NationStates Jolt Archive

Everyone knows freedom comes with a price, but most people think the highest price is being forced to listen to bigoted idiots such as the westboro baptist church. It doesn't cross most people's minds that freedom of speech can be putting more power into the hands of people that want to kill you.

There are a lot of books out there that instruct you in how to build weapons cheaply and from scratch. To cover their tracks, the authors of these books always claim their books are for informational purposes only and not meant to be used, but that seems to be a lie.

One book I looked at about revenge starts immediately by giving you handy tips about not being caught such as "NEVER ADMIT ANYTHING" and "NEVER APOLOGIZE, IT'S A SIGN OF WEAKNESS." (I wish I could say this book was written in an ironic tone, but it was not.) After this section they have a little disclaimer about the book's contents. The author claims all of the schemes in the book have been suggested by people who have successfully carried them out, and that the author has changed their names to "protect good people, maybe at the expense of bad people." Then he goes into this story how much of a church-loving pacifist he really is why he would never want to promote violence. "I do not want to be responsible for the personal or corporate suffering of anyone, no matter how richly deserved that suffering would be." Haha. The end of the disclaimer urges you to "remember" that the book is "just in good, clean fun!" The next page is all about harmful additives, starting with sulfuric acid. Needless to say I don't think the author is being 100% honest about his intentions.

With very little searching, you can also find books about picking locks, bypassing security systems, blowing open safes, disappearing without a trace, stealing identities, arson, boobytraps, building various guns and bombs from cheap parts that are easy to find, even a book instructing you on how to build a bazooka.

What was the name of this book?
How many other books have you seen of it's kind?
I thought it was up to the publishing company to decide if a book is fit for public reading. Am i wrong?
Sounds funny though.

I'm kind of reluctant to give out the names of the books. If you're really curious they're easy to find on amazon.

Yes, it's up to the publishing company, at least in America. My question is, should it be up to the publishing company or the government?

Someone already voted for "I believe in freedom of speech but these books should not be published." You can't have it both ways. I only included that option because I assumed that's what a lot of people would say.

I like people having the freedom to say what they want and dealing with the consequences of those expressions should they cause harm.

Freedom of Speech means freedom of speech, period. The minute you start limiting it, you go down the most dangerous slippery slope of all.

Dont get me wrong, if open season was ever declated on the Westbro Baptist church Id get my revolver and be at Fred Phelp's doorstep within the hour, but sadly freedom of speech means that everyone can express their views, even if youre a hate mongering ignorant fucktard.

The poll fails. I don't believe in absolute freedom of speech to the point where it puts others in grave risk. For example crying fire in a theatre, however I have no problems with the books being published.

Who gets to decide what constitutes a "dangerous" book?

Considering the government track who buys what books these days, it has advantages to them if any book is free to be sold. Makes it easier to track the interests people have.
If something unexpectedly blows up, check who bought books on building bombs. Convenient.

I believe in freedom of speech. so yes, those books can be published.

However, I also believe in the Responsiblity of that Freedom of Speech. Sure you CAN put out a book on how to create WMD's or Chemical weapons with common household items. but should you?

Sure I believe you can scream out loud your support of all terrorist groups. but should you?

And most people don't realize that the Freedom of speech does not protect you from the people's reaction of that freedom of speech.

If your speech incites a riot, you can't say "well I was just excercising my freedom of speech thus I am free from all responsiblility." (this does NOT say that the rioters are thereby innocent either.)

If your speech insults a group and they bring legal action on you, you cannot say "you can't sue me because I am practicing my Freedom of Speech."

I may not like the idea of subversives getting their hands on "How to build a bomb in your kitchen" but you know they are going to get the info anyway so curbing my freedom to read whatever I choose isn't the answer.

It seems to me, considering people can get the information relatively easily, the reality is most people are not building bombs in their kitchens though they could. Nut jobs we are going to have books or not.

Considering the government track who buys what books these days, it has advantages to them if any book is free to be sold. Makes it easier to track the interests people have.
If something unexpectedly blows up, check who bought books on building bombs. Convenient.

In what strange country is this the case? :confused:

I believe in freedom of speech. so yes, those books can be published.

However, I also believe in the Responsiblity of that Freedom of Speech. Sure you CAN put out a book on how to create WMD's or Chemical weapons with common household items. but should you?

Sure I believe you can scream out loud your support of all terrorist groups. but should you?

And most people don't realize that the Freedom of speech does not protect you from the people's reaction of that freedom of speech.

If your speech incites a riot, you can't say "well I was just excercising my freedom of speech thus I am free from all responsiblility." (this does NOT say that the rioters are thereby innocent either.)

If your speech insults a group and they bring legal action on you, you cannot say "you can't sue me because I am practicing my Freedom of Speech."


You shoulda just quoted me :p

Who gets to decide what constitutes a "dangerous" book?



Thats what worries me. For example, if we go down this slippery slope, eventually when we have the next conservative christian president elected, whats to stop him declaring that the Koran is a dangerous book?


Eventually, everything in the states will be banned but the Bible and the Left Behind series:rolleyes:

In what strange country is this the case? :confused:

America.:headbang:

I may not like the idea of subversives getting their hands on "How to build a bomb in your kitchen" but you know they are going to get the info anyway so curbing my freedom to read whatever I choose isn't the answer. What if the book was about how to prey on children and not get caught? All presented in a fictional manner of course.

America.:headbang:

Seriously? I've never heard of that...

America disturbs me... :(

My standard on what is a reasonable restriction on free speech is the clear and present danger test established in Schenck v. United States.

What if the book was about how to prey on children and not get caught? All presented in a fictional manner of course.

Same thing. Sadly.

I would like to think that is likely a case of a publisher refusing to publish. What would be the point? Their bottom line is about making money, I would think that a market for such a book, fictitious or not would be slim.

Of course if it told how and then goes on to tell how the community rallied and figured out the guy was getting the instruction from a book. Then the community hunts down not only the pedophile but also the pos author and tortures them both with electric shock treatments out of household items (they learned from a book) and in the end disect one and force the other to eat his body parts slowly (also from a book)....

Well ok they might publish that....

It's true that few people would publish a guidebook for pedophiles, but don't forget that these days it's pretty easy to self publish. This guy even claims that self publishing is more profitable than normal publishing. http://johntreed.com/amazon.html

I haven't seen any books about how to commit sex crimes yet, but I'm going to search for them now to see if they exist.

Considering the government track who buys what books these days, it has advantages to them if any book is free to be sold. Makes it easier to track the interests people have.
If something unexpectedly blows up, check who bought books on building bombs. Convenient.

yes, I agree and this poll fails

Seriously? I've never heard of that...

America disturbs me... :(



Fuck man it disturbs me and I live here. In our defense, its a relativly new thing. Dubya's Patriot Act made it legal to check what books youve checked out/bought without a warrent and without your knowledge.

You can be held accountable for actions taken as a direct result of your speech. But the right to speak should not be abridged.

Speech itself should not be forbidden. However, using speech to carry out forbidden actions should be prohibited. You could hardly declare that one has the right to reveal classified data to a hostile nation on the basis of freedom of speech.

Most books on perversion are written from the perspective of someone who wants to prevent their children from being kidnapped or understand the minds of weird people. But I found a book written from the perspective of a pedophile pretty quickly. The author tries to convince you that pedophilia is healthy and refers to pedophiles as "boylovers." And yes, it is sold on amazon... proving that major publishers WILL distribute this king of thing.

