Amazon Stops Selling 'Paedophile's Guide'

[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.

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...

Fiction.

 

[katy perry is hot]

Are you doubting that countries talk like that in their cables all the time? If you are you're insane. The reason all these countries didn't have any issues other than Turkey for some reason is that nothing is wrong with saying, for example, " She's hard to work with because she is arrogant" or " Putin is Batman to Medvedev's robin" THE WHOLE WORLD knows that stuff. It's really not going to cause issues with international democracy. No one has died yet. No countries have attacked us yet. So I think it's safe to say you are wrong.

Clear lines have been drawn all the time, and violated. Clear line drawn with the patriot act, until the government took it further and began to just monitor information and listen in on phone calls without warrants. You give some power, they will take more power. The patriot act gives them the right to detain certain people for suspicions of terror, they detain anyone they want. Clear lines are ereased all the time. There's no sense in giving the government the freedom to censor anything they want. Not going to happen.

 

[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?

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...

Fiction.

Care to give some sort of proof, evidence, reasoning or rationality, instead of unfounded claims? Thanks. 🙂

Are you doubting that countries talk like that in their cables all the time? If you are you're insane. The reason all these countries didn't have any issues other than Turkey for some reason is that nothing is wrong with saying, for example, " She's hard to work with because she is arrogant" or " Putin is Batman to Medvedev's robin" THE WHOLE WORLD knows that stuff. It's really not going to cause issues with international democracy. No one has died yet. No countries have attacked us yet. So I think it's safe to say you are wrong.

Clear lines have been drawn all the time, and violated. Clear line drawn with the patriot act, until the government took it further and began to just monitor information and listen in on phone calls without warrants. You give some power, they will take more power. The patriot act gives them the right to detain certain people for suspicions of terror, they detain anyone they want. Clear lines are ereased all the time. There's no sense in giving the government the freedom to censor anything they want. Not going to happen.

Or course I know that's what countries talk like all the time - that's why there's no been too much of an upset. The key problem, though, is not offending people. The problem is that it undermines trust. Trust is vital for diplomacy to function and, if governments trust the US to keep private information private, having it published all over the world won't help.

I understand that it is hard to draw a clear line; however, the alternative is just as bad. Allowing people to encourage others to break the law should not be part of a modern society. If the government cannot step in, where does that lead us? Should we defend freedom of expression what people want to express their hatred of the West by means of an explosive device? The slippery slope argument works both ways.

 

[Watch Me Sink]

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...

Fiction.

Care to give some sort of proof, evidence, reasoning or rationality, instead of unfounded claims? Thanks. 🙂

South seceded, forming a new country. The north had soldiers in the south, and the South attacked them. The Civil war stated. It wasn't until the Emancipation Proclamation that slavery was even brought into the situation. The Civil war was all about states rights to secede.

 

[ItsZippy]

Irrelevant. The point was people fought for their right to keep slaves. Therefore, you cannot say that, just because people fought for freedom of speech that it should be universally applied.

 

[Watch Me Sink]

The south fought for the right to secede. Do you know basic American history?

 

[katy perry is hot]

Should we defend freedom of expression what people want to express their hatred of the West by means of an explosive device? The slippery slope argument works both ways.

No it doesn't work both ways. Explosive device = the blatant murder of innocent people. Posting how to smoke pot online, or how to rape children, is a lot different from actually committing the act.
What about psychological books, for say, criminology students, about how a murderer thinks, about how people dump bodies, about how pedophiles target children. Do those books have to be specially exempted? Do the people who read them have to have a special license issued by the government to read and purchase it? Do you see where I'm getting here? Censorship = a big NO NO.

 

[Watch Me Sink]

Should we defend freedom of expression what people want to express their hatred of the West by means of an explosive device? The slippery slope argument works both ways.

No it doesn't work both ways. Explosive device = the blatant murder of innocent people. Posting how to smoke pot online, or how to rape children, is a lot different from actually committing the act.
What about psychological books, for say, criminology students, about how a murderer thinks, about how people dump bodies, about how pedophiles target children. Do those books have to be specially exempted? Do the people who read them have to have a special license issued by the government to read and purchase it? Do you see where I'm getting here? Censorship = a big NO NO.

Plus do you think that people who publish stuff like bold and underline are getting away with this stuff? One: They've tarnished their name/username, and since there are ways to track stuff down I'm sure these people are living in some sort of fear if they post a step by step guide of raping minors or whatnot.

 

[Zenrer]

What if I wanted to buy that book and Amazon was my only opinion of getting it (it's not like they would have it at my schools library haha)?
I strongly disagree with Amazon for doing that. Even if I never used them in the first place..well..I won't ever not use them again!?
It's taking away the freedom of speech, and I cannot stand that.

Oh yeah because you have a right to dictate what a private business decides to do. Amazon could start producing swastikas for all I care, or they could ban any product not suitable for children. It's their decision.

Wasn't the swastika originally a sign of peace?

Well before Hitler made it what its known as today

 

[ItsZippy]

Freedom of speech cannot be the over-riding, unbeatable trump card. As citizens, we must accept responsibility for what we choose to say and publish. The government's first priority is to do what is right for the people. If a book is encouraging people to commit paedophilic acts, what is right for the people would be to remove it. You're getting so hung up on the technicalities that you've lost the moral principle. Yes, drawing a line on censorship is hard; if we reject it because of that, we'll never have any meaningful discussion over whether it is a good idea. If it were, hypothetically, possible to draw a fixed, clear line, which allowed freedom of speech but protected the public, would it not be a good idea to enforce? Should we not first agree on the ideology, before attacking the practicalities?

 

[katy perry is hot]

The government doesn't need to protect people from a book. It's not good for the general public to ban a book or a video etc.
What about rape porn? In rape porn, you see ways the rapist in the video controls the victim. Should we ban that because it could teach you how to control a victim if you were an actual rapist?

And you have yet to answer my question regarding exceptions for these banned things.

 

[Gimgak]

What if I wanted to buy that book and Amazon was my only opinion of getting it (it's not like they would have it at my schools library haha)?
I strongly disagree with Amazon for doing that. Even if I never used them in the first place..well..I won't ever not use them again!?
It's taking away the freedom of speech, and I cannot stand that.

Oh yeah because you have a right to dictate what a private business decides to do. Amazon could start producing swastikas for all I care, or they could ban any product not suitable for children. It's their decision.

Wasn't the swastika originally a sign of peace?

Well before Hitler made it what its known as today

In the Hindu religion yeah.