NationStates Jolt Archive

Some Florida religious extremists seem to think that the novel Lolita may be obscene. They want it removed from shelves in the libraries and kept behind the counter. It seems the religious zealots think the American way to deal with controversial books is to hide them away so people will not know that they exist.

http://www.wesh.com/news/6251817/detail.html?subid=22100409&qs=1;bp=t

Banning Lolita again? Boring asswipes. :rolleyes:

Considering how they have to keep banning the same books over and over again, when are they going to realize that nobody cares what they think?

Fundies want to bur...ban books again?

This is news? :p

Some Florida religious extremists seem to think that the novel Lolita may be obscene. They want it removed from shelves in the libraries and kept behind the counter. It seems the religious zealots think the American way to deal with controversial books is to hide them away so people will not know that they exist.

http://www.wesh.com/news/6251817/detail.html?subid=22100409&qs=1;bp=t
Christ, could these people PLEASE get a new schtick?! Banning books is sooooooo last century.

Hey, let's trick them into banning the bible! Just tell them it contains references to human sacrifice, genocide, sexual slavery, rape, and incest but don't tell them the title until it's too late.

Hey, let's trick them into banning the bible! Just tell them it contains references to human sacrifice, genocide, sexual slavery, rape, and incest but don't tell them the title until it's too late.
Don't forget it has women taking advantage of men.

Some Florida religious extremists seem to think that the novel Lolita may be obscene. They want it removed from shelves in the libraries and kept behind the counter. It seems the religious zealots think the American way to deal with controversial books is to hide them away so people will not know that they exist.

http://www.wesh.com/news/6251817/detail.html?subid=22100409&qs=1;bp=t


Huh? Point out to me where any mention of religious extremists, or indeed religion, is made in that link would you? The whole issue was about putting it to the vote in order that the book stay on the shelves.

Huh? Point out to me where any mention of religious extremists, or indeed religion, is made in that link would you? The whole issue was about putting it to the vote in order that the book stay on the shelves.
The article doesn't mention religious extremists explicitly, but who else tries to ban books in the US? Particularly in the Southeastern US? It's just about always religious extremists, so I felt comfortable making the assumption.

:rolleyes: why don't they just not read it?

when I was in highschool we had a group around here that got some books taken off the 'summer reading list' because they found them objectionable

HucK Finn
Tom Sawyer
To Kill a Mocking Bird

it was the stupidest thing I had ever heard, our library fought back by having a shelf of "banned books" so that we could all find them easier, it's funny a lot of my friends ended up reading those books to be rebelious :p (maybe that was the original plan:eek: )

anyway, there is a big thing here about the local Christian groups wanting to put the books for children with "gay themes" out of the children's section, I don't understand, if you are really worried about what your kids are going to read, then why not go to the library with them? why is it the government's responsibility to keep that stuff out of their reach?

oh here (http://www.indexonline.org/en/indexindex/articles/2005/2/united-states-oklahoma-passes-gay-book-ban.shtml)if you are curious.

The article doesn't mention religious extremists explicitly, but who else tries to ban books in the US? Particularly in the Southeastern US? It's just about always religious extremists, so I felt comfortable making the assumption.

Did you version of the article not include the line:

In an odd twist, even though Blaes sounds opposed to "Lolita" on the shelves, she actually wants it to remain.

???

Did you version of the article not include the line:



???
It also included this

The attorney will recommend to the commissioners whether he thinks the book is unsuitable for minors. They still would have to vote to determine if "Lolita" remains on the shelf or is hidden behind a desk.

No date has been set as to when the attorney must make his decision about "Lolita."

Clearly some uptight, (probably) overly religious elements in the community want to see the book hidden away.

The article doesn't mention religious extremists explicitly, but who else tries to ban books in the US? Particularly in the Southeastern US? It's just about always religious extremists, so I felt comfortable making the assumption.
Actually, the book-banning version of asswipery knows no factions. PC pseudo-liberals take turns with racists in trying to ban Huck Finn. I've heard of animal rights people trying to ban Moby Dick.

There are so many fucking morons in the world.

Huh? Point out to me where any mention of religious extremists, or indeed religion, is made in that link would you? The whole issue was about putting it to the vote in order that the book stay on the shelves.
Well, if they want it to stay on the shelves, why don't they just leave it there, then? Why even make of question of it?

Actually, the book-banning version of asswipery knows no factions. PC pseudo-liberals take turns with racists in trying to ban Huck Finn. I've heard of animal rights people trying to ban Moby Dick.

There are so many fucking morons in the world.
yeah, it was a group affilitated with the NAACP that got Huck Finn, Tom Sawyer, and To Kill a Mocking Bird banned in highschool.

:rolleyes:

OK, I guess I stand corrected on the religious thing. My apologies.

Banning Lolita again? Boring asswipes. :rolleyes:

Considering how they have to keep banning the same books over and over again, when are they going to realize that nobody cares what they think?
They don't care that you don't care. After all, they're on a mission for God! :rolleyes:

There are so many fucking morons in the world.
It takes all kinds to make a world, but sometimes I think they got the proportions all wrong! :D

Well, if they want it to stay on the shelves, why don't they just leave it there, then? Why even make of question of it?

Presumably to set a legal precedent. I have no idea whether some kind of double jeopardy operates with regard to this kind of issue in whatever administrative body is responsible for these kind of things.

okay so I was looking around, and it turns out I found a link with stats on the top 100 books challenged and who challenged them and stuff. It looks like "religious organizations" are in the minority when it comes to challenging books


Here (http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=bbwlinks&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=40912) is the link

see here (http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlinks/challengesbyinitiator20002004.pdf) from 2000-2004

OK, I guess I stand corrected on the religious thing. My apologies.
I can smell a fundamentalist ten miles away, and this has "fundie-smell" all over it!

People still read books?? :eek:

yeah, it was a group affilitated with the NAACP that got Huck Finn, Tom Sawyer, and To Kill a Mocking Bird banned in highschool.

:rolleyes:
Years ago, there was this wonderful study series about literature bouncing around the Discovery Network channels -- "Great Books" or something like that. One of the programs talked about what book might qualify as The Great American Novel, and of course, all those you list above were on the list, as well as Moby Dick, The Grapes of Wrath, Native Son, The Scarlet Letter, and other frequently banned favorites.

I personally give the nod to Huckleberry Finn, because there is hardly a special interest group in the US that has not been pissed off by that book. I mean, you get racists bitching about the black-white friendship and PCers bitching about the racist slang SIMULTANEOUSLY!! :D Good old Mark Twain! Surely, no other writer so comprehensively captured the American experience.

Years ago, there was this wonderful study series about literature bouncing around the Discovery Network channels -- "Great Books" or something like that. One of the programs talked about what book might qualify as The Great American Novel, and of course, all those you list above were on the list, as well as Moby Dick, The Grapes of Wrath, Native Son, The Scarlet Letter, and other frequently banned favorites.

I personally give the nod to Huckleberry Finn, because there is hardly a special interest group in the US that has not been pissed off by that book. I mean, you get racists bitching about the black-white friendship and PCers bitching about the racist slang SIMULTANEOUSLY!! :D Good old Mark Twain! Surely, no other writer so comprehensively captured the American experience.
yeah, their big problem with all three books was the "racist slang" in them. I wanted to call them and ask "did you actually ever read those books?!" I mean come on you would think they would promote them. :rolleyes:

okay so I was looking around, and it turns out I found a link with stats on the top 100 books challenged and who challenged them and stuff. It looks like "religious organizations" are in the minority when it comes to challenging books


Here (http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=bbwlinks&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=40912) is the link

see here (http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlinks/challengesbyinitiator20002004.pdf) from 2000-2004
Jeeze. I can almost understand some of those books upsetting people ... almost that is, but things like "In the night kitchen," by Sendack? WTF, over??

I can smell a fundamentalist ten miles away, and this has "fundie-smell" all over it!

Terry Blaes sez:

"Do I personally think it should be restricted? No. But it does have to do with pedophilia, so I think there may be some people who do feel it should be restricted. I am hoping this will encourage them to consider the work of literature and discuss what criteria they have for making that decision."

Where is the fundamentalism?

People still read books?? :eek:
No. They just buy them to put on their coffee tables and to stack on their bookshelves in order to look all educated and junk.

Jeeze. I can almost understand some of those books upsetting people ... almost that is, but things like "In the night kitchen," by Sendack? WTF, over??
geez, I have no idea. I got shocked and disapproving looks at the homeschool co-op Friday, because I am reading "The Hitchhikers Guide" to my kids during reading time (my own kids, not the kids in my class there) I don't see what's wrong with that book at all.:confused:

Terry Blaes sez:

Where is the fundamentalism?
Lurking in the background. You have to look at where in the US the book is being questioned, and ask why they would bother doing so.

geez, I have no idea. I got shocked and disapproving looks at the homeschool co-op Friday, because I am reading "The Hitchhikers Guide" to my kids during reading time (my own kids, not the kids in my class there) I don't see what's wrong with that book at all.:confused:
Now, Smunkee, you're old enough to understand that some people feel threatened by anything new and different from the way they were raised, yes? :)

I personally give the nod to Huckleberry Finn, because there is hardly a special interest group in the US that has not been pissed off by that book. I mean, you get racists bitching about the black-white friendship and PCers bitching about the racist slang SIMULTANEOUSLY!! :D Good old Mark Twain! Surely, no other writer so comprehensively captured the American experience.

Let us not forget Go Ask Alice - originally published as a non-fiction diary of a teenager who initially dabbles in drug use, then finds herself using harder drugs, becoming homeless, working as a prostitute and eventually commiting suicide. A work which has faced numerous challenges for having unsuitable content for youngsters.