By the way, this book has been the source of a lot of controversy and some influential groups like Focus on the Family have boycotted amazon as a result of their choice to sell this book. So amazon doesn't only care about profits, they strongly support the right to choose your own reading material.

What's the point in freedom of speech if it isn't free?

Most books on perversion are written from the perspective of someone who wants to prevent their children from being kidnapped or understand the minds of weird people. But I found a book written from the perspective of a pedophile pretty quickly. The author tries to convince you that pedophilia is healthy and refers to pedophiles as "boylovers." And yes, it is sold on amazon... proving that major publishers WILL distribute this king of thing.


Also proving it took you what, a total of 9.2 seconds to find such?

So very sad that there is a market for it. :(

What if the book was about how to prey on children and not get caught? All presented in a fictional manner of course.

Ooh, nice one. Very well used example, and one of the biggest two reasons to reduce free speech rights (the other being terrorism).

Anyway, I wouldn't support such a book being published, I would protest against it, and I would refuse to buy it. However, I recognise the right for some person to publish something this abhorrent, and would support their right to do so (publish the book, that is). If necessary, I might even mirror a copy myself, in order to allow those who wish to possess it to circumvent what restrictions there may be.

Of course, if a further case revealed that information from this book proved key, the author would naturally be taken to court for encouraging the crime/providing the means of committing the crime, both of which are (I think) illegal. No need to ban free speech here.

Also proving it took you what, a total of 9.2 seconds to find such?

So very sad that there is a market for such. :(Yes, I found it after my second google search. Pretty easy.

At least the pedophile author has put serious thought into wondering if his life is immoral or not. It's scary that many of the other crime books don't do that. There are a lot of books about revenge by people who never stop to think "hey wait a second, maybe revenge is wrong!!" Instead they write a series of books about various ways to get revenge and then hide from the feds.

Here's one review I found of a book on amazon.
"I read it in one night. It was very imformative. I followed the instructions very carefully and hid myself. I was found the next day at 9AM by the feds. I am now serving twenty years in the pen. Thanks a lot Doug Richmond."

Is that fake or do they really let inmates use the internet unsupervised in prison?

And most people don't realize that the Freedom of speech does not protect you from the people's reaction of that freedom of speech.

De facto or de jure? Physical or verbal?

To take the publishers of the Mohammed cartoons as an example, freedom of speech didn't protect them from criticism (in fact it guarantees their critics' right to criticise) but they didn't forfeit their right to security of person.

If your speech incites a riot, you can't say "well I was just excercising my freedom of speech thus I am free from all responsiblility." (this does NOT say that the rioters are thereby innocent either.)

Are you talking about legal or moral responsibility? Also, by incite a riot are you refering to somebody saying 'go out and attack people!' or somebody saying something offensive which people riot in reaction to?

If your speech insults a group and they bring legal action on you, you cannot say "you can't sue me because I am practicing my Freedom of Speech."

Actually you can, that's kind of the whole point of 'freedom of speech'.

There are examples of 'unprotected speech': slander and libel for example, but general insults and attacks are protected by freedom of speech. For example, I can say the following:

*clear throat*

'People who oppose gay rights are invariably homophobic bigots, many of whom are repressing their own sexuality, or are hopelessly insecure in it.'

I can't be sued for saying that because it's a legitimate expression of opinion, even if some people find it offensive. If you're not allowed to offend anyone then you don't have freedom of speech.

Voltaire said it best when he said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Support for freedom of speech doesn't require that you think all speech is necessarily moral (or that no speech is immoral). You can still think the punblishers of these books are horrible people while defending their right to publish what they did.

De facto or de jure? Physical or verbal? usually non-physical. however, any physical reaction opens up the door to legal action (assault)

To take the publishers of the Mohammed cartoons as an example, freedom of speech didn't protect them from criticism (in fact it guarantees their critics' right to criticise) but they didn't forfeit their right to security of person. If I remember right, those cartoons were published. people did react. yet the crime was any property/personal damage sustained during any riots. not the printed work itself.

of course, the cause of the riots were the cartoons...

Are you talking about legal or moral responsibility?
more moral/personal responsiblity.
Also, by incite a riot are you refering to somebody saying 'go out and attack people!' or somebody saying something offensive which people riot in reaction to?telling people to go attack [target] is inciting to riot and illegal. but say... showing the video of the beating of Rodney King...

Actually you can, that's kind of the whole point of 'freedom of speech'.

There are examples of 'unprotected speech': slander and libel for example, but general insults and attacks are protected by freedom of speech. For example, I can say the following:

*clear throat*

'People who oppose gay rights are invariably homophobic bigots, many of whom are repressing their own sexuality, or are hopelessly insecure in it.'

I can't be sued for saying that because it's a legitimate expression of opinion, even if some people find it offensive. If you're not allowed to offend anyone then you don't have freedom of speech.
you're talking legal reprecussions. I'm covering every other repricussion. say, for example Don Imus.
He was fired for what he said. but what he said didn't directly contribute to his firing. Pressures from the station's listeners and also their sponsors had a big role to play with that (listeners response to what he said). Should the station be forced to keep Imus on because of "Freedom of Speech?"

Shaed O'Connor saw her singing career end after she ripped that picture of the Pope saying "fight the real enemy" and there was nothing she could do to save it. "Freedom of speech" could not protect her and her career either.

Micheal Richards, that Gray's anatomy star, alot of people seen their careers end due to careless words. and most of them end without Lawyers or Judges.

When the Dixie Chicks were boo'ed off the stage a long time ago, another singer scolded the crowd saying they had the right to say what they said under the first amendment. yet he didn't realize that the crowd were also excercising the same right and freedom.

Reprecussions are not just metted out in the courtroom.

Voltaire said it best when he said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Amen to that.

Total freedom of speech; a moronic idealogy will inevitably be proved as much if analysed in public and academic circles, whereas when fostered clandestinely it can only expand and present a danger.

What's the point in freedom of speech if it isn't free?

Total freedom of speech; a moronic idealogy will inevitably be proved as much if analysed in public and academic circles, whereas when fostered clandestinely it can only expand and present a danger.
Well put, both of you.

And that's it in a nutshell; the only problem with freedom of speech is that you'll hear things that might curl your toes. But that's far more preferable to the alternative.

usually non-physical. however, any physical reaction opens up the door to legal action (assault)

If I remember right, those cartoons were published. people did react. yet the crime was any property/personal damage sustained during any riots. not the printed work itself.

of course, the cause of the riots were the cartoons...


more moral/personal responsiblity.
telling people to go attack [target] is inciting to riot and illegal. but say... showing the video of the beating of Rodney King...


you're talking legal reprecussions. I'm covering every other repricussion. say, for example Don Imus.
He was fired for what he said. but what he said didn't directly contribute to his firing. Pressures from the station's listeners and also their sponsors had a big role to play with that (listeners response to what he said). Should the station be forced to keep Imus on because of "Freedom of Speech?"

Shaed O'Connor saw her singing career end after she ripped that picture of the Pope saying "fight the real enemy" and there was nothing she could do to save it. "Freedom of speech" could not protect her and her career either.

Micheal Richards, that Gray's anatomy star, alot of people seen their careers end due to careless words. and most of them end without Lawyers or Judges.

When the Dixie Chicks were boo'ed off the stage a long time ago, another singer scolded the crowd saying they had the right to say what they said under the first amendment. yet he didn't realize that the crowd were also excercising the same right and freedom.

