Amazon Defends Pedophile Book

[mjhudston]

Originally Posted by Stitchawl

Well said, except for the fact that he was NOT arrested for writing something. He was arrested for distributing child pornography.

I guess it's just more fun to run amok shouting "Right have been violated" eh?



I don't see anyone calling for the arrest of an author. I DO see people demanding the arrest of an alleged child molester who has been charged with distribution of child pornography.

But I'll pose a question to think about; do you (at's the editorial 'you,') believe that people have, under the 'right of free speech,' the right to publish child pornography? After all, isn't that what Freedom of Speech is all about? The right to say or print or publish anything at all, regardless of content? Or do you think Child Pornography shouldn't be permitted? What else shouldn't be permitted? How about publishing National secrets? Perhaps the routes for nuclear waste on public roads? Should THAT be published?

Frankly, I think there are things that just should be allowed to be published.


Stitchawl

I understood that he was arrested for distributing objectional material, not child pornography!

Writing about an illegal act, does not mean it has or will be committed. That is very different that pictures or videos of child abuse, where a crime has clearly allready been committed!

What I am talking about is that he appears to have been arrested, because he has written material that some (including myself I might add) find objectional, not because he has committed or furthered a crime!

That is how countries turn into dictatorships, that is what Hitler did, that is what Iran and other countries still do, that is what the USA is in danger of becoming, if it takes this route to its logical conclusion!

That also applies to what is happening to the Wiki-leaks founder as well.

[Stitchawl]

Originally Posted by kennyc

So you are advocating arresting everyone who has written a how to make bombs book. Have I got that right?

No, of course you don't have that right. No more than I would have it right to say you are advocating publishing child pornography. I think I know you well enough to know that you are not. But isn't that a violation of Free Speech?

Let's try a check list. Please check off the ones you believe should be free to be published under the umbrella of Free Speech;

Child pornography.

National Defense secretes.

Truck routes for disposal of Nuclear Waste.

Secret Service Plans for protecting the President

Everyone's medical records

Not choosing 'yes' or 'no' will be seen as your acceptance that these should NOT be permitted.

Personally, I really don't believe that you would want ANY of these to be permitted freely published, despite your stance that nothing should be censored. I honestly don't think any rational person would want to see these made public. I know that I do not.

It's good to espouse Free Speech. It's better to espouse responsible Free Speech. We have given our elected officials the job of being responsible. They are doing what we have voted them into office for; standing in our place to make rational and responsible decisions. Sometimes they even do it correctly.


Stitchawl

[kennyc]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12050067

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Stitchawl

..

It's good to espouse Free Speech. It's better to espouse responsible Free Speech. We have given our elected officials the job of being responsible. They are doing what we have voted them into office for; standing in our place to make rational and responsible decisions. Sometimes they even do it correctly.


Stitchawl

But unfortunately what you are advocating is RESTRICTING free speech - nothing more, nothing less. It has nothing to do with elected officials. You are now trying to confuse the issue as you have confused the act with speaking about the act.

[Stitchawl]

Originally Posted by mjhudston

I understood that he was arrested for distributing objectional material, not child pornography!

The write-up I saw used both terms; objectionable material and child pornography. Unfortunately, as we only see the news 3rd or 4th hand, we will never really be sure of the exact wording of the arrest warrant.

That is how countries turn into dictatorships, that is what Hitler did, that is what Iran and other countries still do, that is what the USA is in danger of becoming, if it takes this route to its logical conclusion!

It's time to invoke Godwin's Law.


Stitchawl

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Stitchawl

...
Personally, I really don't believe that you would want ANY of these to be permitted freely published, despite your stance that nothing should be censored. I honestly don't think any rational person would want to see these made public. I know that I do not.
...

DO NOT TRY TO SPIN MY STANCE ON THIS. I have said exactly what I mean and not what you are saying.

We've been through this -- as I said READ THE THREAD if you want to comment here. This has all been discussed.

As I said above -- some items are particularly restricted by laws OTHER THAN free speech laws.

If you want to discuss free speech then let's do it, but you are not doing it, you are hand-waving, accusing and making things up which simply are not true.

[Stitchawl]

Originally Posted by kennyc

But unfortunately what you are advocating is RESTRICTING free speech - nothing more, nothing less. It has nothing to do with elected officials. You are now trying to confuse the issue as you have confused the act with speaking about the act.

So tell us how you would handle these. You personally. I've stated that I believe these should not be covered by the Right of Free Speech. How about you. It's time to stop being theoretical and ante up.

Please check off the ones you believe should be free to be published under the umbrella of Free Speech;

Child pornography.

National Defense secretes.

Truck routes for disposal of Nuclear Waste.

Secret Service Plans for protecting the President

Everyone's medical records

Not choosing 'yes' or 'no' will be seen as your acceptance that these should NOT be permitted.

