Amazon pedophilia author arrested

[QUOTE="Johnny_Rock"]

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

this is going to get thrown out of court so fast, its not even funny.

the simple truth is that the law was problably keeping tabs on this guy for so long, and he didnt do anything actually illegal, they finally got fed up and arrested him. Happens all the time.

Not denying this man is sick, but does he need to be arrested?

Pixel-Pirate

Yes. He has a book out that is showing pedophiles how to carry out their acts. If one child is molested because of this book, than he is complately to blame. Do you want to wait till that one child is abducted and raped to put this freak behind bars?

I'd personally cut his %$#@ off if I ever ran into him.

Does that also mean gun manufacturers are to blame for people shot by guns?

Hell yeah! I've been railing against gun manufacturers for years. Take firearms away from people and they have to rely on their own to do what they want. Makes a person think twice about walking into an establishment to rob it. There would be thousands of lives saved by repealing the right to own firearms.

[QUOTE="UCF_Knight"]Informing people how to perform illegal activities should itself, be illegal. I like how everyone comes in here waving the first amendment flag and how everyone needs to be protected. Put me in favor of adding exceptions to free speech (even though they're already there..)mrbojangles25

if they can prove that this man's work has indeed caused the molestation of one or more children (i.e. a legitimate pedophile cites him as a source of inspiration, know-how, etc), then sure...I think he deserves some sort of punishment. But definately not jail time.

I still wouldn't. Just as I would not support the banning of Judas Priest or Rammstein because some school shooter cites them as inspiration to their acts. How can one be blamed for what another they don't even know does of their own free will?

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="Johnny_Rock"]

Yes. He has a book out that is showing pedophiles how to carry out their acts. If one child is molested because of this book, than he is complately to blame. Do you want to wait till that one child is abducted and raped to put this freak behind bars?

I'd personally cut his %$#@ off if I ever ran into him.

Johnny_Rock

Does that also mean gun manufacturers are to blame for people shot by guns?

Hell yeah! I've been railing against gun manufacturers for years. Take firearms away from people and they have to rely on their own to do what they want. Makes a person think twice about walking into an establishment to rob it. There would be thousands of lives saved by repealing the right to own firearms.

So....remove freedom of speech, expression, right to own firearms...

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

[QUOTE="UCF_Knight"]Informing people how to perform illegal activities should itself, be illegal. I like how everyone comes in here waving the first amendment flag and how everyone needs to be protected. Put me in favor of adding exceptions to free speech (even though they're already there..)Pixel-Pirate

if they can prove that this man's work has indeed caused the molestation of one or more children (i.e. a legitimate pedophile cites him as a source of inspiration, know-how, etc), then sure...I think he deserves some sort of punishment. But definately not jail time.

I still wouldn't. Just as I would not support the banning of Judas Priest or Rammstein because some school shooter cites them as inspiration to their acts. How can one be blamed for what another they don't even know does of their own free will?

Rammstein isn't giving a blueprint on how to hurt someone. This guy is. He is laying out in black and white how to molest a child. There is no excuse for it.

Of the top of my head, it seems that this guy has a right to write his stuff, no matter how offensive I find it.

[QUOTE="Johnny_Rock"]

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

Does that also mean gun manufacturers are to blame for people shot by guns?

Pixel-Pirate

Hell yeah! I've been railing against gun manufacturers for years. Take firearms away from people and they have to rely on their own to do what they want. Makes a person think twice about walking into an establishment to rob it. There would be thousands of lives saved by repealing the right to own firearms.

So....remove freedom of speech, expression, right to own firearms...

Freedom of speech does not include a blueprint on how to abduct and rape children. Or do you approved of that as well?

I do approve of the removal of the right to bear firearms. There is no need and more die because of firearms than are protected by them.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

I think people who support this don't really understand freedom of speech.

We have freedom of speech to protect unpopular opinions like this guys. You don't need freedom of speech to protect popular opinion.

Omni-Slash

People have been beaten, stabbed, and killed over their opinions on sports

People have been imprisoned, tortured, and killed simply for having a difference of opinion on politics

People have been assassinated, raped, and killed over books.

