Amazon Defends Pedophile Book

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Stitchawl

..

We already did.....


.

It's one thing to stand up for Free Speech. We should. But we should have a more clear definition of just what Free Speech means.

Stitchawl

Yes we did. Please read the thread. You are welcomed to your opinions but free speech has very precise definition and you take it away at the peril of the freedom we have fought for for well over two and a half centuries.

Yes we must stand up for it in ALL its forms. Freedom is precious and MUST be protected.

If laws have been broken then we much act but just as severely we MUST NOT violate the principles we hold at core of our being. By declaring this man or any such man guilty without proof or evidence is abhorrent to the rule of law, abhorrent to our very existence.

Show me the evidence of his crime and I will be right there with you but to declare him a guilty simply because you do not agree with his right to free speech is appalling!

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by Stitchawl

Have you ordered you U.S. Passport Card yet? The I.D. card that we will soon be required by law to carry? Please check into it.

Cite please. Everything I read makes it an alternative to a U.S. Passport, not an ID card.

Did you vote against the Patriot Act? Most of us didn't even know it was up for a vote when it's first year of 'emergency action and activation' was ending. By not voting against this temporary stop-gap enacted after 9/11 it automatically became law.

None of *us* voted for the Patriot Act. Our representative in Congress did.

Let's not start passing around conspiracy theories without some kind of proof. And the Tea Party doesn't count.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

...
Let's not start passing around conspiracy theories without some kind of proof. And the Tea Party doesn't count.

[elcreative]

Now you can't change the world over night... I thought that anything involving the US was a conspiracy these days... certainly according to that most trustworthy and accurate of sources, the internet...

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Let's not start passing around conspiracy theories without some kind of proof. And the Tea Party doesn't count.

[kennyc]

Yeah and the U.S. is responsible for the snow and volcanoes shutting down air travel all over Europe (cause of not signing the kyoto protocol eh?)

[Stitchawl]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Cite please. Everything I read makes it an alternative to a U.S. Passport, not an ID card.
None of *us* voted for the Patriot Act. Our representative in Congress did.
Let's not start passing around conspiracy theories without some kind of proof. And the Tea Party doesn't count.

No conspiracies. The law was introduced to congress two years ago to make the Passport card mandatory for interstate travel. It was voted down, but by a small margin. Public record.

If you look at the US Passport site, you'll see that the card is NOT an alternative to the passport book. It states that specifically on it's information page. It can NOT be used for air travel at all, but can be used for passage into Canada and Mexico by rail, road, or sea. Gone are the days when all one needed was a birth certificate or driver's license for that.

As for voting 'for' the Patriot Act, in fact, no one did. It was enacted as a emergency temporary action by Presidential seal right after 9/11, written to last just one year. However, written into the wording of the Act was the condition that unless formally repealed after one year, it would go into permanent effect. It is now law; the formal denial of many of the rights granted by the US Bill of Rights.

We don't gotta like it. But it's our law now.


Stitchawl

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by Stitchawl

No conspiracies. The law was introduced to congress two years ago to make the Passport card mandatory for interstate travel. It was voted down, but by a small margin. Public record.

Ok, so now it's *not* an ID card like you previously stated. I can see I'm going to be putting on my tinfoil billed cap and following this line of thought.

[elcreative]

Now you're being silly everyone knows the volcanoes were caused by the hidden 4th Reich base under the North Pole in the hollow centre of the Earth and the snow is caused by frozen water falling from the sky...

Originally Posted by kennyc

Yeah and the U.S. is responsible for the snow and volcanoes shutting down air travel all over Europe (cause of not signing the kyoto protocol eh?)

[elcreative]

Thought the general consensus was to use a metal colander now as less likely to be damaged by impact from incoming alien kinetic weapons...

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Ok, so now it's *not* an ID card like you previously stated. I can see I'm going to be putting on my tinfoil billed cap and following this line of thought.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by wvcherrybomb

He was arrested under the law. And I would like to see the LAW change to put automatic death penalties on all of them. Just my opinion and I stand by it.

Law or none I hope some vigilante takes him out.

That's absolutely ridiculous! Mandatory death penalties for molestation will just cause these perps to kill their victims. After all, a dead victim identifies no one.

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by Stitchawl

Can we please not loose sight of the fact that this guy is pure sleaze?

You aren't defending someone's right to speak against a government.
You aren't defending someone's right to speak against a race or religion.
You aren't defending someone's right to speak an ideology.
These are all permitted in some other societies and some other cultures.

You ARE defending someone's right to abuse children.

No, he's defending someone's right to write a book about abusing children. Speech is not action. I can write a book about murdering someone, or even instructions on how to go about it, and that is not the same thing as me actually murdering anyone. Speech is not action, and action is not speech.

This is permitted nowhere.

You would be surprised.

"Free Speech" is a freedom. "Freedom" implies 'responsibility.'
Let's be responsible.

And "responsibility" is a code word for "except where I say so." You say free speech is good, but you want people to be "responsible" about it -- only speaking about non-controversial topics. Someone else (probably running a HOA) says people are free to park where they want, but they should be "responsible" about it and, y'know, not park in their driveways. People should be "responsible" about what they do ... which always comes down to following the rules of the person who is touting "responsibility."

Because it's never for one's self. Nobody ever says "ban that book so I don't read it" or "prohibit me from parking in my driveway" or "don't let me say words that offend anyone." No, it's always him, her, them. It's someone else whose actions need to be controlled (because we ourselves are always "responsible", are we not?), someone else who must be looked out for, someone else ... someone else ... someone else ....

If there is evidence that this individual has molested a child, then arrest him.

If not ... ordering his book from a place where it is illegal to own is should be considered entrapment.

I am now going to commit a crime.