Reprecussions are not just metted out in the courtroom.

It seems we agree on almost all of these points. Forgive me for misinterpreting your original post. :)

It seems we agree on almost all of these points. Forgive me for misinterpreting your original post. :)

No Biggie. :cool:

Total freedom of speech; a moronic idealogy will inevitably be proved as much if analysed in public and academic circles, whereas when fostered clandestinely it can only expand and present a danger.
This.

Censorship is dangerous, as well as being well-nigh impossible to achieve.

Knowledge is not dangerous in and of itself, it is what people choose to do with that knowledge that can have undesirable outcomes. Any competent chemistry graduate possesses the requisite knowledge to manufacture a bomb... should studying chemistry be banned? (and let's not even mention high energy physics)

hell yes i believe in the right of everyone to be honest, without having to take some kind of heroic risks to do so.

i also believe in the right to not have what anyone has to say, shoved down my throat either.

not so much freedom to be premeditatedly ignorant and use that as an excuse, but certainly the freedom not to have to hear what i already know repeatedly.

freedom to explore and learn BEYOND what i'm already familiar with too.

freedom to correct history teachers where compelling contrary evidence exists and their personal experience isn't to the contrary of it.

but hell yes, freedom to be honest absolutely.

freedom to be deliberately deceptive, no, but who can you trust to judge that fairly?

freedom to have a diversity, a REAL diversity of sources of information so you don't have to take any single source's word for it. and that doesn't mean giving different names to different outlets of the same corporate media either.

a press not controlled by the government isn't automatically a truly free press. not when its controlled by the same corporate mafia that is pulling the puppet strings of the government. that isn't a free press at all, other then in name and pretention.

=^^=
.../\...

So long as it is not illegal (child porn, for example) anyone can publish what they like.

If someone uses it for nefarious means and is caught, the person who uses the information should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Eventually, everything in the states will be banned but the Bible and the Left Behind series:rolleyes:

God help us! At least the Bible has a plot and character development.

So long as it is not illegal (child porn, for example) anyone can publish what they like.

depending on whether we read a 'should' into your statement or not, doesn't this strike you as being either plainly false or vacuous?

What if the book was about how to prey on children and not get caught? All presented in a fictional manner of course.

assuming the method doesn't involve magic, wouldn't such a book actually serve as an excellent way to figure out counter-measures to the very activities it described?

*Puts down Anarchist's Cookbook*

I'm sorry,what? I was reading something.

The anarchist's cookbook has errors that could get you killed, don't build anything from it.

usually non-physical. however, any physical reaction opens up the door to legal action (assault)[QUOTE]

Since when is a physical action necessary for assault?


[QUOTE]you're talking legal reprecussions. I'm covering every other repricussion. say, for example Don Imus.
He was fired for what he said. but what he said didn't directly contribute to his firing. Pressures from the station's listeners and also their sponsors had a big role to play with that (listeners response to what he said). Should the station be forced to keep Imus on because of "Freedom of Speech?"

Shaed O'Connor saw her singing career end after she ripped that picture of the Pope saying "fight the real enemy" and there was nothing she could do to save it. "Freedom of speech" could not protect her and her career either.

Micheal Richards, that Gray's anatomy star, alot of people seen their careers end due to careless words. and most of them end without Lawyers or Judges.

When the Dixie Chicks were boo'ed off the stage a long time ago, another singer scolded the crowd saying they had the right to say what they said under the first amendment. yet he didn't realize that the crowd were also excercising the same right and freedom.

Reprecussions are not just metted out in the courtroom.

All examples that are totally and completely irrelevant to the discussion of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech means that the government can not restrict your rights. It says absolutly nothing about what your employer can do, or what purchasers of your music can do. When you discuss "non legal reprecussions" you've stepped entirely outside the realm of free speech, because the first amendment has nothing to do with it.

So I'm unsure why you even brought it up.

The anarchist's cookbook has errors that could get you killed, don't build anything from it.

yeah - if you're interested in such stuff at least do yourself the favor of reading like military training manuals and chemistry books instead.

I believe in very few absolutes and I think there are times (such as the classic crying fire in a theatre example) where freedom of speech does need to be restricted.

Since when is a physical action necessary for assault? its the more common definition.

All examples that are totally and completely irrelevant to the discussion of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech means that the government can not restrict your rights. It says absolutly nothing about what your employer can do, or what purchasers of your music can do. When you discuss "non legal reprecussions" you've stepped entirely outside the realm of free speech, because the first amendment has nothing to do with it.yet you have cries of "freedom of speech" when a school attempts to censor a student. You have cries of "Freedom of Speech" when an editor decides NOT to publish a controversal articles or pictures.

perhaps, Freedom of speech and censorship isn't just restricted to the Government?

and did you read the OP? or just the title and my posts?

So I'm unsure why you even brought it up. same reason why out of all the posts, you seem to latch on to this one. :p

Freedom of speech means that the government can not restrict your rights.

demonstrate this - i see nothing in the concept that inherently limits its applicability to government action.

its the more common definition.

Where is that, exactly? While some jurisdictions such as australia and new zeland require physical contact for an assault, in the vast majority of legal regimes codified in english (namely, the United States, Great Britain and Canada), physical force is not required for an assault, merely the immediate apprehention of physical force.

It's not at all "the most common definition" and if people have a tendancy to use the word wrong, that doesn't somehow change the definition. It just means they used the word wrong.


yet you have cries of "freedom of speech" when a school attempts to censor a student.

Can you point out the important word in that sentence? Remember that discussion we just had about the government?

I bolded it to make it easier for you.

You have cries of "Freedom of Speech" when an editor decides NOT to publish a controversal articles or pictures.

On occassion. And such cries are false and erronious, much like your use of the word "assault" above. Which does nicely prove my point that just because a bunch of people use an expression wrongly, doesn't mean the definition of the word changes.

perhaps, Freedom of speech and censorship isn't just restricted to the Government?

Any entity can censor as long as it has any power to control, limit, or edit the words of others. A claim that censorship is limited to the government is nonsensical.

However the right ot "freedom of speech", at least in america, is a right of the person or group in relation to the government. That's it. Freedom of speech is a term that only exists in any useful fashion when describing the relationship between the government and the people. Not beyond that.


and did you read the OP? or just the title and my posts?

I read the OP. Despite the fact that he didn't actually pose any questions, define his terms, or let anyone know directly what he was talking about, the intent was pretty clear. Some books are published with dangerous information, should they be allowed to publish those books?

Considering the options were "yes", "yes they should be published but kept away from the masses" and "these books should not be published" it was quite clear he was talking about government intervention, because to "be kept away from the masses" and "should not be published" implies some degree of governmental intervention to prevent them from being published, or prevent them from falling into the hands of "the masses".

The OP later posts:

Someone already voted for "I believe in freedom of speech but these books should not be published." You can't have it both ways.

Which only further demonstrates that the OP was talking in terms of governmental limitations, not private ones.

same reason why out of all the posts, you seem to latch on to this one. :p



I "latch on" to posts that contain errors. If you feel I target you disproportionatly, I suggest you stop making so many errors.

demonstrate this - i see nothing in the concept that inherently limits its applicability to government action.

depends on whether you mean freedom of speech as a concept or freedom of speech as a moral construct. As a concept "freedom of speech" can have whatever definition you choose to give it. I find tilting at windmills to be an inappropriate use of my time and make no effort to define a subjective concept.