Personally, I really don't believe that you would want ANY of these to be permitted freely published, despite your stance that nothing should be censored. I honestly don't think any rational person would want to see these made public. I know that I do not.

Stitchawl

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Stitchawl

..



It's time to invoke Godwin's Law.


Stitchawl

No, it's time to get real and discuss the issue at hand, not something someone has made up, including things made up by religious zealot sheriffs in Florida.

I truly hope this author sues the hell out of the state for violating his civil rights and collects millions.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Stitchawl

So tell us how you would handle these. You personally. I've stated that I believe these should not be covered by the Right of Free Speech. How about you. It's time to stop being theoretical and ante up.

Please check off the ones you believe should be free to be published under the umbrella of Free Speech;

Child pornography.

National Defense secretes.

Truck routes for disposal of Nuclear Waste.

Secret Service Plans for protecting the President

Everyone's medical records

Not choosing 'yes' or 'no' will be seen as your acceptance that these should NOT be permitted.

Personally, I really don't believe that you would want ANY of these to be permitted freely published, despite your stance that nothing should be censored. I honestly don't think any rational person would want to see these made public. I know that I do not.

Stitchawl

Repeating something doesn't make it true. Try again.

[eric11210]

Originally Posted by Stitchawl

Well said, except for the fact that he was NOT arrested for writing something. He was arrested for distributing child pornography.

I guess it's just more fun to run amok shouting "Right have been violated" eh?



I don't see anyone calling for the arrest of an author. I DO see people demanding the arrest of an alleged child molester who has been charged with distribution of child pornography.

But I'll pose a question to think about; do you (that's the editorial 'you,') believe that people have, under the 'right of free speech,' the right to publish child pornography? After all, isn't that what Freedom of Speech is all about? The right to say or print or publish anything at all, regardless of content? Or do you think Child Pornography shouldn't be permitted? What else shouldn't be permitted? How about publishing National secrets? Perhaps the routes for nuclear waste on public roads? Should THAT be published?

Frankly, I think there are things that just should be allowed to be published.


Stitchawl

There is just one problem with your comment. You've already convicted this person of distributing child pornography. I haven't read the book and have only descriptions from news sources to go on, but from what I understand, there are no pictures in the book whatsoever and the news source which restarted this thread even mentions that he tries to offer "legal ways" to get close to children.

While it's certainly unsavory that someone who has sexual desires for children is writing about legal ways to spend time with children, I don't see how that translates into saying he has written child pornography.

Again, I'm not all that familiar with what was actually written, though I doubt you are familiar either (at least, no more than I am). I and others are simply saying that the constitution guarantees quite a bit of latitude in defending free speech and it's ambiguous at best if the Florida law under which he has been arrested is compatible with the First Amendment.

The most you can say right now is that an arrest warrant has been issued for him. He has not been convicted of a crime and this whole lynching attitude is simply not helpful to any realistic discussion.

[darknessangel]

The book has been taken offline and the guy has even been arrested. Why isn't this thread already closed? o_O

Helloooo mods!

[Stitchawl]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Repeating something doesn't make it true. Try again.

I'm not saying anything is true or false. I'm asking YOU for your position on Free Speech as it applies to the following issues.

It's time to stop being theoretical and ante up.

Please check off the ones you believe should be free to be published under the umbrella of Free Speech;

Child pornography.

National Defense secretes.

Truck routes for disposal of Nuclear Waste.

Secret Service Plans for protecting the President

Everyone's medical records

And believe me, I understand why you don't want to respond to this. Choosing what should be allowed or not be allowed isn't an easy task.


Stitchawl

[Stitchawl]

Originally Posted by eric11210

There is just one problem with your comment. You've already convicted this person of distributing child pornography.

What part of my statement; "I DO see people demanding the arrest of an alleged child molester who has been charged with distribution of child pornography" is convicting him of anything. There is the word 'alleged' and the word 'charged,' but no words saying anything about convicting him.

The most you can say right now is that an arrest warrant has been issued for him. He has not been convicted of a crime and this whole lynching attitude is simply not helpful to any realistic discussion.

That is absolutely correct. And if you can find somewhere in any of my posts where I've said otherwise, I'll apologize to your right here when you do. I have only said that court orders were drawn up, or that he has been arrested. In fact, in several of my posts I've stated that it is now up to the courts to judge him guilty or innocent. Please read before posting.

Why do people need to change what is said just to fit their own soap boxes?


Stitchawl

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by darknessangel

The book has been taken offline and the guy has even been arrested. Why isn't this thread already closed? o_O

Helloooo mods!

Ummm, because it's a significant issue and all but resolved. It affects you and your rights.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Stitchawl

I'm not saying anything is true or false. I'm asking YOU for your position on Free Speech as it applies to the following issues.

It's time to stop being theoretical and ante up.
...l

And I've stated it, I'm standing up for it, you are attempting spin and accuse and speculate.

It's time to get real. You clearly don't understand the difference in committing a crime and the freedom to speak about it.