By reading what follows, you too may be committing a crime.

Communism is bad. Tibet deserves self-determination. China should be free. Democracy is everyone's right. And what's wrong with Falun Gong, anyway?

Crime complete.

What, that's not a crime where you live? It's a crime in mainland China. A rather severe one, in fact. It's just as much a crime for me to say that (although I don't live in China) as it was for someone in a totally different state, where it was not illegal, to write that book, only to be charged with a crime in a state which, to my knowledge, he has never actually been in. He and I have both committed crimes. You probably think what I write was perfectly okay, but the largest country on Earth would disagree with you. It's "irresponsible" to say such things. They harm social stability. Should I have to worry that my home government will arrest me and turn me over to China for trial and punishment because what I just wrote is a felony in China, even though it isn't one here?

Free speech isn't just for speech everyone agrees with. That kind doesn't need any protection at all.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Ok, so now it's *not* an ID card like you previously stated. I can see I'm going to be putting on my tinfoil billed cap and following this line of thought.

actually New Mexico has had numerous articles in the news over the last 18 months detailing the necessity to have these cards *soon* to fly. if you dig really deep, the articles have appeared in Washington State as well. the only reason folks aren't so upset here is that we are being told how much easier it will to be to cross the border with Canada, as opposed to New Mexicans being told that they will be treated as illegal immigrants (note: I live in Washington State and my folks live in New Mexico, I get this stuff real time, not tin foil hat time)

[Stitchawl]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

actually New Mexico has had numerous articles in the news over the last 18 months detailing the necessity to have these cards *soon* to fly.

Foreshadow, foreshadow.

if you dig really deep, the articles have appeared in Washington State as well. the only reason folks aren't so upset here is that we are being told how much easier it will to be to cross the border with Canada, as opposed to New Mexicans being told that they will be treated as illegal immigrants (note: I live in Washington State and my folks live in New Mexico, I get this stuff real time, not tin foil hat time)

KK, how dare you introduce facts into this discussion!
Folks want to cling to the beliefs we had as children, rights that we were told were inalienable. If we let people know that these rights no longer exist, that they really weren't inalienable, we shake their entire paradigm. Another

People can argue. Folks and use semantics to contort debates. These don't change the facts. Right now the issue of these Passport ID cards is being kept very, very low key in the media, just as the vote to make them mandatory was virtually unknown. You can find it if you search the public Congressional records but there was almost no media announcement.

Knowledge of this issue will touch off a powder keg of opposition, just as full understanding of the Patriot Act did for those affected by it. Fortunately for comfort, most people don't know. Unfortunately, hiding one's head in the sand won't prevent it from happening. The mandatory use of these cards will most likely ride in on the back of some other bill, or come as another 'if you don't vote against it it will become a law' as the Patriot Act did. In less than a year and a half, almost three million passport ID cards have been issued to US citizens.

According to the Passport agency, 'production of the U.S. Passport Card began on July 14, 2008. As of March 2010, more than 2,700,000 Passport Cards have been issued to U.S. citizens.' Considering that it can't be used the way a passport book can be, that's a LOT of passport ID cards already out there! I have a feeling there's a reason for that...


Stitchawl

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

No, he's defending someone's right to write a book about abusing children. Speech is not action. I can write a book about murdering someone, or even instructions on how to go about it, and that is not the same thing as me actually murdering anyone. Speech is not action, and action is not speech.



You would be surprised.



And "responsibility" is a code word for "except where I say so." You say free speech is good, but you want people to be "responsible" about it -- only speaking about non-controversial topics. Someone else (probably running a HOA) says people are free to park where they want, but they should be "responsible" about it and, y'know, not park in their driveways. People should be "responsible" about what they do ... which always comes down to following the rules of the person who is touting "responsibility."

Because it's never for one's self. Nobody ever says "ban that book so I don't read it" or "prohibit me from parking in my driveway" or "don't let me say words that offend anyone." No, it's always him, her, them. It's someone else whose actions need to be controlled (because we ourselves are always "responsible", are we not?), someone else who must be looked out for, someone else ... someone else ... someone else ....

If there is evidence that this individual has molested a child, then arrest him.

If not ... ordering his book from a place where it is illegal to own is should be considered entrapment.

I am now going to commit a crime.

By reading what follows, you too may be committing a crime.

Communism is bad. Tibet deserves self-determination. China should be free. Democracy is everyone's right. And what's wrong with Falun Gong, anyway?

Crime complete.

What, that's not a crime where you live? It's a crime in mainland China. A rather severe one, in fact. It's just as much a crime for me to say that (although I don't live in China) as it was for someone in a totally different state, where it was not illegal, to write that book, only to be charged with a crime in a state which, to my knowledge, he has never actually been in. He and I have both committed crimes. You probably think what I write was perfectly okay, but the largest country on Earth would disagree with you. It's "irresponsible" to say such things. They harm social stability. Should I have to worry that my home government will arrest me and turn me over to China for trial and punishment because what I just wrote is a felony in China, even though it isn't one here?

Free speech isn't just for speech everyone agrees with. That kind doesn't need any protection at all.

Excellent post

[Stitchawl]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Yes we must stand up for it in ALL its forms. Freedom is precious and MUST be protected.

You'll get no argument from me about that point.

If laws have been broken then we much act

A court-ordered document for arrest has been issued for distribution of child sexual abuse material, isn't that considered a crime? The arrest wasn't for writing the material. Not a Free Speech issue at all.

Show me the evidence of his crime and I will be right there with you but to declare him a guilty simply because you do not agree with his right to free speech is appalling!

Free Speech does not imply we can say anything we want any time we want. That is not how the law is written. It IS, however, how we would like to interpret the law. That's why there are so many cases dealing with the subject before the Supreme Court. It's just not black and white.