DescentBB

null0010 wrote:No one should ever be arrested for writing and publishing a book, no matter how offensive or disgusting or morally reprehensible. This is why we in the United States protect the free speech of neo-nazis and anarchists and Charles Manson and congressmen.

Godwin's law Broken by Null say it ain't so.

null0010 wrote:No one should ever be arrested for writing and publishing a book, no matter how offensive or disgusting or morally reprehensible. This is why we in the United States protect the free speech of neo-nazis and anarchists and Charles Manson and congressmen.

So null, in your mind it is perfectly ok for me to publish a picture book of naked nine year olds performing sexual acts on equally naked 50 year old men? I mean I could call it a photographic art composition book. I suspect I could earn a lot of money from it. But guess what. SCOTUS has ruled it would be a federal crime to do so. I suggest you rethink what is allowable in a free society as the blade cuts 2 ways.
If my book was allowed, then a whole pandoras box of child abuse arises. What about their free speech?

woodchip wrote:So null, in your mind it is perfectly ok for me to publish a picture book of naked nine year olds

No, because that is expressly illegal and is also direct evidence of child abuse. I'm loving this false equivalence between words and pictures that you seem to believe.

null0010 wrote:

woodchip wrote:So null, in your mind it is perfectly ok for me to publish a picture book of naked nine year olds

No, because that is expressly illegal and is also direct evidence of child abuse. I'm loving this false equivalence between words and pictures that you seem to believe.

You raised no caveat as to legality in your earlier quoted statement.

to \"slightly\" modify the topic. what do you think would happen if someone gets arrested for Pedophelia and during his trial it comes out that he learned how to molest children by reading this mans how to book?

just because you \"might\" have the right, does not make it right

CUDA wrote:to "slightly" modify the topic. what do you think would happen if someone gets arrested for Pedophelia and during his trial it comes out that he learned how to molest children by reading this mans how to book?

I dunno, what do you think would happen if someone got arrested for hacking into a computer to retrieve encrypted files, and it came out that he learned how to do this from a book? What you do think would happen?

Woodchip, that is ridiculous.

null0010 wrote:No, because that is expressly illegal and is also direct evidence of child abuse.

So let me get this correct. your saying that it is wrong to sexualy abuse a child. but it's OK to instruct someone on how to sexualy abuse a child.

I can't believe this thread is still alive. =P

I guess it depends on how you look at things.... like how it's \"O.K.\" to instruct someone how to build an atomic bomb, but not O.K. to cook a fool. :P

The real question, in my mind, Null, is do you believe in the existence of some greater good inherent in the free-expression, through print, of material that justifies, directs, and encourages the most obvious anti-social behavior, when so stated. And if so, leaving out the subjects of bombs or hacking, just what the hell is this great good?

Is it not true that a man that so treats such a deranged topic, for the consumption and acceptance of others, might as well be guilty of engaging in it, as far as his fellow man is concerned?

Don't you understand how evil pedophilia is?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:The real question, in my mind, Null, is do you believe in the existence of some greater good inherent in the free-expression, through print, of material that justifies, directs, and encourages the most obvious anti-social behavior, when so stated. And if so, leaving out the subjects of bombs or hacking, just what the hell is this great good?

No. Expression is a tool, it is up to individuals how to use and interpret it. Same with everything else.

Sergeant Thorne wrote: Is it not true that a man that so treats such a deranged topic, for the consumption and acceptance of others, might as well be guilty of engaging in it, as far as his fellow man is concerned?

So you are taking his defense of free speech and calling him a pedophile? Can you not see how extreme that is?

null0010 wrote:No. Expression is a tool, it is up to individuals how to use and interpret it. Same with everything else.

so let me get this correct. according to reports, the author has a section in the book that instructs pedophiles how to interact with children in a manner that will not get them caught. SO
Is this expression?
Is this experience?
is this instigation?
or is it all 3?

CUDA wrote:

null0010 wrote:
No, because that is expressly illegal and is also direct evidence of child abuse.

So let me get this correct. your saying that it is wrong to sexualy abuse a child. but it's OK to instruct someone on how to sexualy abuse a child.

the question still remains

Null, you danced around my question, and that's not good enough for such a critical controversy. General (and I would say very naive) concepts of the somehow absolute freedom of all expression just don't cut it. If you can't show the greater good inherent in the proliferation of this destructive material itself, then I say you're in way over your head, and your blind faith in a naive concept is ultimately a foolish road to a very bad end (if not for yourself, then for others).

Avder wrote:So you are taking his defense of free speech and calling him a pedophile? Can you not see how extreme that is?