Nevermind the fact that it is actually a work of fiction written by a then fifty year old Mormon counsellor as an attempt to scare kids back onto the straight and narrow...

okay so I was looking around, and it turns out I found a link with stats on the top 100 books challenged and who challenged them and stuff. It looks like "religious organizations" are in the minority when it comes to challenging books


Here (http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=bbwlinks&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=40912) is the link

see here (http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlinks/challengesbyinitiator20002004.pdf) from 2000-2004

Only if you assume that the 'parents' aren't doing so on behalf of religious institutions or in leiu of religious organizations. Parents also started many of the lawsuits demanding ID be taught in school and the putting of stickers on books saying evolution is 'just a theory'.

I'd like to point to the list of books that were attacked -

http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlinks/100mostfrequently.htm

7. Harry Potter books

Come on, seriously, who do you think is banning Harry Potter books? It doesn't have foul language. It doesn't have any kind of graphic violence or sexuality. It doesn't really have anything offensive except *gasp* witchcraft.

Number 1 is scary stories which is really only scary and nothing else. Hmmmm....

Add in there "Heather has Two Mommies" and "Daddy's Roommate" and I think I smell a trend.

Presumably to set a legal precedent. I have no idea whether some kind of double jeopardy operates with regard to this kind of issue in whatever administrative body is responsible for these kind of things.
There is a set of rules for precisely this in the United States. It's called the Constitution, the First Amendment of which says book-banners can sod the hell off.

Every so often, some podunk cul-de-sac full of SUV-driving savages, claiming "community standards" (HA!), will get a book banned from the library or, worse yet, get Bowdlerized versions of books put into libraries/schools (deceitful bastards). And every time, they get slapped down by courts because it always turns out that the "community" doesn't actually share their "standards", and they don't have the legal right to tell people what they can or can't read. End of discussion.

(Oh, and sometimes, when they Bowdlerize a work that's still under copyright, they get sued, too.)

Now, Smunkee, you're old enough to understand that some people feel threatened by anything new and different from the way they were raised, yes? :)
sure, but they don't like anything about how I raise my kids, some of it I understand (like the fact that I let them listen to rock music) and some I really really don't (like I let them play video games, and read them Douglas Adams)

It's not like I just let them do whatever, I do censor stuff, I just don't censor everything. You should have seen the look on one of the mom's face when they came out to my car and I rolled down the window and Led Zep was on the radio,

"Is that your husband's CD?"
" nope, it's the 2 year old's, she really likes this one"


I thought she was going to pass out, really. :p

Only if you assume that the 'parents' aren't doing so on behalf of religious institutions or in leiu of religious organizations. Parents also started many of the lawsuits demanding ID be taught in school and the putting of stickers on books saying evolution is 'just a theory'.
true..............I must be off my game today. ;)

No. They just buy them to put on their coffee tables and to stack on their bookshelves in order to look all educated and junk.

Good to hear. I was afraid the world was comming to an end or something. ;) Huh. Reading books in the US in this day and age :p

But, if they ban the book, would they mind if the library for example placed a DVD with the movie where the book should have been?

Only if you assume that the 'parents' aren't doing so on behalf of religious institutions or in leiu of religious organizations. Parents also started many of the lawsuits demanding ID be taught in school and the putting of stickers on books saying evolution is 'just a theory'.
You can't judge a book by its cover ;) . Just because a group's name is secular, it doesn't mean it's not religion-affiliated.

But on the other hand, any group can be guilty of this offense -- and most have been.

I say it's a symptom of the egotism of having a cause. A lot of people just want to dictate how the discourse goes. The liberal groups, for instance, who want to ban Huck Finn for its racist language don't care what Twain was saying about racism in America. They only care that the book contains unpleasant language they can point at and yell about, keeping the debate on a nice, easy, simple-minded level that doesn't require much effort on their part.

Can we declare book-banning a kind of action-Godwin (as opposed to debate-Godwin)? Once you try that, you lose all credibility in your cause?

You can't judge a book by its cover ;) . Just because a group's name is secular, it doesn't mean it's not religion-affiliated.

But on the other hand, any group can be guilty of this offense -- and most have been.

I say it's a symptom of the egotism of having a cause. A lot of people just want to dictate how the discourse goes. The liberal groups, for instance, who want to ban Huck Finn for its racist language don't care what Twain was saying about racism in America. They only care that the book contains unpleasant language they can point at and yell about, keeping the debate on a nice, easy, simple-minded level that doesn't require much effort on their part.

I agree with that in general. I suspect that many of the parents who wish to ban books or support bans have not read the books they are discussing. They listen to what other people tell them to think about the book. The book uses the word, "******", then it must be racist. Ban that sucker. They give no thought to the fact that Mark Twain paints the slave-owners and most people who treat black people as less than human in a very bad light. One of the most redeeming qualities of Huck Finn is how he comes to realize the value of ALL people based on actions rather than skin color.

Christ, could these people PLEASE get a new schtick?! Banning books is sooooooo last century.

You forget knowledge is a bad thing for Religion. ;)

I agree with that in general. I suspect that many of the parents who wish to ban books or support bans have not read the books they are discussing. They listen to what other people tell them to think about the book. The book uses the word, "******", then it must be racist. Ban that sucker. They give no thought to the fact that Mark Twain paints the slave-owners and most people who treat black people as less than human in a very bad light. One of the most redeeming qualities of Huck Finn is how he comes to realize the value of ALL people based on actions rather than skin color.
I'm a confirmed cynic. I have no difficulty saying that those who take the easy road of denouncing Huck Finn for racist language are afraid they might be racists themselves.

If they really read and discussed the book with their children/students, they might be forced to do what Huck Finn does in the book -- examine themselves. Most people would rather kill someone than do that. All you have to do is question someone's professed motives to get into a major fight. But the one thing they'll never do is answer your question.

BTW: Huck Finn is also hated by moralists, churches, the rich, and everybody else who claims to be molding society for the better because they are all treated honestly and cynically by Twain.

Christ, could these people PLEASE get a new schtick?! Banning books is sooooooo last century.
they do know... they actually like the book, however, since they can't say "Hey, read the book ____, it's really good!" they employ reverse psycology. "Hey Don't read this book" is sure to drive more people to read it than not.

Look at "Satanic Verses"

Hey, let's trick them into banning the bible! Just tell them it contains references to human sacrifice, genocide, sexual slavery, rape, and incest but don't tell them the title until it's too late.

That would be sooo funny:D

they do know... they actually like the book, however, since they can't say "Hey, read the book ____, it's really good!" they employ reverse psycology. "Hey Don't read this book" is sure to drive more people to read it than not.

Look at "Satanic Verses"
The fatwah sold that book better than the writing could have. Now, all Rushdie has to do is actually get shot, and he'll be all set.

I work in the arts. I actually have "get banned somewhere" on my list of tools for success, right after "provoke fistfight in gallery." :)

The fatwah sold that book better than the writing could have. Now, all Rushdie has to do is actually get shot, and he'll be all set.

I work in the arts. I actually have "get banned somewhere" on my list of tools for success, right after "provoke fistfight in gallery." :)
I worked at "Waldenbooks" and all of Rushdie's books were selling like maybe one in several months. then the Fatwah came out and bang, we couldn't keep his books in stock.. and the customer reviews were all the same.

"It sucked" :D

Look at "Satanic Verses"

For some reason I have a hard time beliving the Clerics want to help boost sales.

Their fatwa made that book possible. I read it out of curiosity and it was bad reaaaalllly bad.

If they kept their mouth shut Rushdie would never have made it and the book would have died.....

You forget knowledge is a bad thing for Religion. ;)
why is that exactly?

When Mark Twain Wrote Huck Finn it did not sell very well. That is until the author of little women said it was an evil vile book in the next three weeks it became the best selling book in America. My point is that if this book they are trying to ban is so bad they are doing more harm then good.

When Mark Twain Wrote Huck Finn it did not sell very well. That is until the author of little women said it was an evil vile book in the next three weeks it became the best selling book in America. My point is that if this book they are trying to ban is so bad they are doing more harm then good.

I assume you are aware that the first edition of Huckleberry Finn contained an illustrated plate which showed a naked penis?

I assume you are aware that the first edition of Huckleberry Finn contained an illustrated plate which showed a naked penis?
:eek: Burn the witch -- I mean, penis -- I mean, book!!! And while you're at it, put some pants on that big, filthy David.

why is that exactly?

I know s/he didn't qualify but I believe s/he is really referring to the types of fundamentalists that seek to prevent certain types of education and seek to ban certain types of music, games, books, etc. While I think s/he should have been specific, we must admit that there is a section of American Christians that do not feel that young adults and young Christians should examine the world around them in forming their religious beliefs.

When TBF comes on and reads your comment and mine, s/he will apologize for not using a sniper rifle instead of a shotgun, because I promise the comment does not apply to you or to me, right, TBF? ;)

Hey, let's trick them into banning the bible! Just tell them it contains references to human sacrifice, genocide, sexual slavery, rape, and incest but don't tell them the title until it's too late.

There's an episode of 'Bullshit' by Penn and Teller where they walk around a protest staged by some ecological group and get people to sign a ban on water doing essentially the same thing. I know they skew things a bit on that show (in fact they admit that they are guilty of many of the same tactics they are denouncing) but it was really, really funny.

There's an episode of 'Bullshit' by Penn and Teller where they walk around a protest staged by some ecological group and get people to sign a ban on water doing essentially the same thing. I know they skew things a bit on that show (in fact they admit that they are guilty of many of the same tactics they are denouncing) but it was really, really funny.
Hey... DiHydrogen Monoxide is very VERY Dangerous.

Can you deny even one the points they raised? :D :D :D

Hey... DiHydrogen Monoxide is very VERY Dangerous.

