Amazon.com... boy they screwed the pooch on this one

[Ponch ®]

For my final  on this:

The thing to keep on mind during these arguments about freedom of speech, constitutionality, etc...is this: It's easy to say "this is the right thing to do" when you agree with it..but someday someone might decide that something you don't agree with is good for you, and use the same arguments about how "freedom of speech doesn't cover this" or "the constitution is a living document" to get their way. And you'll have no way to argue, because you already agreed with those arguments in the past (when it was something you supported).

[bull]

For my final  on this:

The thing to keep on mind during these arguments about freedom of speech, constitutionality, etc...is this: It's easy to say "this is the right thing to do" when you agree with it..but someday someone might decide that something you don't agree with is good for you, and use the same arguments about how "freedom of speech doesn't cover this" or "the constitution is a living document" to get their way. And you'll have no way to argue, because you already agreed with those arguments in the past (when it was something you supported).

There are exceptions to every rule and certain lines are drawn in certain places for a reason. This topic is a good example of that.

"According to the Freedom Forum Organization, legal systems, and society at large, recognize limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other values or rights. Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", for example in the case of pornography or hate speech. Limitations to freedom of speech may occur through legal sanction or social disapprobation, or both."

[learical1]

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."  Voltaire

However, just because someone is talking, that doesn't mean you're required to listen.

[Ponch ®]

For my final   on this:

The thing to keep on mind during these arguments about freedom of speech, constitutionality, etc...is this: It's easy to say "this is the right thing to do" when you agree with it..but someday someone might decide that something you don't agree with is good for you, and use the same arguments about how "freedom of speech doesn't cover this" or "the constitution is a living document" to get their way. And you'll have no way to argue, because you already agreed with those arguments in the past (when it was something you supported).

There are exceptions to every rule and certain lines are drawn in certain places for a reason. This topic is a good example of that.

"According to the Freedom Forum Organization, legal systems, and society at large, recognize limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other values or rights. Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", for example in the case of pornography or hate speech. Limitations to freedom of speech may occur through legal sanction or social disapprobation, or both."

That's a fine argument...but what I'm leery of is who decides what the limitations and boundaries are? A judge? the community? Whoever is in charge? What if some activist Judge or community one day decides that Glenn Beck or Anne Coulter's books cross those boundaries? Or that owning a gun is a danger to the community and that danger supercedes the 2nd amendment? We've already seen examples of that recently - even the San Fagcisco Happy Meal controversy is an example of that. Sometimes common sense prevails, some times it doesn't, but the fact that it gets to that point worries me some times.

[bull]

That's why this nation's governance was designed to function using checks and balances. It's not perfect, and there are frequent abuses, but it seems to be better than most other ideas humanity has come up with.

[Brock Samson]

 I guess sometimes erring on the side of caution has it's downsides but perhaps not quite as much as living in a totalitarian facist nanny state,.. wait,..  yeah,.. 

[John_Kunkel]

I much like that label better than do-badders.

Depends on the context, you obviously missed the nuance.

Ahh, these guys never disappoint do they? I think Kim would defend the production of public incestuous amputee bestiality snuff films if he had the chance.

And I'd be right along side him defending against censorship.

[Ponch ®]

Ahh, these guys never disappoint do they? I think Kim would defend the production of public incestuous amputee bestiality snuff films if he had the chance.

I seen that in a movie once!!!!!!


Todd

yeah, I think you sent me that email 

[PocketThunder]

I guess sometimes erring on the side of caution has it's downsides but perhaps not quite as much as living in a totalitarian facist nanny state,.. wait,..  yeah,.. 

[bull]

And I'd be right along side him defending against censorship.

Yup, the PC Gestapo marches on...

[RD]

I much like that label better than do-badders.

Depends on the context, you obviously missed the nuance.

no, i just decided to ignore your nuance as it was intended to make your definition of "do-gooders" just as despicable as pedophiles.

you cannot just let things go unchecked.  the freedom of speech protects the burning of the U.S. flag (which i find horrible, distasteful, and about the most unpatriotic thing to do besides being a traitor, of which in my definition you are if you burn the flag), freedom of speech protects fred phelps and his band of hooligans to protest fallen soldiers funerals by calling them names or saying they deserved to die due to the sins of this nation, freedom speech protects this pro-pedosexual author and many other fanatic authors in regards to writing about topics that are taboo, terrorist based, or simply detrimental and totally against the innate and foundational morals in which this society was based on and that I would like to "think" we still live in.

you may think that the censorship of this book (which is not happening because it is allowed to be published) is a stepping stone to the encroachment of government (i.e. big brother) and that it will lead to more censorship and a major travesty's.  But I am sorry, I totally disagree with you.  This type of literary work needs to be kept in check as it leads to a greater demoralization of a society through acceptance and desensitization of illegal and disgusting acts.  You say the author needs his rights, he's got them.. but that will not stop me from exercising my right by putting pressure on any entity that wants to sell this filth to the masses.