However, as a legal concept, the idea of freedom of speech is enshrined within the first (and fourteenth) amendment, which makes quite clear that it discusses what the government can not do, not what private entities can do.

On occassion. And such cries are false and erronious, much like your use of the word "assault" above. Which does nicely prove my point that just because a bunch of people use an expression wrongly, doesn't mean the definition of the word changes.
...
However the right ot "freedom of speech", at least in america, is a right of the person or group in relation to the government. That's it. Freedom of speech is a term that only exists in any useful fashion when describing the relationship between the government and the people. Not beyond that.

i think you use the term incorrectly. what exactly is the point of free expression as a social value and what are the arguments in its favor?

i think you use the term incorrectly.

Which term, assault, or "freedom of speech"?

what exactly is the point of free expression as a social value and what are the arguments in its favor?

Again, I make absolutly no effort to define subjective concepts. However as the OP was discussing whether certain books should be allowed to be published or not, and what restrictions should be placed on that, it is pretty clear the discussion was meant for what legal restrictions should be placed on it.

depends on whether you mean freedom of speech as a concept or freedom of speech as a moral construct. As a concept "freedom of speech" can have whatever definition you choose to give it. I find tilting at windmills to be an inappropriate use of my time and make no effort to define a subjective concept.

However, as a legal concept, the idea of freedom of speech is enshrined within the first (and fourteenth) amendment, which makes quite clear that it discusses what the government can not do, not what private entities can do.

legality is always irrelevant except in discussions of tactics and what you can expect to get away with in the legal system itself. and while we could use the words to mean anything we want, clearly some meanings are better than others, and some instantiations of legal protections for the concept are better than others. so we need to sort that out. and the first amendment of the usian constitution is not really very good at addressing the spirit of the concept at all, and ought be replaced by better protections.

Again, I make absolutly no effort to define subjective concepts. However as the OP was discussing whether certain books should be allowed to be published or not, and what restrictions should be placed on that, it is pretty clear the discussion was meant for what legal restrictions should be placed on it.

is/ought

the question, even in your rendering, is a 'should' question. your answer is an 'is' answer. your answer doesn't address the question. "what should we do?" cannot be answered by "here is what the law says" unless the original question actually intended to ask "what does the law say about this?"

but that wasn't the question.

the question is, "given the fact that a certain rendering of free speech allows the publication of material X, should we protect that rendition of free speech?" the further questions that obviously follow from that are "why?" and "should we instead protect some other version of free speech (or perhaps abolish the concept entirely)?"

Where is that, exactly? While some jurisdictions such as australia and new zeland require physical contact for an assault, in the vast majority of legal regimes codified in english (namely, the United States, Great Britain and Canada), physical force is not required for an assault, merely the immediate apprehention of physical force.

It's not at all "the most common definition" and if people have a tendancy to use the word wrong, that doesn't somehow change the definition. It just means they used the word wrong.
so you agree then.

Can you point out the important word in that sentence? Remember that discussion we just had about the government?

I bolded it to make it easier for you. sure, so explain the publishers reluctance to show more Mohammad cartoons and the cartoonists cry of 'freedom of speech'?

On occassion. And such cries are false and erronious, much like your use of the word "assault" above. Which does nicely prove my point that just because a bunch of people use an expression wrongly, doesn't mean the definition of the word changes. execpt you yourself used the word Physical when defining assault. :rolleyes:

Physical reaction is also "the immediate apprehention of physical force." turning to point your gun on a person is a phsycial reaction. you don't have to fire the gun, but the threat by pointing the gun can fall under assault and is a phsycial reaction.

Making a fist and raising as if to strike a person is a physical reaction, reguardless if you actually do make to strike the person.

Any entity can censor as long as it has any power to control, limit, or edit the words of others. A claim that censorship is limited to the government is nonsensical. yet when people argue censorship is wrong, they also don't limit that to only the government.

However the right ot "freedom of speech", at least in america, is a right of the person or group in relation to the government. That's it. Freedom of speech is a term that only exists in any useful fashion when describing the relationship between the government and the people. Not beyond that. Great. now please show me in the OP where the term "Freedom of Speech" is only referenced by the amendment. or are the words "Freedom of Speech" can ONLY be used in reference to the Government? please back up your stance.

I read the OP. Despite the fact that he didn't actually pose any questions, define his terms, or let anyone know directly what he was talking about, the intent was pretty clear. Some books are published with dangerous information, should they be allowed to publish those books? and does the OP say WHO was 'allowing' the publishing of those books? or did you insert "Government" in there yourself?

Considering the options were "yes", "yes they should be published but kept away from the masses" and "these books should not be published" it was quite clear he was talking about government intervention, because to "be kept away from the masses" and "should not be published" implies some degree of governmental intervention to prevent them from being published, or prevent them from falling into the hands of "the masses". WRONG! A Publisher can print books on "Special Order only" or can print those books for specific parties like a business, or class, but does NOT have to make them accessable to the public via bookstore/web.

The OP later posts:

Someone already voted for "I believe in freedom of speech but these books should not be published." You can't have it both ways. which is why I talked about PERSONAL responsibility. yes, the publisher CAN print those books but they could also feel that they SHOULDN'T be printed and thus CHOOSE (without Government involvement) NOT to print those books.

Which only further demonstrates that the OP was talking in terms of governmental limitations, not private ones. No, it just means that you think everyone cannot choose to limit themselves and that it's the job of the government to do so.

I "latch on" to posts that contain errors. If you feel I target you disproportionatly, I suggest you stop making so many errors.
too bad you see posts only one way then. I suggest you try looking at it from other perspectives then. :p

Who gets to decide what constitutes a "dangerous" book?

The firemen. (Nods)

so you agree then.

sure, so explain the publishers reluctance to show more Mohammad cartoons and the cartoonists cry of 'freedom of speech'?

execpt you yourself used the word Physical when defining assault. :rolleyes:

Physical reaction is also "the immediate apprehention of physical force." turning to point your gun on a person is a phsycial reaction. you don't have to fire the gun, but the threat by pointing the gun can fall under assault and is a phsycial reaction.

I suggest you look up the word "apprehention", considering that's the importantw ord. I can place you in apprehention of physical force without using any physical force.

For example, yelling "I am going to fucking kill you!" can be an assault. No physical force required. It's sort of amusing that when you bold words in a definition...you pick the wrong ones.

The requirement is apprehention of force, not use of force. One can be placed in apprehention through words.

Great. now please show me in the OP where the term "Freedom of Speech" is only referenced by the amendment. or are the words "Freedom of Speech" can ONLY be used in reference to the Government? please back up your stance.

The term "freedom of speech" is only relevant when discussing the limitations the government can place on your speech. "Freedom of speech" is a legal construct, and only has a useful meaning in that sense.

You can use the term "freedom of speech" in reference to anything you want. However to use it correctly it's only useful as a term in reference to the government.

If you understood that basic concept you wouldn't have required me to "back it up"

too bad you see posts only one way then. I suggest you try looking at it from other perspectives then. :p

Why would I want to look at things through your wrong perspective?

I hate to break into the current debate with something not directly pertinent, but the topic of this thraed gives me an excuse to put forth these favorite quotes of mine.

I direct you to the persuasive wisdom of Oliver Wendell Holmes in his dissent in Abrams v. United States (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/250/616.html ), 250 US 616, 630 (1919):

Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas--that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.