So no, I do not really see the difference. It is unfortunate that people's opinions and voices have resulted in violence and conflict, but such is the price we pay. You can't have your cake and eat it too, in this case.

I am sorry, but this is one of those rare Black and White situations where we simply have to accept that the sacrifice we pay for freedom of speech is a relatively insignificant amount of mental and physical well-being.

Also, does anyone find it a bit funny that 9/10 of the people saying we need to lock this guy up, would argue against big government (which, in this example, is exactly whats going on) in any other situation? I guess when it comes to kids, people can forget their principles :roll: Let's try to be a little more objective, folks, and think about the greater good, instead of what might (and problably won't, at least relative to this man's writings) occur to some kid

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

That's a specific, specialized circumstance though. I know full and well that no rights are absolute. Just like I can't place a sign out in my front yard that says my neighbor is a child molester. When it comes to creative output however all speech is worth protecting, no matter how morally outragious we may find it.

topsemag55

He might have the right to write a book; however, that doesn't abrogate an existing law in another state that bars the selling of said book.

He did mail it to Florida, and the book is in that state now.

The problem is this law doesn't bar the selling of that book. It's a blanket statute. The same statute that Florida has used to prosecute Jim Morrison and Marilyn Manson for their performances in the past. This is simply some prosecuter with a grudge really.

Rammstein isn't giving a blueprint on how to hurt someone. This guy is. He is laying out in black and white how to molest a child.

Johnny_Rock

How? Anyone who knows about the birds and the bees knows how to molest a child, I'm pretty sure. So...what's this guy adding to that?

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

if they can prove that this man's work has indeed caused the molestation of one or more children (i.e. a legitimate pedophile cites him as a source of inspiration, know-how, etc), then sure...I think he deserves some sort of punishment. But definately not jail time.

Johnny_Rock

I still wouldn't. Just as I would not support the banning of Judas Priest or Rammstein because some school shooter cites them as inspiration to their acts. How can one be blamed for what another they don't even know does of their own free will?

Rammstein isn't giving a blueprint on how to hurt someone. This guy is. He is laying out in black and white how to molest a child. There is no excuse for it.

There are songs that basically talk about how to kill a person and dispose the body. Games as well (manhunt, HITMAN). Movies about a murderer will focus on how the murderer killed the person and tries to get away with it.

Under your train of thought, these all must be banned as they let us know "dangerous information".

I'm still under the impression he speaks out against this in the book.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

if they can prove that this man's work has indeed caused the molestation of one or more children (i.e. a legitimate pedophile cites him as a source of inspiration, know-how, etc), then sure...I think he deserves some sort of punishment. But definately not jail time.

Johnny_Rock

I still wouldn't. Just as I would not support the banning of Judas Priest or Rammstein because some school shooter cites them as inspiration to their acts. How can one be blamed for what another they don't even know does of their own free will?

Rammstein isn't giving a blueprint on how to hurt someone. This guy is. He is laying out in black and white how to molest a child. There is no excuse for it.

I guess we should ban mystery novels, then, for telling us how killers planned their acts and got away with it as well. And while we are at it, lets ban college courses that teach us the chemistry of cocaine, meth, and how to make mustard gas and explosive compounds.

Guys, I got a great idea...how...about...we dont...trust...ANYONE!

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="Johnny_Rock"]

Hell yeah! I've been railing against gun manufacturers for years. Take firearms away from people and they have to rely on their own to do what they want. Makes a person think twice about walking into an establishment to rob it. There would be thousands of lives saved by repealing the right to own firearms.

Johnny_Rock

So....remove freedom of speech, expression, right to own firearms...

Freedom of speech does not include a blueprint on how to abduct and rape children. Or do you approved of that as well?

Actually, it sorta does.

So....remove freedom of speech, expression, right to own firearms...

Pixel-Pirate

That's a bit extreme, Pixel.

Colorado's going to have a hard time with Sheriff Judd - he's almost as famous as Arizona's Joe Arpaio.:lol:

Judd garnered national headlines due to a comment he made after a criminal had been shot by several deputies in a gun battle (criminal was armed).