Can you deny even one the points they raised? :D :D :D

No, you actually can't. That's why it was so funny. They pointed out that the tactics being used by such groups relies on the ignorance of the general public, the same ignorance relied on by those that would wish to ban these types of books.

I know s/he didn't qualify but I believe s/he is really referring to the types of fundamentalists that seek to prevent certain types of education and seek to ban certain types of music, games, books, etc. While I think s/he should have been specific, we must admit that there is a section of American Christians that do not feel that young adults and young Christians should examine the world around them in forming their religious beliefs.

*checks inside his pants* Yup I have the requirement of a male!

Sorry I thought it was obvious. But you covered it.

I recently hear a news blip from middle america about the evolution debates and I thought I would never hear a mother say "I want to make sure my children understand; we are not decended or related to any ape!" At least she got Ape and not monkey as they usually say.

In one aspect the Amish are superior to most religions. They young are told to go out, explore and have fun as "to get it out of their system" before they decide to accept the lifestye.

*checks inside his pants* Yup I have the requirement of a male!

Sorry I thought it was obvious. But you covered it.

I recently hear a news blip from middle america about the evolution debates and I thought I would never hear a mother say "I want to make sure my children understand; we are not decended or related to any ape!" At least she got Ape and not monkey as they usually say.

In one aspect the Amish are superior to most religions. They young are told to go out, explore and have fun as "to get it out of their system" before they decide to accept the lifestye.
my kids are welcome and encouraged to explore the "world outside" although there really isn't much of it that isn't in our world anyway, I get annoyed with some of the other parents I know who won't let thier kids read certain books because "I don't want to expose them to that", like they can keep the kids in a locked room for thier whole life or something :headbang:

my kids are welcome and encouraged to explore the "world outside" although there really isn't much of it that isn't in our world anyway, I get annoyed with some of the other parents I know who won't let thier kids read certain books because "I don't want to expose them to that", like they can keep the kids in a locked room for thier whole life or something :headbang:

Mark of a good parent! :) I do the same with only one requirement; they finish what they start. My little girl wanted to try Karate and she finished the training round and decided she didn't want to do it anymore. Now we are on to dancing. :)

About the only thing I am being a facist about is swimming. She has to learn how to swim as in this day and age; drowning is a dumb way to die. Especially when you live near large bodies of water.....

Mark of a good parent! :) I do the same with only one requirement; they finish what they start. My little girl wanted to try Karate and she finished the training round and decided she didn't want to do it anymore. Now we are on to dancing. :)

About the only thing I am being a facist about is swimming. She has to learn how to swim as in this day and age; drowning is a dumb way to die. Especially when you live near large bodies of water.....
yeah, we are working on the "following through" thing too, my parents never did stress that with me, and it's caused me problems more times than I care to mention.

Hey,
What's wrong with all you ? Why are you getting so uptight about burning books ? Have you ever tried it ? Think before you spew your left-wing commie rhetoric. Some books are just so far over the line they deserve to be banned, burned, and the author hung from a tree. Then we can all put on our pointy hats and dance around the fire and......oops........oh my..........guess it's a full moon today...........need my meds......................help meeeeeeeeeeeee

:p

Christ, could these people PLEASE get a new schtick?! Banning books is sooooooo last century.

Yes indeed..!

Last century, and applied by such folks as the ultra-leftists Hitler and Stalin (http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/).

Let's see,... who on the right did stuff like that...?

Hmmmm......


-Iakeo

Esoteric Dopplegangers']Hey,
What's wrong with all you ? Why are you getting so uptight about burning books ? Have you ever tried it ? Think before you spew your left-wing commie rhetoric. Some books are just so far over the line they deserve to be banned, burned, and the author hung from a tree. Then we can all put on our pointy hats and dance around the fire and......oops........oh my..........guess it's a full moon today...........need my meds......................help meeeeeeeeeeeee

:pdamn right you need your meds.

how can you forget that when we dance, it has to be skyclad!!! the great offereing is useless if we're not Skyclad! :mad:

Next thing you know, they'll want to ban National Geographic and the Sears Catalog.

You forget knowledge is a bad thing for Religion. ;)

Not bad for all religions...

Job 36:
12 But if they do not listen,
they will perish by the sword
and die without knowledge.

Psalm 119:
66 Teach me knowledge and good judgment,
for I believe in your commands.

Proverbs 1:
1 The proverbs of Solomon son of David, king of Israel:

2 for attaining wisdom and discipline;
for understanding words of insight;

3 for acquiring a disciplined and prudent life,
doing what is right and just and fair;

4 for giving prudence to the simple,
knowledge and discretion to the young-

5 let the wise listen and add to their learning,
and let the discerning get guidance-

6 for understanding proverbs and parables,
the sayings and riddles of the wise.

7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge,
but fools despise wisdom and discipline.

and

22 How long will you simple ones love your simple ways?
How long will mockers delight in mockery
and fools hate knowledge?

Proverbs 21:
11 When a mocker is punished, the simple gain wisdom;
when a wise man is instructed, he gets knowledge.


Proverbs 22:
12The eyes of the LORD preserve knowledge,
But He overthrows the words of the treacherous man.

;)

Next thing you know, they'll want to ban National Geographic and the Sears Catalog.
But first they have to get rid of Victoria's Secret.

But first they have to get rid of Victoria's Secret.

If only I'd spent the time learning the piano instead of looking at those magazines/catalogs, I'd be among the best in the world. *looks sad*

If only I'd spent the time learning the piano instead of looking at those magazines/catalogs, I'd be among the best in the world. *looks sad*
Must... resist... making... sexual... innuendos... reguarding... the playing... of... musical... instruments...

Next thing you know, they'll want to ban National Geographic and the Sears Catalog.

Hell yes! Nat Geo has boobies in it and the Sears Catalog has women in their underware! :eek:

Your morals are now in question!

American Taliban?

Hyperbolic BS. just becuase they want to ban this crappy book does not raise you to the height of a terror group that killled thousands of americans ( and Aussies for that matter)


The Anti Christian left needs to choose their words more carefully.


PS. I hope they dont ban this dumb book, the 1st amendment give a publisher the right to.. well Publish.. but Taliban???



( my monthly post into the forum)

:)

American Taliban?

Hyperbolic BS. just becuase they want to ban this crappy book does not raise you to the height of a terror group that killled thousands of americans ( and Aussies for that matter)


Pssst. The Taliban is in Afghanistan!


The Anti Christian left needs to choose their words more carefully.

PS. I hope they dont ban this dumb book, the 1st amendment give a publisher the right to.. well Publish.. but Taliban???

( my monthly post into the forum)
:)

The name is appropriate as there are many of the "faithful" who still campaign to remove "immoral" books all the time.

I take issue over " American Taliban " just because this group wants to ban this book.name NOT is appropriate as the group in question is NOT a linked terrorist group and or a supporter of terrorism. this christian group is not.


PS I know full well who the taliban is and the nation they used to run, the point is sick of the left using such hyperbol against any Christian with faith.

I take issue over " American Taliban " just because this group wants to ban this book.


PS I know full well who the taliban is and the nation they used to run, the point is sick of the left using such hyperbol against any Christian with faith.
hyperbole makes the world go 'round. believe me, if you want the extremists to notice you, you have to be extreme.

I take issue over " American Taliban " just because this group wants to ban this book.


PS I know full well who the taliban is and the nation they used to run, the point is sick of the left using such hyperbol against any Christian with faith.
The point is that we don't use it against anyone with Christian faith. We use that insult against those who want to force their religious viewpoint upon others through force of law. That's what the taliban did. If you didn't follow their form of Islam to the letter you would be tried and punished. Certain things, like TV, music, kite flying, etc. were banned because they offended the taliban's religion. That's not so different from banning books because they offend some fundy's version of Christianity.

Terrorist are " extreme " wanting to remove a book is not, they are not using violence, they are using due process.. like it or not, its their right to protest a book, the 1st amendment works both ways.

Terrorist are " extreme " wanting to remove a book is not, they are not using violence, they are using due process.. like it or not, its their right to protest a book, the 1st amendment works both ways.
It's their right to speak their mind on a book's content, but not to ban it in any way. That's the first ammendment, pal. It doesnt' give people the power to ban unpopular speech, only to speak out against it.

The point is that we don't use it against anyone with Christian faith. We use that insult against those who want to force their religious viewpoint upon others through force of law. That's what the taliban did. If you didn't follow their form of Islam to the letter you would be tried and punished. Certain things, like TV, music, kite flying, etc. were banned because they offended the taliban's religion. That's not so different from banning books because they offend some fundy's version of Christianity.


The Taliban used force and murder inforce their laws.. that is the differnce.

You cant even compair using laws on the books to remove a book that supports illegal acts ( sex with a minor is against the law in all 50 states) they have the right to press the issue, they may fail, but the right is theirs.


just like the otherside has the right to cram their views into the schools. right?

It's their right to speak their mind on a book's content, but not to ban it in any way. That's the first ammendment, pal. It doesnt' give people the power to ban unpopular speech, only to speak out against it.

not your " Pal " thats point one, point two, like I said they have the right to go to the law and state their claim that the book should be removed, and a judge will govern if their case is valid, that IS their right as well.

The Taliban used force and murder inforce their laws.. that is the differnce.

You cant even compair using laws on the books to remove a book that supports illegal acts ( sex with a minor is against the law in all 50 states) they have the right to press the issue, they may fail, but the right is theirs.


just like the otherside has the right to cram their views into the schools. right?
The book hardly endorses sex with minors. Humbert's infatuation leads to some very negative consequences.

Nobody has the right to censor speech in direct opposition to the US consitution. That's why even scumbags like NAMBLA are permitted to speak freely.