And from Justice Brandeis, concurring in Whitney v. California (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=274&invol=357#377), 274 U.S. 357, 376-377 (1927):
Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. ... To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.

I suggest you look up the word "apprehention", considering that's the importantw ord. I can place you in apprehention of physical force without using any physical force. you're the only one, between the two of us, using the words Phsycial Force. I suggest correcting that first.

For example, yelling "I am going to fucking kill you!" can be an assault. No physical force required. It's sort of amusing that when you bold words in a definition...you pick the wrong ones. actually, that would fall more under terroristic threatening. however, the point was more about verbal vs phsycial reaction.

The requirement is apprehention of force, not use of force. One can be placed in apprehention through words. and that is determined by what is said and how it's said. but the use of physical reaction can escallate the verbal into physical.

The term "freedom of speech" is only relevant when discussing the limitations the government can place on your speech. "Freedom of speech" is a legal construct, and only has a useful meaning in that sense. so you are for censoring the use of the words 'Freedom of Speech' then.

You can use the term "freedom of speech" in reference to anything you want. However to use it correctly it's only useful as a term in reference to the government. yet the OP did not specifically state 'government' thus the fault is not me, but the OP. please redirect your posts then to the OP. since you agreed that "You can use the term "freedom of speech" in reference to anything you want. " does imply that the OP could be talking about non government involvement and that you are assuming he ment government.

If you understood that basic concept you wouldn't have required me to "back it up" Translation: I can't back up the idea that the OP was specifically focusing on Government intervention.

Why would I want to look at things through your wrong perspective? so it's either Your way or no way. gotcha! :rolleyes:

I have always opposed totalitarism, and I count too much freedom as totalitarism. Freedom of speech, yes. Dangerous books, no. What makes most government structures fail (for example anarchism and communism) is that they believe in the intelligence and goodness of humans. In an extremely free country where people could publish and say anything, I mean anything, the consequences would be disastrous. Any 10-year-old kid can make bombs, political radicalists would spread ideologies illegal today, people with mental problems would be more easily pushed "over the edge" and secret military bases would become widely known, etc. The truth is there is information that isn´t suitable for the masses. When the masses become more intelligent it is possible that we can make total freedom of speech work properly, but until then it is an utopia.

The Bill of Rights: If you can't handle it, in its entirety, as written, move out.

The worldwide diversity in government systems allows you to chose the level of freedom you prefer. Here in America, we want to increase personal freedoms and liberties. We are willing to accept the potential consequences because we believe the rewards outweigh the risks. If you disagree, please don't try to continue forcing socialism on us. We don't want it.

Remember, the united States of America were founded by a bunch of religious zealots, right-wing gun nuts, liberal scholars, and downright rebellious folks who had a problem with authority. They created the very best government system on the face of the planet, the best because it governed least. Since that time, the only (admittedly large) issue we've had to contend with was the slavery compromise. Unfortunately, politicians have pandered to base greed and fear to increase their power over the people. They, instead of us, may soon be masters.

Thomas Jefferson stated a belief that we would need to rebel against the government in the future in order to keep our liberty. I hope it does not come to that, but the "black books on building big nasty weapons" will be needed to regain our freedom if it does come to that.

Once again, if freedom scares you, go away. A free land does not need cowards. Those who surrender liberty for security will find that they have neither.

Molon Labe!:sniper:

you're the only one, between the two of us, using the words Phsycial Force. I suggest correcting that first.

actually, that would fall more under terroristic threatening. however, the point was more about verbal vs phsycial reaction.

and that is determined by what is said and how it's said. but the use of physical reaction can escallate the verbal into physical.

Absolutly none of which changes your erronious statement that a "physical" response is sufficient for a charge of assault. It is not.

Now you can either admit you were wrong and move on, or continue this tired little circle of you digging yourself into a bigger hole. The respectable thing would be to admit you were wrong but...seeing your past actions, I will not hold my breath and will instead help you out by looking for a bigger shovel.

You're going to need it.

so you are for censoring the use of the words 'Freedom of Speech' then.

I am never "for" censorship at all. I however under certain circumstances accept censorship but that depends, entirely, on who is doing the censoring.

yet the OP did not specifically state 'government' thus the fault is not me, but the OP. please redirect your posts then to the OP. since you agreed that "You can use the term "freedom of speech" in reference to anything you want. " does imply that the OP could be talking about non government involvement and that you are assuming he ment government.

Sure, he can use it that way, and if he did, he was just as in the wrong as you are.

Translation: I can't back up the idea that the OP was specifically focusing on Government intervention.

I assumed the OP knew what he was talking about. If not he, and you as well, can both consider yourselves corrected.

so it's either Your way or no way. gotcha! :rolleyes:

Only when I'm right.

Which, you know, is most of the time...

I may not like the idea of subversives getting their hands on "How to build a bomb in your kitchen" but you know they are going to get the info anyway so curbing my freedom to read whatever I choose isn't the answer.

It seems to me, considering people can get the information relatively easily, the reality is most people are not building bombs in their kitchens though they could. Nut jobs we are going to have books or not.

Your argument fails. I take an example. In America, there are relatively free gun laws. That means people get guns easier. Well of course you could get a gun anywhere, no matter how strict gun laws. But still in America many murders happen by guns, and many could be prevented by stricter laws. The same applies to bomb instructions. You can always get them, of course. But then if there was a real book on the store, of course it makes you consider it more seriously.

I have always opposed totalitarism, and I count too much freedom as totalitarism.
That’s a rather bizarre way of looking at things, as ‘totalitarianism’ describes the restriction of liberty through state control, not the absence of state control.

You may count “too much freedom” as dangerous, but it’s nigh-on meaningless to describe total freedom of speech as a totalitarian ideal.

Freedom of speech, yes. Dangerous books, no.
You can’t have one without the other, I’m afraid.

Any 10-year-old kid can make bombs... secret military bases would become widely known, etc.
Burlovia, meet internet. Internet, this is Burlovia.

The truth is there is information that isn´t suitable for the masses. When the masses become more intelligent it is possible that we can make total freedom of speech work properly, but until then it is an utopia.
As one of the ‘masses’, how intelligent do you feel you must become before you can safely read a book without instantly doing what it says?

Most children above the age of, say, 7 can usually manage it.

political radicalists would spread ideologies illegal today
What political ideologies are illegal where you live?

The Bill of Rights: If you can't handle it, in its entirety, as written, move out.

The worldwide diversity in government systems allows you to chose the level of freedom you prefer. Here in America, we want to increase personal freedoms and liberties. We are willing to accept the potential consequences because we believe the rewards outweigh the risks. If you disagree, please don't try to continue forcing socialism on us. We don't want it.

Remember, the united States of America were founded by a bunch of religious zealots, right-wing gun nuts, liberal scholars, and downright rebellious folks who had a problem with authority. They created the very best government system on the face of the planet, the best because it governed least. Since that time, the only (admittedly large) issue we've had to contend with was the slavery compromise. Unfortunately, politicians have pandered to base greed and fear to increase their power over the people. They, instead of us, may soon be masters.

Thomas Jefferson stated a belief that we would need to rebel against the government in the future in order to keep our liberty. I hope it does not come to that, but the "black books on building big nasty weapons" will be needed to regain our freedom if it does come to that.

Once again, if freedom scares you, go away. A free land does not need cowards. Those who surrender liberty for security will find that they have neither.