The book no longer being able to be purchased through Amazon.com just shows how the majority has ruled.  You cry violation of freedom of speech, I state that you all just saw democracy in its most natural state.

The fact that Kim and John are so willing to side with this pro-pedophile author's rights, just makes me question if your values are so skewed to the left that you are unable to discern or absorb any other possible opinion that does not coincide with your own, no matter how commonsensical it may be?

[RD]

And I'd be right along side him defending against censorship.

I am censored on this forum from talking about God, will you fight for me to stop this madness of censorship?

[Brock Samson]

Which God are we talking about?.. 

[RD]

Which God are we talking about?.. 

i cannot say.. i am censored to discuss it.. hence i hoping john will save me from my turmoil

[Vainglory, Esq.]

And I'd be right along side him defending against censorship.

Yup, the PC Gestapo marches on...

Quick question.  How is it PC to defend a book about pedophiles?

I enjoy reading these types of arguments, but too many of them are so jumbled as to be impossible to follow. 

[John_Kunkel]

And I'd be right along side him defending against censorship.

I am censored on this forum from talking about God, will you fight for me to stop this madness of censorship?

Consider yourself lucky that Bible-thumping is discouraged here, you DEFINITELY wouldn't want to hear my replies to your religious tirades but, having said that, I disapprove of the "madness" of censoring your madness.

[bull]

And I'd be right along side him defending against censorship.

Yup, the PC Gestapo marches on...

Quick question.  How is it PC to defend a book about pedophiles?

Political correction takes the concept of free speech too far, just as it takes pretty much every concept too far. Common sense says free speech has limits, reality says it has limits, the Supreme Court says it has limits, etc.

[Ponch ®]

And I'd be right along side him defending against censorship.

Yup, the PC Gestapo marches on...

Quick question.  How is it PC to defend a book about pedophiles?

Political correction takes the concept of free speech too far,

Actually it does the opposite most of the time.

[RD]

And I'd be right along side him defending against censorship.

Yup, the PC Gestapo marches on...

Quick question.  How is it PC to defend a book about pedophiles?

Political correction takes the concept of free speech too far,

Actually it does the opposite most of the time.

political correctness is a two word phrase that can be summed up as:

fearful to offend others so that the offender may look like a horse's ass

it only hinders free speech because people are so afraid of "how they may be viewed by others" that they allow it to have that power.  you can be "PC" and still promote rational refutation without offense.  they may not like what you say, but you can still do it in a manner that promotes thought and civility.

PC does not hinder free speech, those that are too worried about their image are the ones that hinder their free speech.

[John_Kunkel]

I wonder if anybody else noticed that the individual who initiated this thread, and voiced his indignation at the morality of it all, chose to use the term "screwed the pooch" which is a term that describes beastiality and might be offensive to those with high moral standards.

I guess "moral standards" are, indeed, in the eye/ear of the beholder.

[RD]

I wonder if anybody else noticed that the individual who initiated this thread, and voiced his indignation at the morality of it all, chose to use the term "screwed the pooch" which is a term that describes beastiality and might be offensive to those with high moral standards.

I guess "moral standards" are, indeed, in the eye/ear of the beholder.

i believe you are just overthinking things and are looking at my words to mean something only to strengthen your liberal agenda.  and you say fox news stretches the truth.. have you looked in a mirror lately?

u should be a campaign manager.. your typical mudslinging approach when all your other attempts at civil discussion has failed is pretty much you, par for the course.

[John_Kunkel]

No stretching of the truth here RD, a simple statement of facts borne out by the original post and your ultra right-wing comments that followed.

You can always tell when a hypocrite has been caught in the act, he tries to make the accuser the bad guy and accuses him of "mudslinging".

[RD]

Um.. humans are all hypocrites. so i guess your definition applies to you also?

~edit~  i wonder sometimes if you try your hardest just to incite things so you can feel better about yourself?

~edit edit~  ultra right-wing?  wow... never been called that before.. i guess it balances out your ultra left-wing?

[John_Kunkel]

Um.. humans are all hypocrites. so i guess your definition applies to you also?

Sure, but I don't make a habit of initiating threads that prove it.

~edit~  i wonder sometimes if you try your hardest just to incite things so you can feel better about yourself?

From the author of so many threads that contain controversial material. Does inciting moral indignation put steps in your stairway to Heaven?

~edit edit~  ultra right-wing?  wow... never been called that before.. i guess it balances out your ultra left-wing?

Mini-minds always confuse disagreement with their views as being the work of a polar opposites.

[Ponch ®]