The press asked him why the man was shot 60-some-odd times.

Judd responded, "Probably because that was all the ammunition they had at the time.":o

[QUOTE="Johnny_Rock"]

Rammstein isn't giving a blueprint on how to hurt someone. This guy is. He is laying out in black and white how to molest a child.

Palantas

How? Anyone who knows about the birds and the bees knows how to molest a child, I'm pretty sure. So...what's this guy adding to that?

Not having read the book, I honestly can't tell you. But anyone that puts a book out claiming to have the blueprint on how to have sex with children, does not have the right to live. I have two children and this is not a subject that is up for discussion with me. The man needs to die.

[QUOTE="Omni-Slash"][QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

I think people who support this don't really understand freedom of speech.

We have freedom of speech to protect unpopular opinions like this guys. You don't need freedom of speech to protect popular opinion.

mrbojangles25

People have been beaten, stabbed, and killed over their opinions on sports

People have been imprisoned, tortured, and killed simply for having a difference of opinion on politics

People have been assassinated, raped, and killed over books.

So no, I do not really see the difference. It is unfortunate that people's opinions and voices have resulted in violence and conflict, but such is the price we pay. You can't have your cake and eat it too, in this case.

I am sorry, but this is one of those rare Black and White situations where we simply have to accept that the sacrifice we pay for freedom of speech is a relatively insignificant amount of mental and physical well-being.

Also, does anyone find it a bit funny that 9/10 of the people saying we need to lock this guy up, would argue against big government (which, in this example, is exactly whats going on) in any other situation? I guess when it comes to kids, people can forget their principles :roll: Let's try to be a little more objective, folks, and think about the greater good, instead of what might (and problably won't, at least relative to this man's writings) occur to some kid

"For the children" is the magic buzz word politicians use to pass laws or legislation that would be thrown out under any other circumstance.

"Well....I don't like the idea of the government being able to put cameras in my house and watch every minute of my life....but if it's for the children..."

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

[QUOTE="Johnny_Rock"]

Rammstein isn't giving a blueprint on how to hurt someone. This guy is. He is laying out in black and white how to molest a child.

Johnny_Rock

How? Anyone who knows about the birds and the bees knows how to molest a child, I'm pretty sure. So...what's this guy adding to that?

Not having read the book, I honestly can't tell you. But anyone that puts a book out claiming to have the blueprint on how to have sex with children, does not have the right to live. I have two children and this is not a subject that is up for discussion with me. The man needs to die.

The book isn't claiming that though. At least not from everything I've read about it.

[QUOTE="Johnny_Rock"]

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

So....remove freedom of speech, expression, right to own firearms...

Pixel-Pirate

Freedom of speech does not include a blueprint on how to abduct and rape children. Or do you approved of that as well?

Actually, it sorta does.

Actually, it sorta doesn't.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

So....remove freedom of speech, expression, right to own firearms...

topsemag55

That's a bit extreme, Pixel.

Colorado's going to have a hard time with Sheriff Judd - he's almost as famous as Arizona's Joe Arpaio.:lol:

Judd garnered national headlines due to a comment he made after a criminal had been shot by several deputies in a gun battle (criminal was armed).

The press asked him why the man was shot 60-some-odd times.

Judd responded, "Probably because that was all the ammunition they had at the time.":o

What does that have to do with anything or even my comment?

The person I responded to said they support the repeal of the right to own firearms. They also support the right to ban certain speech and expression.

When you start removing "free speech" based on popular opinion, it is no longer free speech. You can either have controlled speech and expression or free. Both cannot coexist at once as they are opposites.

Colorado's going to have a hard time with Sheriff Judd - he's almost as famous as Arizona's Joe Arpaio.:lol:topsemag55

Nah. All Colorado has to do is simply refuse to extradite. Not a damned thing he can do about it then.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="Johnny_Rock"]

Freedom of speech does not include a blueprint on how to abduct and rape children. Or do you approved of that as well?

Johnny_Rock

Actually, it sorta does.

Actually, it sorta doesn't.

Then it isn't free speech. Could you point out where this is actually against the law, though?