Molon Labe!:sniper:

Firstly, I don´t live in America. Secondly, I´m not a socialist. Thirdly, the American government system sucks more than the one in Russia.
I suppose you don´t know that the majority of American senators have a criminal register. And still those people are the ones that make laws to the rest of 300 million Americans. I respect the bill of rights and it is an important turning point in human history. But you are taking it too far. You have bad criminality problems, 30 million poor and your education and juridical systems are in devastating state. The reason is that you can´t control your own people a bit.

Absolutly none of which changes your erronious statement that a "physical" response is sufficient for a charge of assault. It is not. I didn't say a "Phsycial response is sufficient for a charge of assault." you did. please stop trying to tell me what I said.

Now you can either admit you were wrong and move on, or continue this tired little circle of you digging yourself into a bigger hole. The respectable thing would be to admit you were wrong but...seeing your past actions, I will not hold my breath and will instead help you out by looking for a bigger shovel. hmm... same argument you bring forth every time you realize that you misinterpreted what I said.

Sure, he can use it that way, and if he did, he was just as in the wrong as you are. Suuure... too bad you're soo into "correcting" me that you completely missed him.

I assumed the OP knew what he was talking about. If not he, and you as well, can both consider yourselves corrected. just like you 'assumed' physical response = Phsycal force... :rolleyes:

Only when I'm right.

Which, you know, is most of the time... and you accuse me of talking nonsence? :p

That’s a rather bizarre way of looking at things, as ‘totalitarianism’ describes the restriction of liberty through state control, not the absence of state control.

You may count “too much freedom” as dangerous, but it’s nigh-on meaningless to describe total freedom of speech as a totalitarian ideal.


You can’t have one without the other, I’m afraid.


Burlovia, meet internet. Internet, this is Burlovia.


As one of the ‘masses’, how intelligent do you feel you must become before you can safely read a book without instantly doing what it says?

Most children above the age of, say, 7 can usually manage it.


What political ideologies are illegal where you live?

By totalitarism I mean going too far in political views. It usually means a police state, but I count too free country as one, too.

My point is the easiness of getting information. See my earlier post and you´ll get it.

I mean that the majority of people won´t go to a killing rampage when they get bomb instructions, but there are some that do. That group is mariginal, but one wacko with a bomb can kill 30 normal people.

Nazism, racism, just a couple comes to my mind now. I live in Finland, and this is a free country. That is why we accept every ideology/religion except ones that harm people.

I didn't say a "Phsycial response is sufficient for a charge of assault." you did. please stop trying to tell me what I said.

hmm... same argument you bring forth every time you realize that you misinterpreted what I said.

Fine, let's settle this:


De facto or de jure? Physical or verbal?

usually non-physical. however, any physical reaction opens up the door to legal action (assault) [/QUOTE]

So you admit a non-physical reaction can "open up the door to legal action (assault)". Why didn't you say so in the first place? Or were you under the misapprehention that only a physical reaction can substantiate an assault claim and our now trying to hopelessly backpeddal trying to pretend you knew the difference between "assault" and "battery"?

Suuure... too bad you're soo into "correcting" me that you completely missed him.

The OP, while his point was mangled and poorly phrased, at least was phrased in such a way that left open the possiblity that he intended to use the expression in its proper context. His power was vauge and indeterminant, but I am willing to extend the benefit of the doubt as it was possible he was trying to use it correctly.

Your posts left no such possibillity. You were clearly, and unequivicably using it incorrectly.

just like you 'assumed' physical response = Phsycal force... :rolleyes:

No, I assumed that "physical" meant "physical". If you in fact intended for your use of the word "physical" to [I]not mean physical, I suggest that the failing is entirely with you.

and you accuse me of talking nonsence? :p

No, I just point out the nonsense and call it such.

By totalitarism I mean going too far in political views. It usually means a police state, but I count too free country as one, too.

My point is the easiness of getting information. See my earlier post and you´ll get it.

I mean that the majority of people won´t go to a killing rampage when they get bomb instructions, but there are some that do. That group is mariginal, but one wacko with a bomb can kill 30 normal people.

Nazism, racism, just a couple comes to my mind now. I live in Finland, and this is a free country. That is why we accept every ideology/religion except ones that harm people.

Nazism and racism aren't illegal in the US. People can believe whatever they want to believe, but if they act in a way which harms others they will be punished.

Nazism and racism aren't illegal in the US. People can believe whatever they want to believe, but if they act in a way which harms others they will be punished.

So in USA anyone can go around shouting racist opinions and demanding that jews be burned?

depending on whether we read a 'should' into your statement or not, doesn't this strike you as being either plainly false or vacuous?

How so?

I think dogfighting and cockfighting is abhorrent; yet there are magazines devoted to them. Publishing and selling the magazines are not illegal.

Some people think that illustrated sexual manuals are abhorrent; guess what, not illegal to sell them either.

Some people think porn is abhorrent.... guess what, not illegal.

Some people think learning to make bombs is abhorrent... guess what, not illegal.


Child pornography, however, is illegal, and possession of the stuff, let alone producing and selling it, is gonna land you in trouble.

If you, however, learn to make bombs, and you are caught after you have hurt someone with a bomb, then you need to face the consequences for your actions. I don't necessarily think the author of such a work could or should be punished for someone else's actions.

So what part of my statement was false or vacuous, unless you simply did not understand it? Because saying one CAN do something is not in any way saying one SHOULD do something. One CAN jump off a tall building without a parachute. I don't think one SHOULD, though.

This is now the second time in this thread that you have completely changed the meaning of someone's post by reading something into it that's not there. Perhaps you should concentrate on reading the posts and not on answering unwritten ones?

I do not believe in an absolute right to freedom of speech; for example, the owners of a synagogue would have every right to kick out a person who walked in wearing a Ku Klux Klan robe. However, despicable though it is, that same person has every right to wander about his house in the same apparel. The fundamental question is ownership; the reason why one cannot shout fire in a crowded theater is because the theater owner has only given limited access to the theater, and should not be because the state can arbitrarily decide how one uses their person in any place.

Since it is the writer's paper that he is writing on, he may decide whatever he puts there, no matter how repugnant it may be. Likewise, the book store may use its location to sell whatever horrible books it may want to, so long as it has that right. However, if the land on which the bookstore was located was leased to it rather than being owned allodially, one stipulation could be that no objectionable content could be sold, and this would likely occur if surrounding land was being leased to attempt to attract buyers interested in living in a good neighborhood. However, under the current political system of subdivision such a rational calculation is impossible and is likely to be left to the whims of political bribery.

The anarchist's cookbook has errors that could get you killed, don't build anything from it.

Some have opined that these errors are intentional.

So in USA anyone can go around shouting racist opinions and demanding that jews be burned?

Pretty much.

demonstrate this - i see nothing in the concept that inherently limits its applicability to government action.

Amendment I

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

CONGRESS shall make no law. It doesn't stop the man on the street from telling one one's ideas are awful, or the Patriot Guard Riders from drowning out Westboro's protests. It doesn't mean that if one is visiting a home and says something outrageous, the homeowner can't tell you to leave. It doesn't mean that if one tells his boss that his boss is a dumbass, and that one is going to rape his daughter, one will not be fired.

Pretty much.

Well in that case I´m just happy I don´t live there.

The firemen. (Nods)

All but Montag.