The book hardly endorses sex with minors. Humbert's infatuation leads to some very negative consequences.

Nobody has the right to censor speech in direct opposition to the US consitution. That's why even scumbags like NAMBLA are permitted to speak freely.

sure there is a censor, you go out to a movie theater and yell fire, see what happens and NO NAMBLA is not permitted to speak, they support illegal acts, and thus must be supressed and jailed.

besides from the artical it is moot:

On a 3-2 vote, the County Commission determined "Lolita" will stay on the adult fiction shelves


^
and thats where that book should stay.

sure there is a censor, you go out to a movie theater and yell fire, see what happens and NO NAMBLA is not permitted to speak, they support illegal acts, and thus must be supressed and jailed.

besides from the artical it is moot:

On a 3-2 vote, the County Commission determined "Lolita" will stay on the adult fiction shelves


^
and thats where that book should stay.


Does "brighton" indicate you're a russian?

People who support illegal acts in free countries arent supressed or jailed.

sure there is a censor, you go out to a movie theater and yell fire, see what happens and NO NAMBLA is not permitted to speak, they support illegal acts, and thus must be supressed and jailed.

besides from the artical it is moot:

On a 3-2 vote, the County Commission determined "Lolita" will stay on the adult fiction shelves


^
and thats where that book should stay.
1) The classic example "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is banned because it can be reasonably assumed that people could be trampled to death running for the exits. Speech that directly incites crime and violence may also be limited. Books like Lolita won't get anyone killed and can't reasonably be assumed to lead people into crime or violence.

2) NAMBLA's right to speak has been upheld by judges on several occasions. As long as they don't say "go out and fuck a kid" they haven't crossed the line illustrated above. They lobby for the lowering of the age of consent. That's legal (though disgusting).

3) The book should stay because it's widely regarded as classic literature and because libraries should stock any kind of book the librarians choose regardless of the community's wishes. Sure you wouldn't want to stock Lolita next to some sesame street book, but you shouldn't ban it from the library or make it hard for adults to find either.

Does "brighton" indicate you're a russian?

People who support illegal acts in free countries arent supressed or jailed.

No, I am not from Russia. and yes, people who support child sodomy and rape such as NAMBLA on its face a illgeal act, a actionable offence by law should be supressed. and its members jailed.

you cant do anything you want in a " Free Country" there are laws that must be obyed, NAMBLA in of itself is a outlaw group of perverts.

they are not covered by any 1st amendment rights as they are akin to yelling fire in a theater.

not your " Pal " thats point one, point two, like I said they have the right to go to the law and state their claim that the book should be removed, and a judge will govern if their case is valid, that IS their right as well.

And it's his right to consider such actions a form of terrorism. You don't have a right to try and make whatever you want into law. That's like saying I have a right to break into other people's houses and it's the job of the police to break the law. The US Constitution protects freedom of speech and laws violate such protections are unconstitutional, i.e. illegal. Calling them Taliban is hyperbole, no doubt, but one of the major characteristics of the Taliban is that they forced their faith on the population of their country and if a book is banned because a particular faith finds it contrary to that faith, then there is a comparison to be made, no matter how hyperbolic you find that comparison to be.

I find it amusing that you assume it must be the left that is complaining about such tactics. There are many on the right and in the center that would fight to the death to prevent the religious fundamentalists in this country from denying people their rights.

sure there is a censor, you go out to a movie theater and yell fire, see what happens and NO NAMBLA is not permitted to speak, they support illegal acts, and thus must be supressed and jailed.

besides from the artical it is moot:

On a 3-2 vote, the County Commission determined "Lolita" will stay on the adult fiction shelves


^
and thats where that book should stay.

Actually, speech can only be censored if it can be shown to directly cause harm. Yelling fire in a movie theatre does. NAMBLA is permitted to speak, because they talk about the issue but they don't encourage illegal actions (or at least it can't be proved that they do).

And your point sucks. People often talk about how wonderful pot smoking is, being pimps, etc. Movies often show acts of violence, rape, sodomy, etc. Censorship doesn't touch any of them and shouldn't. As pointed out already it only can be censored if it can be shown to directly incite illegal acts or physical harm (and it also has to show intent).

I'd say watching Barnie is more likely to make me want to damage some folks than reading "Lolita" every would. Should Barney be banned?

No, I am not from Russia. and yes, people who support child sodomy and rape such as NAMBLA on its face a illgeal act, a actionable offence by law should be supressed. and its members jailed.

you cant do anything you want in a " Free Country" there are laws that must be obyed, NAMBLA in of itself is a outlaw group of perverts.

they are not covered by any 1st amendment rights as they are akin to yelling fire in a theater.
okay, and along that line, should the people who fight for the legalization of drugs be jailed as well?

how about the pro-lifers? they are against the legal performance of abortion which makes them at odds with a law on the books.

I don't like NAMBLA at all, don't get me wrong, but you can't restrict someone's free speach just because you don't like what they say, it is a free country.

maybe one of my favorite movie quotes would help here.

America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've got to want it bad, because it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil who is standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the 'land of the free'? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the 'land of the free.'"

1) The classic example "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is banned because it can be reasonably assumed that people could be trampled to death running for the exits. Speech that directly incites crime and violence may also be limited. Books like Lolita won't get anyone killed and can't reasonably be assumed to lead people into crime or violence.

2) NAMBLA's right to speak has been upheld by judges on several occasions. As long as they don't say "go out and fuck a kid" they haven't crossed the line illustrated above. They lobby for the lowering of the age of consent. That's legal (though disgusting).

3) The book should stay because it's widely regarded as classic literature and because libraries should stock any kind of book the librarians choose regardless of the community's wishes. Sure you wouldn't want to stock Lolita next to some sesame street book, but you shouldn't ban it from the library or make it hard for adults to find either.



1) The classic example "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is banned because it can be reasonably assumed that people could be trampled to death running for the exits. Speech that directly incites crime and violence may also be limited. Books like Lolita won't get anyone killed and can't reasonably be assumed to lead people into crime or violence

^

Sex with a minor is a crime. such a book does plant seeds in impressionable minds.



2) NAMBLA's right to speak has been upheld by judges on several occasions. As long as they don't say "go out and fuck a kid" they haven't crossed the line illustrated above. They lobby for the lowering of the age of consent. That's legal (though disgusting).


Thanks to the ACLU and other far left judges, in the up comming years Judges who actually read the constitution and not put their personal views above the Constitution will make sure that such groups are banned.


) The book should stay because it's widely regarded as classic literature and because libraries should stock any kind of book the librarians choose regardless of the community's wishes. Sure you wouldn't want to stock Lolita next to some sesame street book, but you shouldn't ban it from the library or make it hard for adults to find either.[/QUOTE]

^


The Book IS staying. out of the reach of children.


Like I said, just take issue with callings these Christians " Taliban " for wanting to ban the book, under the Taliban, they would just take your head off with a dull sword.

1) The classic example "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is banned because it can be reasonably assumed that people could be trampled to death running for the exits. Speech that directly incites crime and violence may also be limited. Books like Lolita won't get anyone killed and can't reasonably be assumed to lead people into crime or violence

^

Sex with a minor is a crime. such a book does plant seeds in impressionable minds.



2) NAMBLA's right to speak has been upheld by judges on several occasions. As long as they don't say "go out and fuck a kid" they haven't crossed the line illustrated above. They lobby for the lowering of the age of consent. That's legal (though disgusting).


Thanks to the ACLU and other far left judges, in the up comming years Judges who actually read the constitution and not put their personal views above the Constitution will make sure that such groups are banned.


) The book should stay because it's widely regarded as classic literature and because libraries should stock any kind of book the librarians choose regardless of the community's wishes. Sure you wouldn't want to stock Lolita next to some sesame street book, but you shouldn't ban it from the library or make it hard for adults to find either.[/

^


The Book IS staying. out of the reach of children.


Like I said, just take issue with callings these Christians " Taliban " for wanting to ban the book, under the Taliban, they would just take your head off with a dull sword.
1) Lots of things are crimes. Shooting people is a crime. If you use your logic we'd have to lose every western movie, every detective novel, perhaps even newspaper reports on violent crime so as not to "plant seeds in impressionable minds."

It doesn't work that way buddy. The test is whether it actually says "go out and commit this crime". Lolita doesn't. That's all, case closed. Your argument is fucked.

2) Those judges were actually supporting the constitution. The constitution's protection of speech is totally unneccesary for popular points of view. Nobody's going to try to censor Chris Matthews. It's there to protect unpopular points of view. Deal with it. We live in a free country. If you don't like it, move to Iran with like minded individuals.

3) I get the feeling you'd be taking heads off with a dull sword if the law only allowed you to do it. Liberals? Off with their heads!

1) The classic example "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is banned because it can be reasonably assumed that people could be trampled to death running for the exits. Speech that directly incites crime and violence may also be limited. Books like Lolita won't get anyone killed and can't reasonably be assumed to lead people into crime or violence

^

Sex with a minor is a crime. such a book does plant seeds in impressionable minds.

Okay, so I suppose any book that discusses controversial topics should be banned. Back to the days of the Brady Bunch and Different Strokes. Wait, weren't the Bradys all boinking each other backstage and didn't the Different Strokes crew almost to a child end up with drug habits and committing sex crimes. Hmmmm... I guess the world a screwed up place and perhaps books should discuss how it's a screwed up place and the consequences of these kinds of acts. Now if only I can think of a book that discusses the consequences of sex with a minor. Oh, I know, "Lolita".

2) NAMBLA's right to speak has been upheld by judges on several occasions. As long as they don't say "go out and fuck a kid" they haven't crossed the line illustrated above. They lobby for the lowering of the age of consent. That's legal (though disgusting).