I don't think you understand just how extreme it is for an adult to desire a sexual relationship with a child! That's what is extreme, here! We're in an extreme area, as of this topic, and yet you cling to your generalized concepts of "freedom" that make everything (even blatantly anti-social behavior) permissible. You're in over your head.

It is unmanly for both of you to fail to defend children because of your naive faith in an unproven, absolute rule. You have perverted the legitimate Freedom of Speech to mean that a society cannot protect itself against destructive influence. It's something that both of you need to give some serious thought. A society is founded on laws that are formed to protect against destructive influence, not the other way around.

I’m just curious…has anybody here read any part of this book, because this argument is totally abstract and has nothing to do with the actual book, if not.

In no way do I defend pedophilia, but I will defend free speech to the end. As Foil pointed out, this book may actually have positive benefits to society…or do you all just take the Sheriff at his word?

If you want to have a discussion about “this” book…better have some ammo. If you want to debate the merits of Pedophilia…well that’s a different story.

CNN wrote:Officials said the book talks about safe sex and avoiding injury to children, grooming and preparing children for sex and teaching children how to lie to their parents.

Judd said Greaves' book outlines a "code of ethics" that shows pedophiles how to look for the most vulnerable children.

There's the ammo. If you think they're shooting blanks I'd say you need to prove it... before anyone starts talking about it "having benefits to society"...

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Null, you danced around my question, and that's not good enough for such a critical controversy. General (and I would say very naive) concepts of the somehow absolute freedom of all expression just don't cut it. If you can't show the greater good inherent in the proliferation of this destructive material itself, then I say you're in way over your head, and your blind faith in a naive concept is ultimately a foolish road to a very bad end (if not for yourself, then for others).

Show me the greater good in the Anarchist's Cookbook, or Kevin Mitnick's guide to social engineering. Not everything needs a "greater good" to be valid expression.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:It is unmanly for both of you

Oh, no. Whatever will I do? Sergeant Thorne doesn't think I'm manly. Woe is me.

You keep trying to deflect away from the topic at hand Null. this topic is about Pedophilia. you cannot justify a book about it, and you know it.

oh and FYI you still have not answered my last two posts

.

CUDA wrote:You keep trying to deflect away from the topic at hand Null. this topic is about Pedophilia. you cannot justify a book about it, and you know it.

The problem is the argument is actually about free speech and you keep trying to skew it into an argument about pedophilia.

I'm quite certain that everyone on this board will agree that pedophilia is wrong. I dont see the need to debate about that. The debate should be framed around free speech. Null has just cited several other works that are written upon the very same grounds, and those works are all tolerated. Is there a codified "think of the children" exception to free speech? It sure seems like a lot of people think there is, and the Supreme Court has actually struck down a few laws that were written trying to exploit the "think of the children" doctrine.

Free speech as a right means that there are inevitably going to be works written that will seem abhorrent but are still ultimately protected. This may very well be one of those works. Having the knowledge out there is not, by itself, a bad thing. The bad thing is what happens when someone has a desire to commit the crime but does not know how.

The double sided blade that is free speech means that while the people are free to speak what they say, there is also the possibility that ideas will be shared which will go contrary to the norms of society. You can not have free speech and then censor what goes against your moral views, no matter how abhorrent or vile those works may be.

What it ultimately comes down to is personal responsibility. If a person has the knowledge of how to commit a certain crime because he read how to do it in a book it is not at all the books fault, it is the person who acted to commit the crime who is at fault.

Further, having things out in the open means they are free not just to be perused, but also knowledgeably attacked and defended against. Having this book out is likely to lead to new and more accurate warning signs for concerned parents, law enforcement, psychologists, and social workers to look for. I am sure that the truly concerned people who want to end child molestation will be studying this work with a level of zeal that no pedophile will care to if he chooses to use this as a molestation manual.

Yes, the subject matter is terrible, and vile, disgusting, and filthy. However there are merits. In addition to those that I just mentioned, I can easily see this being heavily referenced in a masters thesis, doctorate dissertations, and a whole wealth of other academic research. Like it or not this book will likely contribute to the understanding of a problem that society seeks to eliminate. The other side of the blade is that it may assist a few sick perverts in getting what they want as well.

Unfortunately that is the nature of freedom itself. The good and the bad must be taken together to have a fully free society. Freedom to live how you want, freedom to choose how you think, freedom to ★■◆● up big time if you make the wrong choices, the freedom to get prosecuted when you finally get caught, and the freedom to get anally violated by comparatively pure-hearted murderers for being a sick-ass pervert when they throw your ass in the slammer.

