choose to sell it or not sell it at their discretion. I would say the same thing if someone wrote a book called "How to murder/rape someone and dispose of the body". I hate to say it, but you can learn all these things from TV shows, magazines, and of course, books. There's no sense in just banning a certain book under the authority of the government because it makes people angry. On top of that, it's unconstitutional.

Freedom of speech/the press is only a valid response when it's used to benefit society.

Where in the constitution does it say that?

I wasn't quoting the constitution...

Well sheet, guess we better ban all news networks that aren't faux news, or just faux, since only one side can be "benefiting" society, right?

Fair point, let me rephrase. Freedom of speech/the press is only a valid response when it's not used to detriment society.

 

[katy perry is hot]

Again in our US constitution free speech is not restricted to only when it doesn't hurt society.

To quote it

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[Watch Me Sink]

We make shît up as we go along. The American way of thinking.

 

[katy perry is hot]

We make shît up as we go along. The American way of thinking.

Shít is fun to make up.

 

[Guardian]

Again in our US constitution free speech is not restricted to only when it doesn't hurt society.

To quote it

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Some people forget that. Others choose to forget it.

 

[ItsZippy]

When did I say I was quoting the US Constitution? I'm British; I have no affinity with your constitution. I don't see how quoting a document put together in 1787 can back up your argument. If you agree with what the constitution says, use arguments and evidence to back that up. Simply saying "that's against the constitution" means nothing.

 

[Deleted member 1609]

When did I say I was quoting the US Constitution? I'm British; I have no affinity with your constitution. I don't see how quoting a document put together in 1787 can back up your argument. If you agree with what the constitution says, use arguments and evidence to back that up. Simply saying "that's against the constitution" means nothing.

In the United States, our constitution is the highest law in the land. If freedom of speech is constitutionally protected, then no action can be taken against freedom of speech.

I realize that you're not an American citizen (good for you), but for us, the Constitution is the highest law.

 

[ItsZippy]

I know, but I'm not from the US. I understand why you would use it when campaigning against legislation; however, in a debate, I find it a weak wall to hide behind. The debate is on whether Amazon should have taken down the book, not whether they had the legal right to do so.

 

[Deleted member 1609]

I know, but I'm not from the US. I understand why you would use it when campaigning against legislation; however, in a debate, I find it a weak wall to hide behind. The debate is on whether Amazon should have taken down the book, not whether they had the legal right to do so.

Oh, I apologize. Amazon has every right to take it down. That book violated their TOS, and they have the right to remove it. Private businesses have discretion over what they sell. However, if the government, say, arrested the author, that would be unconstitutional.

 

[ItsZippy]

Yeah, I agree with all that. I do; however, believe that the government would be right to arrest the author (morally right, not legally).

 

[katy perry is hot]

Yeah, I agree with all that. I do; however, believe that the government would be right to arrest the author (morally right, not legally).

There are a lot of things we can all think are morally right, but at the end of the day, the only thing that matters is what is legal and what is illegal. For example, if there is a rapist on trial, and you and I are family members of the victim, we would think it's morally right for the government to just say OK, no trial, he definitely did it, time to lock him up for life, but at the end of the day, it comes to the conclusion that we have laws for a reason.

 

[Deleted member 1609]

... it comes to the conclusion that we have laws for a reason.

This. When we let the government arbitrarily decide what is protected free speech and what isn't, that's when we end up like North Korea.

 

[Watch Me Sink]

Or Soviet Russia

In Soviet Russia free speech decides government.

 

[ItsZippy]

I'd disagree with that, Irviding. Isn't justice morally right? If we try to take an objective view of morality (or, even with a subjective view), most people would respect the right to a free trial.

We may have laws for a reason, but we cannot rely on those for our moral point of view. We may reply on laws to determine what actions we take; that does not mean we have to agree with the laws. Legally, Amazon doesn't have to take anything down; morally, I believe that they do. The issue here is what is moral, not what is legal.

 

[katy perry is hot]

I'd disagree with that, Irviding. Isn't justice morally right? If we try to take an objective view of morality (or, even with a subjective view), most people would respect the right to a free trial.

We may have laws for a reason, but we cannot rely on those for our moral point of view. We may reply on laws to determine what actions we take; that does not mean we have to agree with the laws. Legally, Amazon doesn't have to take anything down; morally, I believe that they do. The issue here is what is moral, not what is legal.

Exactly. But you previously said the government should order them to take it down.

 

[ItsZippy]

Hmm, fair point - being British, I generally don't think about the US constitution when making that kind of request. To rephrase, the government would have a moral responsibility to take it down.

And here's my problem with a binding constitution - the government has a moral responsibility to take action, yet cannot.

 

[katy perry is hot]

Hmm, fair point - being British, I generally don't think about the US constitution when making that kind of request. To rephrase, the government would have a moral responsibility to take it down.

And here's my problem with a binding constitution - the government has a moral responsibility to take action, yet cannot.

If you took a poll, most Americans probably would be against a government sanctioned taking down of that book. It's not just that it's unconstitutional, but it's just a total violation of basic rights. We're talking about the government directing a private company as to what they can and cannot sell. Would the English government do that?

 

[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. Is it not a farce to enforce laws but allow people to tell others to ignore them?

 

[Watch Me Sink]

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?

 

[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?

Oh jesus... the whole internet would have to be shut down.