By totalitarism I mean going too far in political views. It usually means a police state, but I count too free country as one, too.
Then I’d humbly submit that you’re using incorrect language. ‘Totalitarianism’ simply does not describe a prevalence of freedom. To say that it does is nonsense.

If I pointed to a dog and said, “the word ‘cat’ usually means a feline, but I count canines as cats too”, you’d rightly tell me I was talking nonsense. Same applies with calling an absence of state control ‘totalitarianism’.

My point is the easiness of getting information.
I don’t see how information in a published book is any easier to access than something put on the net.

I mean that the majority of people won´t go to a killing rampage when they get bomb instructions, but there are some that do. That group is mariginal, but one wacko with a bomb can kill 30 normal people.
‘Wackos’, unfortunately, hurt people even without free access to information.

Denying everyone freedom of speech because of an unconnected problem group is completely useless.

Nazism, racism, just a couple comes to my mind now. I live in Finland...
Racism isn’t a political ideology.

Also, I didn’t realise Finland had banned Neo-Nazi parties; I can’t find anything about it with a quick web search. Just that political parties in Finland must be internally democratic in structure.

So in USA anyone can go around shouting racist opinions and demanding that jews be burned?
Yes, as in Britain. However, you'd be politically and socially shunned if you did so, and if you attempted to act upon such opinions, you'd be subject to racism/assault laws.

See, rather than limit people's thoughts and speech, I think it's much more sensible to educate and discuss why such opinions are irrational, needless and completely unacceptable.

Well in that case I´m just happy I don´t live there.

You can do those things, but afterwards you are generally shunned by society. Nazi's don't march down the street spreading their message, regularly, nor the KKK, or other such groups. Yes, they march every once in a while, but there are always counter marchers in opposition to their messages.

Fine, let's settle this:


De facto or de jure? Physical or verbal?

usually non-physical. however, any physical reaction opens up the door to legal action (assault)

So you admit a non-physical reaction can "open up the door to legal action (assault)". Why didn't you say so in the first place? Or were you under the misapprehention that only a physical reaction can substantiate an assault claim and our now trying to hopelessly backpeddal trying to pretend you knew the difference between "assault" and "battery"?
Note I didn't say anything about Non-Phsycial reactions NOT bringing about legal responses.

also physcial reaction does not equal physical force. thus assaut and not assault AND battery.

and YES, I knew the difference between assault and battery since 8th grade.

The OP, while his point was mangled and poorly phrased, at least was phrased in such a way that left open the possiblity that he intended to use the expression in its proper context. His power was vauge and indeterminant, but I am willing to extend the benefit of the doubt as it was possible he was trying to use it correctly. yet instead of claryfying points first, you jump to conclusions like a rabid vorpal bunny.

Your posts left no such possibillity. You were clearly, and unequivicably using it incorrectly. again, you posted your own counter point ealier in this post. you assume one sentence = the whole argument.

No, I assumed that "physical" meant "physical". If you in fact intended for your use of the word "physical" to [I]not mean physical, I suggest that the failing is entirely with you. and another swing and a miss. Mighty Casey has struck out.

"reaction" vs "force" dude! nice to see how your "legal" mind edits the things you read.

Firstly, I don´t live in America. Secondly, I´m not a socialist. Thirdly, the American government system sucks more than the one in Russia.
I suppose you don´t know that the majority of American senators have a criminal register. And still those people are the ones that make laws to the rest of 300 million Americans. I respect the bill of rights and it is an important turning point in human history. But you are taking it too far. You have bad criminality problems, 30 million poor and your education and juridical systems are in devastating state. The reason is that you can´t control your own people a bit.

And Russia is not rife with corruption? It is to laugh. Poisoning people with radioactivity and exposing hundreds to it is is the example of the better government?

It is, as I said, to laugh.

And Russia is not rife with corruption? It is to laugh. Poisoning people with radioactivity and exposing hundreds to it is is the example of the better government?

It is, as I said, to laugh.

and isn't Russia the place where the police can use force other countries would rule as being brutial?

And isnt Russia more rife with poverty, poor education, and mob activity?

And isnt Russia...you get the point, dont you bud?

So what part of my statement was false or vacuous, unless you simply did not understand it?

just so we are clear on what you wrote:
So long as it is not illegal (child porn, for example) anyone can publish what they like.

which means you either are claiming that anyone is allowed to do whatever they are allowed to do (vacuous) or that legality is what determines what ought be done or allowed (plainly false).

This is now the second time in this thread that you have completely changed the meaning of someone's post by reading something into it that's not there. Perhaps you should concentrate on reading the posts and not on answering unwritten ones?

maybe you meant to say something other than what you said, but i did not in anyway misrepresent your words.

CONGRESS shall make no law.

you seem to be operating under the ridiculously silly notion that the concept of freedom of expression is fundamentally rooted in the first amendment of the usian constitution. i wouldn't want to attribute such a weird idea to you recklessly, however, so would you mind clarifying for me that this is in fact what you intend to be saying?

I have always opposed totalitarism, and I count too much freedom as totalitarism. Freedom of speech, yes. Dangerous books, no. What makes most government structures fail (for example anarchism and communism) is that they believe in the intelligence and goodness of humans. In an extremely free country where people could publish and say anything, I mean anything, the consequences would be disastrous. Any 10-year-old kid can make bombs, political radicalists would spread ideologies illegal today, people with mental problems would be more easily pushed "over the edge" and...

I've split this into two sections, because I consider there to be two main and different issues raised in this post. For the first of these.

Like it or not, these documents are already out there. I can find instructions on how to make a machinegun from scratch, how to build bombs (I actually already know this), information about any ideology that exists today, child pornography, etc. This is all thanks to the wonders of the internet. As you may have noticed, society hasn't yet crumbled completely, we don't have bombing campaigns run by 10 year olds, and Nazism still isn't particularly popular.

Most people are fundamentally fairly intelligent and well meaning. The few who aren't don't need free access to information to do damage to society. In the particular case of political ideologies, the best way of dealing with near anything is to bring it out into the light, and expose it to severe scrutiny. Very little that is abhorrent can survive the light of day.

...secret military bases would become widely known, etc. The truth is there is information that isn´t suitable for the masses. When the masses become more intelligent it is possible that we can make total freedom of speech work properly, but until then it is an utopia.

Ah, information, which is now directly equivalent to power --- just ask the scientologists. I distrust any government which tries to claim that it is permitted to keep secrets, but the populace aren't. If they want to not tell me where stuff is, I have the right to do the same. Otherwise, I support total information parity. If they claim I have no right to secrecy, I argue they have no right to secrecy. Let's have it all out in the open, and see what's so important about it.

As a general rule, I argue against the rights of any government to prohibit any information or restrict freedom of speech in any way, and I argue against the rights of any government to deny it's citizens rights to privacy that it awards itself. And yes, I am an anarchist.

just so we are clear on what you wrote:


which means you either are claiming that anyone is allowed to do whatever they are allowed to do (vacuous) or that legality is what determines what ought be done or allowed (plainly false).



maybe you meant to say something other than what you said, but i did not in anyway misrepresent your words.

No, it means that if it is legal to publish something, then someone is allowed to do it without repercussions. It's a simple concept, which you seem to have great difficulty in understanding.

It is not empty of meaning or intelligence to state the obvious: one can publish what one likes so long as such publication does not violate the laws, which society has created.

Legality determines what is allowed without consequence or repercussion, so the statement is not false either.

