5 ms·

>In fact, offensive speech is pretty much the only kind that needs protecting. I agree. Maybe the GP then need use better analogies than what seemed to me equ

by phlux 16y ago

>In fact, offensive speech is pretty much the only kind that needs protecting. I agree. Maybe the GP then need use better analogies than what seemed to me equating the discussing rebellious (terroristic) behavior with sexual molestation/pedophilia. I fully defend free speech, I do not support condoning abuses. Why dont we then use the analogy of say "Stalin's guide to torturing political dissidents through the use of mutilation, torture and death" as opposed to "standing up against a government which you feel is oppressive" as a starting point. If my logic is flawed, I humbly hope to be educated. But I DO feel there need be a line drawn with respect to what could be legal. I am not saying we should limit free speech, I am saying we need to identify that which is illegal from that which is objectionable. For example, is it not illegal for one to make mortal threats, implied or otherwise against the president of the US? It is still speech, and could be said without ever truly being a threat to his person (e.g. on teh internet) -- but illegal nonetheless. Therefore, I submit that writing about the desire or actions of sexual abuse of children should be illegal. We protect out (dear) leaders to such a degree, what about our (dear) offspring? Whats odd, is that the least able to defend themselves (the children) have the greatest need. The president of the US has hundreds of millions of dollars on personal security detail, as well as the weight of the entire US military behind his defense so I would say has less-so of a need to be protected from threatening speech online or otherwise. e.g. those that would threaten the president are far less likely to be able to carry it out as those who have easy access to be able to harm kids. --- [EDIT: disclaimer, I have not read the books in question, nor do I intend too. If that keeps me more ignorant so be it - but I will not seek out the contents of such material...]

raganwald 16y ago
Why do I need better analogies? My point is that talking about illegal things is not in and of itself sufficient grounds for censorship, and my point of view is that "Steal this book" is an important book and an excellent argument for freedom of speech. A how-to manual for paedophelia is not an excellent argument for freedom of speech. I picked that example to show that talking about illegal activities or even about how to do illegal things is not a good test for censorship. That doesn't mean I am in favour of the book in question, just that I am in favour of picking a different set of criteria other than "Explains how to break the law." If you need a less challenging example, think about a book discussing how to break cryptosystems. That information can be used to circumvent DMCA. The reason I don't use such an easy example is that it leads us to saying "I/We should allow books that explain how to break the laws we personally don't like." I don't like that criteria either, which is why I didn't use it as an example. I like the laws that prohibit the destruction of property with explosives, which is why allowing "Steal this book!" to be distributed is an excellent argument for me to ponder. Update: The TL;DR is that I'm not equating the two books, the criterium "how-to for breaking the law" equates the two books. If you find equating "Steal this book" with paedophelia an abhorrent comparison, I suggest the flaw here is in the argument that "how-to manuals for crime are wrong."

by phlux 16y ago

raganwald 16y ago

Why do I need better analogies? My point is that talking about illegal things is not in and of itself sufficient grounds for censorship, and my point of view is that "Steal this book" is an important book and an excellent argument for freedom of speech. A how-to manual for paedophelia is not an excellent argument for freedom of speech. I picked that example to show that talking about illegal activities or even about how to do illegal things is not a good test for censorship. That doesn't mean I am in favour of the book in question, just that I am in favour of picking a different set of criteria other than "Explains how to break the law." If you need a less challenging example, think about a book discussing how to break cryptosystems. That information can be used to circumvent DMCA. The reason I don't use such an easy example is that it leads us to saying "I/We should allow books that explain how to break the laws we personally don't like." I don't like that criteria either, which is why I didn't use it as an example. I like the laws that prohibit the destruction of property with explosives, which is why allowing "Steal this book!" to be distributed is an excellent argument for me to ponder. Update: The TL;DR is that I'm not equating the two books, the criterium "how-to for breaking the law" equates the two books. If you find equating "Steal this book" with paedophelia an abhorrent comparison, I suggest the flaw here is in the argument that "how-to manuals for crime are wrong."