Thanks to the ACLU and other far left judges, in the up comming years Judges who actually read the constitution and not put their personal views above the Constitution will make sure that such groups are banned.

Oh, I see. The right to free speech should only be upheld if they agree with you. Uh, forgive me if I choose not to help your kind of America become a reality. Now where in the Constitution does it say you can ban speech if you don't like it. Quote please.

) The book should stay because it's widely regarded as classic literature and because libraries should stock any kind of book the librarians choose regardless of the community's wishes. Sure you wouldn't want to stock Lolita next to some sesame street book, but you shouldn't ban it from the library or make it hard for adults to find either.

^


The Book IS staying. out of the reach of children.

It's not out of reach of children. Children can access the book relatively easily. The hope would be that parents be, you know, parents and, oh, I don't know, parent their children. They might start by getting interested in their children's lives and helping them understand the fiction they are bound to encounter in their lives.

Like I said, just take issue with callings these Christians " Taliban " for wanting to ban the book, under the Taliban, they would just take your head off with a dull sword.

Oh, I see, so unless the comparison is EXACT then no comparison can be made. Interesting. Well, then you better apologize for what you said about NAMBLA. In fact, prove that these groups would take the same tactic if such a thing were legal. You can't because it isn't. So only reasonable comparisons are necessary. While Pat Robertson was not involved, I promise you he would support the banning of the book, the assassination of world leaders he doesn't like, the banning of certain activities he finds to be un-Christian, etc. Hmmmm.... doesn't sound that different from the Taliban after all, does it?

Who wants to be Brighton has never read the book? Any takers? I'll give 2 to 1 odds.

okay, and along that line, should the people who fight for the legalization of drugs be jailed as well?

how about the pro-lifers? they are against the legal performance of abortion which makes them at odds with a law on the books.

I don't like NAMBLA at all, don't get me wrong, but you can't restrict someone's free speach just because you don't like what they say, it is a free country.

maybe one of my favorite movie quotes would help here.



[QUOTE=Smunkeeville]okay, and along that line, should the people who fight for the legalization of drugs be jailed as well?


Yes. I see it all the time every year these fools have a hemp fest every year, they smoke weed in front of the cops, they get busted. if you brake the law, you go to jail.


how about the pro-lifers? they are against the legal performance of abortion which makes them at odds with a law on the books.


^ since abortion is not consitutional anway, that protest is just,that was the worst ruling by any court since PLESSY v. FERGUSON 1896


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/163/537.html




yes that 95 artical is a nice flowery speach. but we all know all speech is not free. and some, speak so vile a thing like NAMBLA, it is akin to yelling fire, both things are illegal. NAMBLA does lead to vile crimes. look at this:

http://www.gjne.com/hope%20robbins/jeffrey_curley.htm


they have not the right of free speech.

The Taliban used force and murder inforce their laws.. that is the differnce.


Ahhh now you see the blessings of the Establishment Clause!

If it weren't for our system of law there are many "christians" that would have no problem using violence to get their way. I can introduce you to a couple of my redneck "christian" relatives that talk about thinks like that....


You cant even compair using laws on the books to remove a book that supports illegal acts ( sex with a minor is against the law in all 50 states) they have the right to press the issue, they may fail, but the right is theirs.


Book banning is not subscribed by the law. The "faithful" use harassment and intimidation against businesses and libraries.


just like the otherside has the right to cram their views into the schools. right?

Well private sure....

Should Barney be banned?

Hell yes! Purple bastard! :D

Brightonburg, until you can manage to quote and post correctly, I'm done with you. Trying to follow your pointless points is made even more difficult by the fact that the quotes in your posts aren't in quote boxes so they blend into your own rantings.

Back to the days of the Brady Bunch and Different Strokes. Wait, weren't the Bradys all boinking each other backstage and didn't the Different Strokes crew almost to a child end up with drug habits and committing sex crimes. Hmmmm... I guess the world a screwed up place and perhaps books should discuss how it's a screwed up place and the consequences of these kinds of acts. Now if only I can think of a book that discusses the consequences of sex with a minor. Oh, I know, "Lolita".



Oh, I see. The right to free speech should only be upheld if they agree with you. Uh, forgive me if I choose not to help your kind of America become a reality. Now where in the Constitution does it say you can ban speech if you don't like it. Quote please.



It's not out of reach of children. Children can access the book relatively easily. The hope would be that parents be, you know, parents and, oh, I don't know, parent their children. They might start by getting interested in their children's lives and helping them understand the fiction they are bound to encounter in their lives.



Oh, I see, so unless the comparison is EXACT then no comparison can be made. Interesting. Well, then you better apologize for what you said about NAMBLA. In fact, prove that these groups would take the same tactic if such a thing were legal. You can't because it isn't. So only reasonable comparisons are necessary. While Pat Robertson was not involved, I promise you he would support the banning of the book, the assassination of world leaders he doesn't like, the banning of certain activities he finds to be un-Christian, etc. Hmmmm.... doesn't sound that different from the Taliban after all, does it?

Who wants to be Brighton has never read the book? Any takers? I'll give 2 to 1 odds.



Okay, so I suppose any book that discusses controversial topics should be banned.

^

no, if you bother to scroll up, you see I take issue with labing these Chrsitian " taliban" not the book, and yes I am know the jist of the book.



Well, then you better apologize for what you said about NAMBLA.

^

NEVER. I cant belive so many people here suport that these people do?

Brightonburg, until you can manage to quote and post correctly, I'm done with you. Trying to follow your pointless points is made even more difficult by the fact that the quotes in your posts aren't in quote boxes so they blend into your own rantings.


I dont post in this forum, its not as easy as other forum with easier post editing, besides anyone who is for NAMBLA is not worth my time anways.

1) The classic example "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is banned because it can be reasonably assumed that people could be trampled to death running for the exits. Speech that directly incites crime and violence may also be limited. Books like Lolita won't get anyone killed and can't reasonably be assumed to lead people into crime or violence

^

Sex with a minor is a crime. such a book does plant seeds in impressionable minds.


Until such an act is attempted there is no crime.

You sound like you are advocating thought crimes.


2) NAMBLA's right to speak has been upheld by judges on several occasions. As long as they don't say "go out and fuck a kid" they haven't crossed the line illustrated above. They lobby for the lowering of the age of consent. That's legal (though disgusting).


Thanks to the ACLU and other far left judges, in the up comming years Judges who actually read the constitution and not put their personal views above the Constitution will make sure that such groups are banned.


Oh yea. At conservative judge would never ever never ever put his personal views above the Consititution. :rolleyes:

Care to prove where the ACLU violated the Constitution?



) The book should stay because it's widely regarded as classic literature and because libraries should stock any kind of book the librarians choose regardless of the community's wishes. Sure you wouldn't want to stock Lolita next to some sesame street book, but you shouldn't ban it from the library or make it hard for adults to find either.

^

The Book IS staying. out of the reach of children.


What children reads is the parents responcibility. Not business; not the libraries.

Maybe you conservatives should take personal responcibility for controlling what your child watches on tv and what books they bring home.


Like I said, just take issue with callings these Christians " Taliban " for wanting to ban the book, under the Taliban, they would just take your head off with a dull sword.

And what about those good "Christians" that murder abortion doctors and nurses or plant bombs at the olympics?

Yes. I see it all the time every year these fools have a hemp fest every year, they smoke weed in front of the cops, they get busted. if you brake the law, you go to jail.

Uh-oh. Someone can't see the difference between talking about breaking the the law (breaking, not braking) and actually do it. I can see where the problem lies.

^ since abortion is not consitutional anway, that protest is just,that was the worst ruling by any court since PLESSY v. FERGUSON 1896

Too bad nearly forty years of law disagrees with you. We won't enter into an abortion discussion here, but you'd be hard-pressed to show how abortion is unconstitutional.

I find it amusing that you try to compare giving rights for women to control their bodies over the 'rights' of non-persons according to the law to a case that disgarded the rights of persons under the law so law as the person was black. You're going to have to go a lot further to compare the two. But that's not your goal is it, you want to excercise hyperbole as well (weren't you just speaking out against that very thing) so that to disagree with you is to support the Plessy decision. Unfortunately, unlike the Taliban comparison, you've shown no equality in the issues in any way. However, given that you can't see the difference between a discussion of changing the law and breaking the law, I don't expect you to notice the not so subtle difference here.

yes that 95 artical is a nice flowery speach. but we all know all speech is not free. and some, speak so vile a thing like NAMBLA, it is akin to yelling fire, both things are illegal. NAMBLA does lead to vile crimes. look at this:

they have not the right of free speech.

Okay, so your position is clear. You don't believe in free speech. Everything else in the discussion is pointless.

We do believe in free speech. So did the founders. The Constitution makes free speech not just legal but acknowledges it as a right. I'd say good luck changing that, but if you tried I'd be the one standing in your way.

I dont post in this forum, its not as easy as other forum with easier post editing, besides anyone who is for NAMBLA is not worth my time anways.

Uh-oh, not so good with incredibly unsubtle difference are you. Protecting someone's right to free speech is not the same as promoting their ideas. I despise NAMBLA, but we're not discussing whether I agree with them. I support free speech. You don't. We get it.

I dont post in this forum, its not as easy as other forum with easier post editing, besides anyone who is for NAMBLA is not worth my time anways.
I never said I was for NAMBLA. I'm for freedom of speech. Maybe you've got problems with reading comprehension. Go back and review. I've called them disgusting in this thread and I stand by that.

Just had to come back and say that.

1) Lots of things are crimes. Shooting people is a crime. If you use your logic we'd have to lose every western movie, every detective novel, perhaps even newspaper reports on violent crime so as not to "plant seeds in impressionable minds."