Why does it include blueprints on how to murder the president and get away with it? (HITMAN, again.)

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

[QUOTE="Omni-Slash"] "Yankees are what's good about Baseball"..."Barack Obama Sucks!".....(Unpopular Opinion)......"A Guide on how to Rape Kids"......Can't see a little difference there?......Pixel-Pirate

People have been beaten, stabbed, and killed over their opinions on sports

People have been imprisoned, tortured, and killed simply for having a difference of opinion on politics

People have been assassinated, raped, and killed over books.

So no, I do not really see the difference. It is unfortunate that people's opinions and voices have resulted in violence and conflict, but such is the price we pay. You can't have your cake and eat it too, in this case.

I am sorry, but this is one of those rare Black and White situations where we simply have to accept that the sacrifice we pay for freedom of speech is a relatively insignificant amount of mental and physical well-being.

Also, does anyone find it a bit funny that 9/10 of the people saying we need to lock this guy up, would argue against big government (which, in this example, is exactly whats going on) in any other situation? I guess when it comes to kids, people can forget their principles :roll: Let's try to be a little more objective, folks, and think about the greater good, instead of what might (and problably won't, at least relative to this man's writings) occur to some kid

"For the children" is the magic buzz word politicians use to pass laws or legislation that would be thrown out under any other circumstance.

"Well....I don't like the idea of the government being able to put cameras in my house and watch every minute of my life....but if it's for the children..."

no, its worse than that...you take away our voice, and we wont even get to argue against the cameras because we'd be in jail. Snowball effect,plain and simple

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

[QUOTE="Omni-Slash"] "Yankees are what's good about Baseball"..."Barack Obama Sucks!".....(Unpopular Opinion)......"A Guide on how to Rape Kids"......Can't see a little difference there?......Pixel-Pirate

People have been beaten, stabbed, and killed over their opinions on sports

People have been imprisoned, tortured, and killed simply for having a difference of opinion on politics

People have been assassinated, raped, and killed over books.

So no, I do not really see the difference. It is unfortunate that people's opinions and voices have resulted in violence and conflict, but such is the price we pay. You can't have your cake and eat it too, in this case.

I am sorry, but this is one of those rare Black and White situations where we simply have to accept that the sacrifice we pay for freedom of speech is a relatively insignificant amount of mental and physical well-being.

Also, does anyone find it a bit funny that 9/10 of the people saying we need to lock this guy up, would argue against big government (which, in this example, is exactly whats going on) in any other situation? I guess when it comes to kids, people can forget their principles :roll: Let's try to be a little more objective, folks, and think about the greater good, instead of what might (and problably won't, at least relative to this man's writings) occur to some kid

"For the children" is the magic buzz word politicians use to pass laws or legislation that would be thrown out under any other circumstance.

"Well....I don't like the idea of the government being able to put cameras in my house and watch every minute of my life....but if it's for the children..."

And this is the argument that people that don't have children, either because they aren't mature enough to have them or are simply just children themselves, use as an argument for "freedom of (insert freedom here).

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

People have been beaten, stabbed, and killed over their opinions on sports

People have been imprisoned, tortured, and killed simply for having a difference of opinion on politics

People have been assassinated, raped, and killed over books.

So no, I do not really see the difference. It is unfortunate that people's opinions and voices have resulted in violence and conflict, but such is the price we pay. You can't have your cake and eat it too, in this case.

I am sorry, but this is one of those rare Black and White situations where we simply have to accept that the sacrifice we pay for freedom of speech is a relatively insignificant amount of mental and physical well-being.

Also, does anyone find it a bit funny that 9/10 of the people saying we need to lock this guy up, would argue against big government (which, in this example, is exactly whats going on) in any other situation? I guess when it comes to kids, people can forget their principles :roll: Let's try to be a little more objective, folks, and think about the greater good, instead of what might (and problably won't, at least relative to this man's writings) occur to some kid

Johnny_Rock

"For the children" is the magic buzz word politicians use to pass laws or legislation that would be thrown out under any other circumstance.

"Well....I don't like the idea of the government being able to put cameras in my house and watch every minute of my life....but if it's for the children..."