That's why we need some Star Trek morals up in this ★■◆●!

Avder wrote:

CUDA wrote:You keep trying to deflect away from the topic at hand Null. this topic is about Pedophilia. you cannot justify a book about it, and you know it.

The problem is the argument is actually about free speech and you keep trying to skew it into an argument about pedophilia.

I suggest you go back and re-read the first page because you apparently missed the opening salvo's of this discussion. this topic is NOT about free speech

In Heretic's opening post he wrote:Seriously do Pedophiles have a better nature?

this is the original question put forth by the OP. while yes he mentions the book as a preface to his question, Heretic is asking is there anything good about pedophelia. it is you and Null that keep trying to turn this into a first Amendment debate.
as is CLEARLY evident by Heretic's response to Null re- Free speech comment

Heretic wrote:

null0010 wrote:It's a book. Books aren't illegal, not even books about illegal things. Free speech, etc.

Still not an answer to the question I ask

try and keep up

CUDA wrote:while yes he mentions the book as a preface to his question, Heretic is asking is there anything good about pedophelia. it is you and Null that keep trying to turn this into a first Amendment debate.
as is CLEARLY evident by Heretic's response to Null re- Free speech comment

Heretic wrote:

null0010 wrote:It's a book. Books aren't illegal, not even books about illegal things. Free speech, etc.

Still not an answer to the question I ask

try and keep up

I refuse to bestow an answer upon such a stupid and ridiculous question. It bothers me that you'd even ask it.

Hahahahahahaha you got caught now you want to strawman the the question. It's a straight forward question you keep dodging. You even have been advocating for the right of the man to put forward his pedophilia views. Which makes you look stupid and ridiculous.

null0010 wrote:

CUDA wrote:while yes he mentions the book as a preface to his question, Heretic is asking is there anything good about pedophelia. it is you and Null that keep trying to turn this into a first Amendment debate.
as is CLEARLY evident by Heretic's response to Null re- Free speech comment

Heretic wrote:

null0010 wrote:It's a book. Books aren't illegal, not even books about illegal things. Free speech, etc.

Still not an answer to the question I ask

try and keep up

I refuse to bestow an answer upon such a stupid and ridiculous question. It bothers me that you'd even ask it.

Null you have to really wrap your head around the fact free speech is not free. If you accuse me of something in public and it is not true, then I am in my rights to sue you for slander. If you swear in a public place and a cop hears you, he can write you a ticket for doing so as it is illegal in many states to do so.

I suggest you re-evaluate the position you are taking as your credibility is plummeting.

woodchip wrote:I suggest you re-evaluate the position you are taking as your credibility is plummeting.

Meh, I don't think you can fault a guy for being overly cautious when it comes to free speech.

Gooberman wrote:

woodchip wrote:I suggest you re-evaluate the position you are taking as your credibility is plummeting.

Meh, I don't think you can fault a guy for being overly cautious when it comes to free speech.

Cautious is one thing, blind adherence quite another.

woodchip wrote:Cautious is one thing, blind adherence quite another.

To me, this definitly falls alongside the "yelling fire...." arguments. However, I am not sure that I buy STs arguments of "what possible good...." as a test for when we silence people. For example, I see no good in the KKK rallies, but if one were to simply outlaw them, I think the opposite of the desired effect would occur....that is, those individuals who participate in such events would only become more impassioned.

I disagree with null in that I think this is one of those rare times in which this speech should be outlawed....but concidering the real slippery slope and unintended consiquences of such restrictions......I believe we should all pause and reflect when asked to do so.

Just a quick point before I finish reading your post, Gooberman: you misunderstood my \"what greater good\" question. Distributing materials such as this book has a very negative effect on society in a number of ways, and ultimately encourages harm to children in a very direct way. It must. That in my mind is without question. I was demanding to know, in light of that fact, what greater good null was looking to that made that OK. That truth is that nothing makes that OK.

BTW, I think the KKK are a bunch of morons (acknowledge that it's actually a lot more complicated than that), but up to a point they have a right to think and say what they want. When they think they are going to start a movement to kill or otherwise harm my black neighbors, friends, or family (no one of that descent in my family that I know of), even if they just start by distributing books about it on Amazon, it's war, and the law is on my side. Freedom of speech is not going to protect them if their books describe how to hurt black people without overtly breaking the law or being caught.

I can, with a demonstrated degree of confidence, separate this instance from a legitimate freedom of speech issue. I did not approach it from a slippery slope.

(finished your post while I was writing)