It doesn't work that way buddy. The test is whether it actually says "go out and commit this crime". Lolita doesn't. That's all, case closed. Your argument is fucked.

2) Those judges were actually supporting the constitution. The constitution's protection of speech is totally unneccesary for popular points of view. Nobody's going to try to censor Chris Matthews. It's there to protect unpopular points of view. Deal with it. We live in a free country. If you don't like it, move to Iran with like minded individuals.

3) I get the feeling you'd be taking heads off with a dull sword if the law only allowed you to do it. Liberals? Off with their heads!


not your " buddy" son and there is the usual tatic anyone that does not support NAMBLA is a mindless idiot?

good things we are getting better judges now.


as for Chris Matthews.? He is not a open support of child rape now is he? you dont want a free conuntry, you want whats in Holland a anything goes moral shithole, well never going to happen, Liberalism is on the way out.

I dont post in this forum, its not as easy as other forum with easier post editing, besides anyone who is for NAMBLA is not worth my time anways.

Hmmm what is worst? NAMBLA who talks about and would like to see the age of consent reduced or somebody who seeks to define what is "proper" speech?

Freedom of Speech and Expression means NAMBLA gets to say their argument.

Now acting on it is a different matter.

I never said I was for NAMBLA. I'm for freedom of speech. Maybe you've got problems with reading comprehension. Go back and review. I've called them disgusting in this thread and I stand by that.

Just had to come back and say that.


and by supporting them, you stand by their views, hope you like the company. people of your ilk like to parse words, but I get what you are sayingm just dont buy into your utopian nonsence.

no, if you bother to scroll up, you see I take issue with labing these Chrsitian " taliban" not the book, and yes I am know the jist of the book.



Well, then you better apologize for what you said about NAMBLA.

^

NEVER. I cant belive so many people here suport that these people do?

Um, actually, you said plainly that the book could legally be censored.

And knowing the gist (GIST) of the book is not the same as having read it. Reading a book is an important part of deciding what effect, you know, reading it will have. Trying to ban a book you haven't read is ridiculous and clearly shows how lazy the argument is. The gist of the Hucklebery Finn is that Huck Finn is a racist and a criminal. Unfortunately, that glosses over the very important points made by Twain about how Huck learns the importance of respect, among other things. But, hey, why not make sweeping statements about books that you know the 'jist' of.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=gist

And there is not a single person here that supports the beliefs of NAMBLA. At least, no one I've encountered.

not your " buddy" son and there is the usual tatic anyone that does not support NAMBLA is a mindless idiot?

good things we are getting better judges now.


as for Chris Matthews.? He is not a open support of child rape now is he? you dont want a free conuntry, you want whats in Holland a anything goes moral shithole, well never going to happen, Liberalism is on the way out.

Well buddy, the funny thing about getting better judges is the fact no matter how far the pendulem swings, it goes back the other way.

Chris Matthews???? :D is that hack still on the air?

Holland? Have you even been there.

Liberalism is on the way out. Ahhh the beauty of pipe dreams. If it makes you happy, good for you!

and by supporting them, you stand by their views, hope you like the company. people of your ilk like to parse words, but I get what you are sayingm just dont buy into your utopian nonsence.

So you are pitching thought crimes! Scary.....

Hmmm what is worst? NAMBLA who talks about and would like to see the age of consent reduced or somebody who seeks to define what is "proper" speech.

Freedom of Speech and Expression means NAMBLA gets to say their argument.

Now acting on it is a different matter.


wrong, they seek to have sex with underage boys, its not a age consent battle at all. they want you to think its age consent, but all they are is perverts 18 is fine as the age of consent. I know some states have 16, but these NAMBLA creeps want way lower than that. and that is sick.

and by supporting them, you stand by their views, hope you like the company. people of your ilk like to parse words, but I get what you are sayingm just dont buy into your utopian nonsence.

Given the choice between choosing freedom and the consequences freedom carries and choosing to allow politicians to define what kinds of 'freedom' are acceptable and what isn't. I'll choose the former every time. You stand in the company of people who would like to define what freedom is, since you like pressing moral equivalency, well, there's the nazis, the Soviet Union, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, the Roman Empire, Pre-revolution France, the English Monarchy, shall I continue? You can't have it both ways. You either support freedom or you don't. Freedom defined by popular opinion or politicians is no freedom at all.

Um, actually, you said plainly that the book could legally be censored.

And knowing the gist (GIST) of the book is not the same as having read it. Reading a book is an important part of deciding what effect, you know, reading it will have. Trying to ban a book you haven't read is ridiculous and clearly shows how lazy the argument is. The gist of the Hucklebery Finn is that Huck Finn is a racist and a criminal. Unfortunately, that glosses over the very important points made by Twain about how Huck learns the importance of respect, among other things. But, hey, why not make sweeping statements about books that you know the 'jist' of.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=gist

And there is not a single person here that supports the beliefs of NAMBLA. At least, no one I've encountered.
It's not worth trying to debate with this guy. He's so allergic to thinking that he won't actually consider any other viewpoint. His only debating tactic is to repeat his point ad nauseum and use slanderous accusations (like supporting NAMBLA) to attempt to smear them. Until he develops the ability to think critically and actually read what others have posted this discussion will go nowhere.

So you are pitching thought crimes! Scary.....

LOL no, just pulling off the mask, if you think NAMBLA is about free speech and age consent laws, frankly you people are more stupid that I thought.

wrong, they seek to have sex with underage boys, its not a age consent battle at all. they want you to think its age consent, but all they are is perverts 18 is fine as the age of consent. I know some states have 16, but these NAMBLA creeps want way lower than that. and that is sick.

No one is disagreeing that it's sick. It's just not illegal. They can try to lower the age of consent all they want. They have the right to try. They simply won't accomplish it. They seek to LEGALLY have sex with underage boys and that is not against the law and a protected action. You still haven't shown how they have violated the law, but then you're not really interested in doing anything besides suggesting that we're all immoral cretins, now are you?

Given the choice between choosing freedom and the consequences freedom carries and choosing to allow politicians to define what kinds of 'freedom' are acceptable and what isn't. I'll choose the former every time. You stand in the company of people who would like to define what freedom is, since you like pressing moral equivalency, well, there's the nazis, the Soviet Union, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, the Roman Empire, Pre-revolution France, the English Monarchy, shall I continue? You can't have it both ways. You either support freedom or you don't. Freedom defined by popular opinion or politicians is no freedom at all.


So by your views, a office branch of Al Quida can open a branch in your home town, and preach its form of poison, and that is free speech?

No, I just want to protect children from these inhuman monsters, if that makes me the bad guy in here, fine.

LOL no, just pulling off the mask, if you think NAMBLA is about free speech and age consent laws, frankly you people are more stupid that I thought.

Well from they way you talk; getting called stupid by you is a compliment.

I thank you for that!

Sorry Freedom of Speech also includes the ability to say stupid hateful things.

Better to hear something and declare it to be crap rather then have good Christians like you decide what is right for me to hear or read.

LOL no, just pulling off the mask, if you think NAMBLA is about free speech and age consent laws, frankly you people are more stupid that I thought.

Look, son, I think I would shy away from the insults. Or if you'd like I can go back and quote your spelling and grammar in the thread about the importance of encouraging children to read.

It doesn't matter what NAMBLA 'is about', they aren't breaking the law and are thus protected to continue to try and change consent laws. Until someone can show they are breaking the law, there is nothing anyone can do. I am disgusted by Nazis, the Aryan Nation, Fundamentalists and NAMBLA (not suggesting they are all morally equivalent, for the record), but I would be more disgusted if I didn't protect thought and speech freedom.

So by your views, a office branch of Al Quida can open a branch in your home town, and preach its form of poison, and that is free speech?

No, I just want to protect children from these inhuman monsters, if that makes me the bad guy in here, fine.


Ahhh now we go to strawmans.....

No one is disagreeing that it's sick. It's just not illegal. They can try to lower the age of consent all they want. They have the right to try. They simply won't accomplish it. They seek to LEGALLY have sex with underage boys and that is not against the law and a protected action. You still haven't shown how they have violated the law, but then you're not really interested in doing anything besides suggesting that we're all immoral cretins, now are you?


as long as your partner is of age, I dont care what you do. those who prey on children? get a speical place in hell.


NAMBLA is used as a tool by these people.

http://www.gjne.com/hope%20robbins/jeffrey_curley.htm

Ahhh now we go to strawmans.....


NO , the poster said freedom for ALL right? that sir is a valid question, you want free? bub, you got it.

I get the feeling some here would not mind that either


you get the link too:

http://www.gjne.com/hope%20robbins/jeffrey_curley.htm


IMHO this group is no better than any outlaw group.. and must be rebuffed and scorned and hounded until they are nomore

So by your views, a office branch of Al Quida can open a branch in your home town, and preach its form of poison, and that is free speech?

Provided they don't incite violence, absolutely. I'd also let you come to my hometown and preach your form of poison as well. That is absolutely free speech. I would enact my right to free speech by speaking out against both their ideas and yours. Though, I wouldn't have to try too hard. My hometown would recognize the speech of both you and them as poisonous and you would likely be speaking to empty rooms.

No, I just want to protect children from these inhuman monsters, if that makes me the bad guy in here, fine.

I think the inhuman monsters are those that would 'protect' people by denying them rights. Hey, if I deny people the right to interact with other humans there would be no more rape, no more molestation, no more murder, etc. But freedom requires us to do no such thing. Your form of 'protection' is tyranny and I'll never support it.

as long as your partner is of age, I dont care what you do. those who prey on children? get a speical place in hell.