And this is the argument that people that don't have children, either because they aren't mature enough to have them or are simply just children themselves, use as an argument for "freedom of (insert freedom here).

Yes, the true sign of maturity is wishing to remove personal freedoms for the sake of a small minority.

So you believe the entire world should be treated like children for the sake of children? I don't. Point out how that is immature. Also explain why "having a child" gives one the right to decide all laws that effect EVERYONE?

Just out of curiosity, do you support the banning of books like Lolita or Kodomo no Jikan?

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]Colorado's going to have a hard time with Sheriff Judd - he's almost as famous as Arizona's Joe Arpaio.:lol:worlock77

Nah. All Colorado has to do is simply refuse to extradite. Not a damned thing he can do about it then.

True, it depends upon what the Colo. governor's attorneys tell him. I believe he's the one who signs the extradition papers.

It would be difficult to extradite if the book's presence in Colo. did not break that state's laws.

So I guess that's what we'll have to wait and see.

Johnny_Rock

It's understandable that you'd have strong feelings on this, but before you make comments like this...

He is laying out in black and white how to molest a child.

Johnny_Rock

...and this...

The man needs to die.

Johnny_Rock

...you should probably have a better concept of what this guy's actually writing. There are a bunch of people on the Interent who write dirty stories involving children. You could argue that they're giving out information on how to molest kids. What do they deserve?

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

People have been beaten, stabbed, and killed over their opinions on sports

People have been imprisoned, tortured, and killed simply for having a difference of opinion on politics

People have been assassinated, raped, and killed over books.

So no, I do not really see the difference. It is unfortunate that people's opinions and voices have resulted in violence and conflict, but such is the price we pay. You can't have your cake and eat it too, in this case.

I am sorry, but this is one of those rare Black and White situations where we simply have to accept that the sacrifice we pay for freedom of speech is a relatively insignificant amount of mental and physical well-being.

Also, does anyone find it a bit funny that 9/10 of the people saying we need to lock this guy up, would argue against big government (which, in this example, is exactly whats going on) in any other situation? I guess when it comes to kids, people can forget their principles :roll: Let's try to be a little more objective, folks, and think about the greater good, instead of what might (and problably won't, at least relative to this man's writings) occur to some kid

Johnny_Rock

"For the children" is the magic buzz word politicians use to pass laws or legislation that would be thrown out under any other circumstance.

"Well....I don't like the idea of the government being able to put cameras in my house and watch every minute of my life....but if it's for the children..."

And this is the argument that people that don't have children, either because they aren't mature enough to have them or are simply just children themselves, use as an argument for "freedom of (insert freedom here).

having children is easy and arguing for the sake of the them is also easy, but selfish as well. Youre thinking not of the children, but of your children, and damn everyone else and the future of everyone else.

I dont blame parents for this. I simply do not have arguments of this nature with them, just like I dont argue politics with conservatives, or religion with christians (in real life I mean).

What if a guy commits this kind of crime on your own kid because the book told him how to get away with it you wouldn't be mad at the guy and the book writer too? i guess if kids get hurt because of free speech its ok because after all its a free country.

What if a guy commits this kind of crime on your own kid because the book told him how to get away with it you wouldn't be mad at the guy and the book writer too? i guess if kids get hurt because of free speech its ok because after all its a free country.

cs45F

I blame the perp, not the author of some book. Last time I saw, Catcher in the Rye is still read nationwide despite the fact it killed some musician :P

tbh I'd sooner blame our legal system than the author

What if a guy commits this kind of crime on your own kid because the book told him how to get away with it you wouldn't be mad at the guy and the book writer too? i guess if kids get hurt because of free speech its ok because after all its a free country.

cs45F

What if a guy commits this kind of crime on your own kid because the book told him how to get away with it you wouldn't be mad at the guy and the book writer too? i guess if kids get hurt because of free speech its ok because after all its a free country.

cs45F

Again, from all accounts this book is suggesting ways for pedophiles to copy with the urges in safe and legal ways. Even if not why should I blame the book? Why not blame the guy who commited the act?