If you are asking what SHOULD be done, you are injecting morality into the post, which is not at all what I was discussing -- so perhaps your attempts to reframe what I said are the problem, once again?

you seem to be operating under the ridiculously silly notion that the concept of freedom of expression is fundamentally rooted in the first amendment of the usian constitution. i wouldn't want to attribute such a weird idea to you recklessly, however, so would you mind clarifying for me that this is in fact what you intend to be saying?

Given that the posts above mine referred specifically to the US first amendment, so does my response.

Are you having trouble following the thread?

No, it means that if it is legal to publish something, then someone is allowed to do it without repercussions. It's a simple concept, which you seem to have great difficulty in understanding.

It is not empty of meaning or intelligence to state the obvious: one can publish what one likes so long as such publication does not violate the laws, which society has created.

as i said, this is totally vacuous. did someone deny that people were legally allowed to do what they are legally allowed to do - was your statement made in response to an utterly idiotic one that you neglected to quote that would lend it some substance and meaning? because when i saw it, it was just dangling out there, failing to do anything.

Given that the posts above mine referred specifically to the US first amendment, so does my response.

Are you having trouble following the thread?

no, but i think you are. the first amendment is, at best, tangential to the discussion. and using it as a response to my request that someone demonstrate that the concept of 'freedom of expression' is inherently restricted to talking about government action is, frankly, ridiculous.

And your insistance on reading into posts what is not there?

But hey, go on rejecting reality and substituting your own. I'm sure that's more satisfying than actually having anything to do with what I actually said.

when you give people freedom of speech then they will start to have dangerous ideas like nazism and capitalism. We must silence the masses in order to keep the masses safe.

Firstly, I don´t live in America. Secondly, I´m not a socialist. Thirdly, the American government system sucks more than the one in Russia.
I suppose you don´t know that the majority of American senators have a criminal register. And still those people are the ones that make laws to the rest of 300 million Americans. I respect the bill of rights and it is an important turning point in human history. But you are taking it too far. You have bad criminality problems, 30 million poor and your education and juridical systems are in devastating state. The reason is that you can´t control your own people a bit.I think you're missing the whole point of freedom. Of course free people can't be controlled. You can't change the definition of "free" into "somewhat controlled" and then claim you support freedom.

By the way I'm not saying Americans are 100% free, or that they should be.

Well sure if they feels strongly wnough to publish them sure although i would think to publish these books it would take more money then they would make. Personally i would like to see idiotic books burn but i would probably get fucked over by some freedom of speech activist group or something.

And your insistance on reading into posts what is not there?

But hey, go on rejecting reality and substituting your own. I'm sure that's more satisfying than actually having anything to do with what I actually said.

dude, wtf? this is the exact chain of posts:

Freedom of speech means that the government can not restrict your rights.
demonstrate this - i see nothing in the concept that inherently limits its applicability to government action.Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.CONGRESS shall make no law.
...you seem to be operating under the ridiculously silly notion that the concept of freedom of expression is fundamentally rooted in the first amendment of the usian constitution. i wouldn't want to attribute such a weird idea to you recklessly, however, so would you mind clarifying for me that this is in fact what you intend to be saying? Given that the posts above mine referred specifically to the US first amendment, so does my response.

Are you having trouble following the thread?
no, but i think you are. the first amendment is, at best, tangential to the discussion. and using it as a response to my request that someone demonstrate that the concept of 'freedom of expression' is inherently restricted to talking about government action is, frankly, ridiculous.

where, precisely did i lose the plot?

Firstly, I don´t live in America. Secondly, I´m not a socialist. Thirdly, the American government system sucks more than the one in Russia.
I suppose you don´t know that the majority of American senators have a criminal register. And still those people are the ones that make laws to the rest of 300 million Americans. I respect the bill of rights and it is an important turning point in human history. But you are taking it too far. You have bad criminality problems, 30 million poor and your education and juridical systems are in devastating state. The reason is that you can´t control your own people a bit.

America sucks because we began to follow a socialist path. I know we have dirtbags in office. They hold power becuse they create the very problems they then claim to be able to solve. There are enough idiots (thanks to our worthless government education system) who expect the government to take care of them that they vote for who ever promises most. Again, the poverty proble, education problem, and judicial problem all point to our adoption of socialism in government. MORE freedom means MORE opportunity. LESS control means MORE freedom. If America is to return to her former greatness, we must return to a strict, limited, Constitutional government with as much power as possible shifted to the lowest level possible.

Laws should only affect those whose actions harm others. The only limitations on speech should apply to fraud and libel. Our criminal problems would be solved by reducing pointless laws and relaxing restrictions on firearm ownership. All major problems will be solved by MORE LIBERTY. Failure and poverty are temporary consequences of freedom. Freedom is what allows these consequences to be TEMPORARY.

I've split this into two sections, because I consider there to be two main and different issues raised in this post. For the first of these.

Like it or not, these documents are already out there. I can find instructions on how to make a machinegun from scratch, how to build bombs (I actually already know this), information about any ideology that exists today, child pornography, etc. This is all thanks to the wonders of the internet. As you may have noticed, society hasn't yet crumbled completely, we don't have bombing campaigns run by 10 year olds, and Nazism still isn't particularly popular.

Most people are fundamentally fairly intelligent and well meaning. The few who aren't don't need free access to information to do damage to society. In the particular case of political ideologies, the best way of dealing with near anything is to bring it out into the light, and expose it to severe scrutiny. Very little that is abhorrent can survive the light of day.



Ah, information, which is now directly equivalent to power --- just ask the scientologists. I distrust any government which tries to claim that it is permitted to keep secrets, but the populace aren't. If they want to not tell me where stuff is, I have the right to do the same. Otherwise, I support total information parity. If they claim I have no right to secrecy, I argue they have no right to secrecy. Let's have it all out in the open, and see what's so important about it.

As a general rule, I argue against the rights of any government to prohibit any information or restrict freedom of speech in any way, and I argue against the rights of any government to deny it's citizens rights to privacy that it awards itself. And yes, I am an anarchist.

Ok, I have a scenario for you. A talented and experienced reporter finds out an American secret base of operations in Iraq, where many soldiers live and work to rebuild and keep peace. Of course he wants to put this information into his article about the war in Iraq. However, if this knowledge leaks to terrorists it may be lethal to many American soldiers and possibly civilians. Would you allow the reporter to publish this information or not?

BTW, I think that government has no say to people´s secrets, unless it is something illegal. People do have the right to privacy.

All but Montag.

Of course, of course.

What if the book was about how to prey on children and not get caught? All presented in a fictional manner of course.


There are a lot of books out there that instruct you in how to build weapons cheaply and from scratch. To cover their tracks, the authors of these books always claim their books are for informational purposes only and not meant to be used, but that seems to be a lie.
[...]
With very little searching, you can also find books about picking locks, bypassing security systems, blowing open safes, disappearing without a trace, stealing identities, arson, boobytraps, building various guns and bombs from cheap parts that are easy to find, even a book instructing you on how to build a bazooka.

As a writer I find all of these books wonderfully informative and useful.
How else am I going o make sure my serial killer is realistic?
:)

N....
*looks over shoulder as camera swivels*
YES!

*tangentially*
Giving people/corporations $ is *NOT* a feasible argument for protection under the First Amendment of The Constitution. Period.

As a writer I find all of these books wonderfully informative and useful.
How else am I going o make sure my serial killer is realistic?
:)That's pretty cool. If you have any of your work on the internet I'd like to see it.