NAMBLA is used as a tool by these people.

http://www.gjne.com/hope%20robbins/jeffrey_curley.htm

No one is denying that people who prey on children deserve a special place in hell. I'd be pushing them down the chute, but those who wish to lower the age of consent, no matter how despicable it is, cannot be censored. You have yet to show that the group is breaking any laws. In fact, you haven't even tried. You just try to pretend like speech and action are equivalent. They aren't. If they were, I would be knocking down your door right after theirs. I find your speech to be as dangerous as theirs.

NO , the poster said freedom for ALL right? that sir is a valid question, you want free? bub, you got it.

I get the feeling some here would not mind that either


you get the link too:

http://www.gjne.com/hope%20robbins/jeffrey_curley.htm


IMHO this group is no better than any outlaw group.. and must be rebuffed and scorned and hounded until they are nomore

Rebuff them. Scorn them. We do. But their speech cannot be outlawed without putting people in the position of deciding what is 'moral' speech. And I'll tell you what, if we're going to start making a list of speech I don't want my family to hear, your speech is darn near the top. Do you really want to let someone else decide what speech is free? Would you be willing to let MY morality decide what is 'moral' speech and what is not? Because if we're doing that I WOULD censor NAMBLA, but I would censor YOU as well.

I've always heard that the book Lolita was against pædophilia and that Nabokov was highlighting the harmful effects on both sides.

Provided they don't incite violence, absolutely. I'd also let you come to my hometown and preach your form of poison as well. That is absolutely free speech. I would enact my right to free speech by speaking out against both their ideas and yours. Though, I wouldn't have to try too hard. My hometown would recognize the speech of both you and them as poisonous and you would likely be speaking to empty rooms.



I think the inhuman monsters are those that would 'protect' people by denying them rights. Hey, if I deny people the right to interact with other humans there would be no more rape, no more molestation, no more murder, etc. But freedom requires us to do no such thing. Your form of 'protection' is tyranny and I'll never support it.

Hmmm.. my poison? I support the right of a Christian group to use the laws of the US to ban a book, and defend them from the libalist charge of Taliban, and is against NAMBLA and I preach poison??


Freedom of speech covers all, BUT you can not incite rebellion, or the fall of the govt, you can not use freespeech to cause danger, ie the fire in the crowded threater, and you can not use free speech to lure children for unlawful acts. that what NAMBLA is.

I've always heard that the book Lolita was against pædophilia and that Nabokov was highlighting the harmful effects on both sides.

Of course it is. But there are people out there like Brighton who haven't read it, but claim to know the 'jist' of it so they don't have to. Then they suggest it supports pedophilia and should be banned. I mean, what does he care if it's banned on a lie.

Hmmm.. my poison? I support the right of a Christian group to use the laws of the US to ban a book, and defend them from the libalist charge of Taliban, and is against NAMBLA and I preach poison??


Freedom of speech covers all, BUT you can not incite rebellion, or the fall of the govt, you can not use freespeech to cause danger, ie the fire in the crowded threater, and you can not use free speech to lure children for unlawful acts. that what NAMBLA is.

And the strawman continues.....

Hmmm.. my poison? I support the right of a Christian group to use the laws of the US to ban a book, and defend them from the libalist charge of Taliban, and is against NAMBLA and I preach poison??
and most of us don't support the right of any group to ban a book.

No one is denying that people who prey on children deserve a special place in hell. I'd be pushing them down the chute, but those who wish to lower the age of consent, no matter how despicable it is, cannot be censored. You have yet to show that the group is breaking any laws. In fact, you haven't even tried. You just try to pretend like speech and action are equivalent. They aren't. If they were, I would be knocking down your door right after theirs. I find your speech to be as dangerous as theirs.


My point is why give them the stage in the first place? we know what they are.

case and point Tim McViegh was a turner diaries type of guy, the words in that book set him on a path. you know the rest of the story.

Mien Mein Kampf was just words too. evil must be stamped out.

and most of us don't support the right of any group to ban a book.


and I support their right to try.

btw the vote failed. like I said, dont care about the book itself, just the linking of them to a danerous terrorist group like the Taliban

Hmmm.. my poison? I support the right of a Christian group to use the laws of the US to ban a book, and defend them from the libalist charge of Taliban, and is against NAMBLA and I preach poison??

The laws of the US don't allow them to ban the book. That's the point. That's why every time they try, they get shut down by the courts.

The rest of that isn't actually a sentence, but I'll try to address it anyway. You are against freedom of speech and, yes, that's a poisonous position. Everyone here is against NAMBLA, but we can't stop them from speaking without denying the very right that protects all of us.

Freedom of speech covers all, BUT you can not incite rebellion, or the fall of the govt, you can not use freespeech to cause danger, ie the fire in the crowded threater, and you can not use free speech to lure children for unlawful acts. that what NAMBLA is.
You cannot incite lawbreaking directly. NAMBLA does no such thing. If it did, they would be jailed. There is no evidence of your claims other than your assertions. Given your other ridiculous assertions, forgive me while I guffaw.

Just like NAMBLA, I can talk about rebellion. I can talk about the fall of the government. I can talk about anything I wish. I can even support a change in law to make that which is currently illegal, legal. I simply can't directly encourage people to break the law. You keep saying they incite illegal acts but you haven't shown them doing so. If you could show it, they would be gone already.

I see, so opposing Lolita for supporting pædophilia is like opposing Star Wars for supporting dictatorship.

My point is why give them the stage in the first place? we know what they are.

case and point Tim McViegh was a turner diaries type of guy, the words in that book set him on a path. you know the rest of the story.

Mien Mein Kampf was just words too. evil must be stamped out.

We give them stage, because the Constitution says we can't deny them the stage. Period.

I might decide to jump off a building on a broomstick after reading Harry Potter, but that doesn't make Harry Potter deserving of a ban. Your attempts to equate the actions of someone who took a particular thing from a book and decided to use it as justification for a dangerous act and the author of the book are sad, grasshopper. There is simply no equation there.

Again, you wish to subjugate our freedom of speech and I consider that as poisonous as the creatures that are part of the groups you're mentioning.

The laws of the US don't allow them to ban the book. That's the point. That's why every time they try, they get shut down by the courts.

The rest of that isn't actually a sentence, but I'll try to address it anyway. You are against freedom of speech and, yes, that's a poisonous position. Everyone here is against NAMBLA, but we can't stop them from speaking without denying the very right that protects all of us.


You cannot incite lawbreaking directly. NAMBLA does no such thing. If it did, they would be jailed. There is no evidence of your claims other than your assertions. Given your other ridiculous assertions, forgive me while I guffaw.

Just like NAMBLA, I can talk about rebellion. I can talk about the fall of the government. I can talk about anything I wish. I can even support a change in law to make that which is currently illegal, legal. I simply can't directly encourage people to break the law. You keep saying they incite illegal acts but you haven't shown them doing so. If you could show it, they would be gone already.



inciting criminals acts it not covered. see the Curley link again. NAMBLA does encourge illegal acts.


btw. no need to attack the grammar ok? did I attack you. NO

*snip*
NAMBLA does lead to vile crimes. look at this:

http://www.gjne.com/hope%20robbins/jeffrey_curley.htm

they have not the right of free speech.

Ok, so you claim, but the courts threw out the case. According to wikipedia: The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) stepped in to defend NAMBLA and won a dismissal based on the specific legal issue that NAMBLA is organized as an association, not a corporation.
(Link) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Curley)

I couldn't find any information on the current status of the claims against individual people. (Wiki: As of April 2005 the wrongful death cases were still before the courts, with the ACLU assisting the defendants on the grounds that the suit violated their First Amendment rights. ) but as far as I can tell your arguement is unsubstantiated, it has not been proven that NAMBLA had an influence upon the killers.

as for Chris Matthews.? He is not a open support of child rape now is he? you dont want a free conuntry, you want whats in Holland a anything goes moral shithole, well never going to happen, Liberalism is on the way out.
:eek: Are you kidding me? Seriously? Holland is a free country, and it's a beautiful country. You should venture outside your home town sometime. Crickey, such arguements irritates me. :mad:

and I support their right to try.

btw the vote failed. like I said, dont care about the book itself, just the linking of them to a danerous terrorist group like the Taliban

Ah, but the Constitution doesn't. Fortunately, we're ruled by the Constitution and not by your morally-questionable punctuated freedoms.

and I support their right to try.
I can support their right to try, just not necessarily the right to succed. I really hope that book banning doesn't ever catch on as a viable option here, because a lot of books I like could get banned (you know like the Bible)

btw the vote failed. like I said, dont care about the book itself, just the linking of them to a danerous terrorist group like the Taliban
I don't care about the book either, people who want to ban books because "they don't like it" annoy me.

you think I like it when Christians get compared to the Taliban? I really don't, but I do realize that it's not me they are talking about, seeing as I would never try to push my religion on others by limiting thier freedoms.

Ok, so you claim, but the courts threw out the case. According to wikipedia: The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) stepped in to defend NAMBLA and won a dismissal based on the specific legal issue that NAMBLA is organized as an association, not a corporation.
(Link) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Curley)

I couldn't find any information on the current status of the claims against individual people. (Wiki: As of April 2005 the wrongful death cases were still before the courts, with the ACLU assisting the defendants on the grounds that the suit violated their First Amendment rights. ) but as far as I can tell your arguement is unsubstantiated, it has not been proven that NAMBLA had an influence upon the killers.


:eek: Are you kidding me? Seriously? Holland is a free country, and it's a beautiful country. You should venture outside your home town sometime. Crickey, such arguements irritates me. :mad:


The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)

^ dont get me started on those clowns.

I didnt say the courts tossed them out, I said they support illegal acts. and SHOULD be tossed out.

as for Holland, yes I heard it was a nice country, nice land, but they can keep their poltics.

My point is why give them the stage in the first place? we know what they are.

case and point Tim McViegh was a turner diaries type of guy, the words in that book set him on a path. you know the rest of the story.