What if a guy commits this kind of crime on your own kid because the book told him how to get away with it you wouldn't be mad at the guy and the book writer too? i guess if kids get hurt because of free speech its ok because after all its a free country.

cs45F

Okay? No. Something we must accept? Yes.

You must accept some negative things coming from free speech. Or you must accept that we do not get free speech.

Do you prefer freedom or safety? I prefer freedom.

[QUOTE="00-Riddick-00"][QUOTE="SkyWard20"] Agreed. This is crap and an affront to freedom of speech.worlock77

If he was stalking somebody's kids then arrest him for stalking those kids. However he has the right to say and publish whatever he wishes, no matter how revolting I may personally find it.

Um, no. Freedom of speech doesn't cover obscenity, but more importantly, doesn't cover inciting violence.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="00-Riddick-00"] So if you had kids.. you would want someone to know how to stalk your kids?789shadow

If he was stalking somebody's kids then arrest him for stalking those kids. However he has the right to say and publish whatever he wishes, no matter how revolting I may personally find it.

Um, no. Freedom of speech doesn't cover obscenity, but more importantly, doesn't cover inciting violence.

The Miller test is so broad that almost nothing could be termed as obscenity under it. Does this book incite violence? Any more so than a million other books out there that are freely published, distributed, and read?

[QUOTE="789shadow"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

If he was stalking somebody's kids then arrest him for stalking those kids. However he has the right to say and publish whatever he wishes, no matter how revolting I may personally find it.

worlock77

Um, no. Freedom of speech doesn't cover obscenity, but more importantly, doesn't cover inciting violence.

The Miller test is so broad that almost nothing could be termed as obscenity under it. Does this book incite violence? Any more so than a million other books out there that are freely published, distributed, and read?

Writing a handbook on how to practice pedophilia? That goes far beyond even other works or speech deemed to incite violence.

[QUOTE="TSNAKE617"]

This does violate obscenity laws from what I know. (There's a test for obscenity and this probably violates it if he distributes it across state lines.)

Pixel-Pirate

Isn't the "obscenity test" basically a popular opinion test?

"Obscenity" is a popular view of what is and is not okay to say. So, yes.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="789shadow"]

Um, no. Freedom of speech doesn't cover obscenity, but more importantly, doesn't cover inciting violence.

789shadow

The Miller test is so broad that almost nothing could be termed as obscenity under it. Does this book incite violence? Any more so than a million other books out there that are freely published, distributed, and read?

Writing a handbook on how to practice pedophilia? That goes far beyond even other works or speech deemed to incite violence.

Have you read this book? Because, again, by all accounts I've seen the book encourages safe, legal and harmless practices.

worlock77

It looks as though the author is in Florida now - he waived the right to fight extradition - link.

[QUOTE="789shadow"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

The Miller test is so broad that almost nothing could be termed as obscenity under it. Does this book incite violence? Any more so than a million other books out there that are freely published, distributed, and read?

worlock77

Writing a handbook on how to practice pedophilia? That goes far beyond even other works or speech deemed to incite violence.

Have you read this book? Because, again, by all accounts I've seen the book encourages safe, legal and harmless practices.

And what "accounts" would these be?

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="TSNAKE617"]

This does violate obscenity laws from what I know. (There's a test for obscenity and this probably violates it if he distributes it across state lines.)

789shadow

Isn't the "obscenity test" basically a popular opinion test?

"Obscenity" is a popular view of what is and is not okay to say. So, yes.

Which entirely undermines the very idea and point of free speech. Which is to protect speech and ideas that are unpopular.

[QUOTE="789shadow"]

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

Isn't the "obscenity test" basically a popular opinion test?

Pixel-Pirate

"Obscenity" is a popular view of what is and is not okay to say. So, yes.

Which entirely undermines the very idea and point of free speech. Which is to protect speech and ideas that are unpopular.

The First Amendment has been ruled to not cover obscenity, so it doesn't. The point is rather irrelevant, only the wording of the amendment and decisions of the Supreme Court thereafter not overturned by later decisions.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="789shadow"]

Writing a handbook on how to practice pedophilia? That goes far beyond even other works or speech deemed to incite violence.

789shadow

Have you read this book? Because, again, by all accounts I've seen the book encourages safe, legal and harmless practices.

And what "accounts" would these be?

Articles I've read on the internets, including the one linked on the very first post of this thread.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="789shadow"]

"Obscenity" is a popular view of what is and is not okay to say. So, yes.

789shadow

Which entirely undermines the very idea and point of free speech. Which is to protect speech and ideas that are unpopular.

The First Amendment has been ruled to not cover obscenity, so it doesn't. The point is rather irrelevant, only the wording of the amendment and decisions of the Supreme Court thereafter not overturned by later decisions.

As such we must admit free speech does not exist in the US.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="789shadow"]

"Obscenity" is a popular view of what is and is not okay to say. So, yes.

789shadow

Which entirely undermines the very idea and point of free speech. Which is to protect speech and ideas that are unpopular.

The First Amendment has been ruled to not cover obscenity, so it doesn't. The point is rather irrelevant, only the wording of the amendment and decisions of the Supreme Court thereafter not overturned by later decisions.

And obscenity is determined by the "three-pronged" Miller Test, which is so broad that there is next to nothing that wouldn't pass it.

Freedom of speech: "It's OK as long as we like it."

[QUOTE="789shadow"]

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

Which entirely undermines the very idea and point of free speech. Which is to protect speech and ideas that are unpopular.

Pixel-Pirate

The First Amendment has been ruled to not cover obscenity, so it doesn't. The point is rather irrelevant, only the wording of the amendment and decisions of the Supreme Court thereafter not overturned by later decisions.

As such we must admit free speech does not exist in the US.

You can't go around inventing free speech. What constitutes "free speech" is just another predetermined set of rules. The First Amendment doesn't cover obscenity. That's constitutional fact, yet you seem to want to ignore that since it doesn't support your argument.

[QUOTE="789shadow"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Have you read this book? Because, again, by all accounts I've seen the book encourages safe, legal and harmless practices.

worlock77

And what "accounts" would these be?

Articles I've read on the internets, including the one linked on the very first post of this thread.

The article only says that with words from the author, and contains no actual quotations from the book.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="789shadow"]

And what "accounts" would these be?

789shadow

Articles I've read on the internets, including the one linked on the very first post of this thread.

The article only says that with words from the author, and contains no actual quotations from the book.

And? You've not read the book, so you can't really lay claim as to what it contains can you?

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="789shadow"]

The First Amendment has been ruled to not cover obscenity, so it doesn't. The point is rather irrelevant, only the wording of the amendment and decisions of the Supreme Court thereafter not overturned by later decisions.

789shadow

As such we must admit free speech does not exist in the US.

You can't go around inventing free speech. What constitutes "free speech" is just another predetermined set of rules. The First Amendment doesn't cover obscenity. That's constitutional fact, yet you seem to want to ignore that since it doesn't support your argument.

I do? Please don't insert words in my mouth. I never said that.

Free speech would require that no speech or idea be prohibited (freedom+speech). If you restrict it then how can it be free? This makes no actual sense.

Much like how something soaking wet in water cannot be dry. You can call it dry but that does not make it dry.

[QUOTE="789shadow"]

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

Which entirely undermines the very idea and point of free speech. Which is to protect speech and ideas that are unpopular.

worlock77

The First Amendment has been ruled to not cover obscenity, so it doesn't. The point is rather irrelevant, only the wording of the amendment and decisions of the Supreme Court thereafter not overturned by later decisions.

And obscenity is determined by the "three-pronged" Miller Test, which is so broad that there is next to nothing that wouldn't pass it.

In all honesty the miller test has ceased to be adequate in the current age. It should be done away with and I care not if nothing replaces it. Nothing should be considered obscene. EVERYTHING has artist value by very definition.

[QUOTE="789shadow"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Articles I've read on the internets, including the one linked on the very first post of this thread.

worlock77

The article only says that with words from the author, and contains no actual quotations from the book.

And? You've not read the book, so you can't really lay claim as to what it contains can you?

So, you also haven't read any of it?