Mien Mein Kampf was just words too. evil must be stamped out.
We're throwing you in the slammer when a crazy guy goes on a murderous rampage of lawyers after reading that.

Ah, but the Constitution doesn't. Fortunately, we're ruled by the Constitution and not by your morally-questionable punctuated freedoms.


yes we are ruled by the Constiution, and I feel the actions of NAMBLA are not protected speech. our freinds in the ACLU I am sure shopped about, just for the right judge to get the ruling they wished.

good thing newer judges are comming on line,and when the ACLU defends these people again, they will get bounced. and hopefully NAMBLA will be nomore.

We're throwing you in the slammer when a crazy guy goes on a murderous rampage of lawyers after reading that.


LOL lawyers got OJ Simpson off too..;)

yes we are ruled by the Constiution, and I feel the actions of NAMBLA are not protected speech. our freinds in the ACLU I am sure shopped about, just for the right judge to get the ruling they wished.

good thing newer judges are comming on line,and when the ACLU defends these people again, they will get bounced. and hopefully NAMBLA will be nomore.
Well, frankly, no one gives a rat's ass what you think is or isn't free speech up until you are appointed to, or elected to in Alabama, the bench, and not even at that point will they care what you think.

inciting criminals acts it not covered. see the Curley link again. NAMBLA does encourge illegal acts.


btw. no need to attack the grammar ok? did I attack you. NO

They do encourage illegal acts? Perhaps you can link me to a NAMBLA speech or website doing so, rather than just throwing out assertions.

You don't need to have perfect grammar, but you do need to at least attempt to use sentences and punctuation so I don't have to interpret your posts. You are making it quite difficult to discern the meaning of your statements which makes it difficult to make poignant replies. Admittedly, I give much less space to someone who suggests that I support the ideals of NAMBLA rather than simply supporting the ideals of the Constitution.

Can someone just quickly explain the history of Florida (and more generally, the Bible Belt) to me?

What in hell's name happened there that made people forget the Enlightenment Era, and Humanism, and pretty much everything the Western World has achieved since the period before the French Revolution?
Why do they try censorship, religious oppression, morals forced upon people and all that other crap? In America, of all places?

Well, frankly, no one gives a rat's ass what you think is or isn't free speech up until you are appointed to, or elected to in Alabama, the bench, and not even at that point will they care what you think.


point taken. alas.

time can prove you wrong. I " could " get elected.

point taken. alas.

time can prove you wrong. I " could " get elected.
No, time can't prove me wrong that no one gives a rat's ass what you think or don't think is freedom of speech, because that is opinion.

They do encourage illegal acts. Perhaps you can link me to a NAMBLA speech or website doing so, rather than just throwing out assertions.

You don't need to have perfect grammar, but you do need to at least attempt to use sentences and punctuation so I don't have to interpret your posts. You are making it quite difficult to discern the meaning of your statements which makes it difficult to make poignant replies. Admittedly, I give much less space to someone who suggests that I support the ideals of NAMBLA rather than simply supporting the ideals of the Constitution.


You go to that site if its up, that is one cookie I dont need.

as for the typing, I am battling a bunch of people in here, sorry if the english teacher in you wont let go a comma or two.

No, time can't prove me wrong that no one gives a rat's ass what you think or don't think is freedom of speech, because that is opinion.

Again, point taken? dont you have MTV to watch or something?

and I support their right to try.

btw the vote failed. like I said, dont care about the book itself, just the linking of them to a danerous terrorist group like the Taliban

So... Are the Taliban really classified as a "terrorist group"? They are not Al-Qaeda, you know.


I didnt say the courts tossed them out, I said they support illegal acts. and SHOULD be tossed out.
And I lack evidence of this supposed support. As I said, so far they haven't been convicted of anything. And I doubt that's because they have gotten the right judge. After all, it is a civil suit you are mentioning, they have not been charged with anything.


as for Holland, yes I heard it was a nice country, nice land, but they can keep their poltics.
What, like democracy, free speech, rule of law, stuff like that? "Moral shithole" indeed.... *grumble* Implying it's not a free country :mad:

well its been fun arguing with you all. I will stay on the side of Children always.

So... Are the Taliban really classified as a "terrorist group"? They are not Al-Qaeda, you know.


And I lack evidence of this supposed support. As I said, so far they haven't been convicted of anything. And I doubt that's because they have gotten the right judge. After all, it is a civil suit you are mentioning, they have not been charged with anything.


What, like democracy, free speech, rule of law, stuff like that? "Moral shithole" indeed.... *grumble* Implying it's not a free country :mad:


No rampent unchecked Sociaism.

Can someone just quickly explain the history of Florida (and more generally, the Bible Belt) to me?

What in hell's name happened there that made people forget the Enlightenment Era, and Humanism, and pretty much everything the Western World has achieved since the period before the French Revolution?
Why do they try censorship, religious oppression, morals forced upon people and all that other crap? In America, of all places?
Unfortunately there are alot of people there who don't give a rat's ass about education, complex ideas, or opposing viewpoints and just believe in whatever Rush Limbaugh and Jesus (tm) tell them because thinking confuses them.

They tend to give the normal folks down there a bad name.

And so brightonburg walks away, content in the knowledge that he's protecting little children by making sure they grow up in a repressive, authoritarian state rather than be exposed to dangerous free though.

yeah, it was a group affilitated with the NAACP that got Huck Finn, Tom Sawyer, and To Kill a Mocking Bird banned in highschool.

:rolleyes:

They have tried to.

No rampent unchecked Sociaism.

In the Netherlands?? Damn, you really have to get out more... Or check your facts, at the very least.

You go to that site if its up, that is one cookie I dont need.

as for the typing, I am battling a bunch of people in here, sorry if the english teacher in you wont let go a comma or two.

A comma? It wasn't a sentence, at all.

So, basically, you can't support your statement. Apparently, no one could since they lose time and again in court. Their ideas are deplorable, but I support their right to free speech as much as I support yours.

Unfortunately there are alot of people there who don't give a rat's ass about education, complex ideas, or opposing viewpoints and just believe in whatever Rush Limbaugh and Jesus (tm) tell them because thinking confuses them.

They tend to give the normal folks down there a bad name.
I would like to point out that 99.9% of the crap that passes around here for "Christian ideals" would probably piss off Jesus was he around.

;)

I agree with the rest of the statement, I am living in the middle of it, and it makes me angry what goes on around here sometimes.

I would like to point out that 99.9% of the crap that passes around here for "Christian ideals" would probably piss off Jesus was he around.

;)

I agree with the rest of the statement, I am living in the middle of it, and it makes me angry what goes on around here sometimes.
I'm not talking about the free range, organically grown Jesus that they had 2000 years ago. I'm talking about the pre-packaged, don't question our theology, mass produced Jesus that's sold by such companies as "Focus on the Family".

A comma? It wasn't a sentence, at all.

So, basically, you can't support your statement. Apparently, no one could since they lose time and again in court. Their ideas are deplorable, but I support their right to free speech as much as I support yours.

As that famous qoute about supporting free speech, and fighting to the death for it, even though you disagree with what's being said?
Now how did that quote go... I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. But I'm begging you please, for the love of God and all that is holy, shut up, shut up now, PLEASE!!!
Think that was it, but I could be mistaken :p

I'm not talking about the free range, organically grown Jesus that they had 2000 years ago. I'm talking about the pre-packaged, don't question our theology, mass produced Jesus that's sold by such companies as "Focus on the Family".
oh yeah.........that..........then I agree.

oh yeah.........that..........then I agree.
That's what the little trade mark symbol was for in the earlier post.

I have a question that may seem obvious to most but actually hasn't been addressed in this forum, namely, has anybody actually read the book ? Well i read it a a month or so ago, partially out of curiousity, partly because i'm a voracious reader. It is basically a simple story of a mans' obsession, the fact that that his obsession involves an underage, precocious girl is the only reason this book is on anybodys radar. It is in essence a cautionary tale, with a sad and violent ending. There is no reason why this book should banned, in fact it should be required reading. Pedophilia exists and banning discussion of the subject by banning a book about it is counter productive. Sorry for stating the obvious.

That's what the little trade mark symbol was for in the earlier post.
oh........I don't seem to be catching much today. :( sorry.

I have a question that may seem obvious to most but actually hasn't been addressed in this forum, namely, has anybody actually read the book ?

Yes. It's a fairly typical novel for Nabokov, complete with hidden word plays and little linguistic tricks. I have to say that I found some of his other novels like Invititation To A Beheading more interesting works.

The article doesn't mention religious extremists explicitly, but who else tries to ban books in the US? Particularly in the Southeastern US? It's just about always religious extremists, so I felt comfortable making the assumption.


When you assume, you make and ass out of u and me. ;)

I have a question that may seem obvious to most but actually hasn't been addressed in this forum, namely, has anybody actually read the book ? Well i read it a a month or so ago, partially out of curiousity, partly because i'm a voracious reader. It is basically a simple story of a mans' obsession, the fact that that his obsession involves an underage, precocious girl is the only reason this book is on anybodys radar. It is in essence a cautionary tale, with a sad and violent ending. There is no reason why this book should banned, in fact it should be required reading. Pedophilia exists and banning discussion of the subject by banning a book about it is counter productive. Sorry for stating the obvious.

I read it in high school, for heaven's sake. And honestly, I found it pretty boring once you got past the fact that it's about a perv whose sexual predation pretty much destroys the girl's life, taking her from a life of middle class privilege and leaving her a teen mother in a dismal shack with some guy who's pretty much convenient, not someone she cares about.

I'm sick of people who don't things just deciding it should be "banned".
You can't go on living life banning things you don't like.