First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next  Last
Post Reply man is selling pro rape books on amazon
Posted 4/7/16

K3n21 wrote:

Yeah cuz fuck the right to free speech...


It's someone else's service, there is no right to free speech.
25 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/7/16 , edited 4/7/16

prh99 wrote:


Master_Trump wrote:

So, let us get this straight:

A man writes a book and you want to have it censored because it goes against your grain?

There is no constitutional framework to deny his right to free speech.

It is perfectly fine to not buy his books, it is fine to ask others to not buy his books. It is not fine to try and remove ANY book from market because it ruffles your pajamas.


It is fine. Just as he as is free to write what he wants, so are these people to ask that it be removed. Ultimately it's Amazon's call as the owner of the site whether they want to allow him to continue using it to distribute his book or grant the request to remove it. The constitution is not involved, it only protects from government censorship.



That is a mistaken position. The Constitution applies to all.

Attempting to silence anyone through removal from the market is censorship.

If amazon does cave and remove it. Those who made the decision should face severe criminal charges, and if American, be tried for treason.

Banned
21034 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Online
Posted 4/7/16 , edited 4/10/16
i mean on one side...freedom of speech on the other side....fuck this guy....i say we lock him in a cell with some rapists and let him out after 30 days and see how he feels
25 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/7/16 , edited 4/7/16

Ryulightorb wrote:

i mean on one side...freedom of speech on the other side....fuck this guy....i say we lock him in a cell with some rapists and let him out after 30 days and see how he feels



What you recommend is a violation of the 8th amendment.

If he has made claims in his books that could count as crimes, then he should be tried in a court of law on those charges. Until found guilty in a court of law, innocence should be presumed. When found guilty in a court of law, the punishment should still not violate the Constitution.


prh99 wrote:


K3n21 wrote:

Yeah cuz fuck the right to free speech...


It's someone else's service, there is no right to free speech.


Again, this arbitrary separation of public and private, and attempting to say that rights end in the private sphere is not only wrong, but dangerous.

You sound no different than the wackjobs that propose rape should be legal on private property. Hell, if Constitutional rights end in the private space than all rights end in a private space.

Absurd and sophomoric
11750 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M
Offline
Posted 4/7/16 , edited 4/10/16
protection under free speech is not unlimited bruh

some forms of speech are unprotected like
"Obscenity, defined by the Miller test by applying contemporary community standards, is one exception. It is speech to which all the following apply: appeals to the prurient interest, depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. (This is usually applied to more hard-core forms of pornography.)"
and
"Speech that incites imminent lawless action was originally banned under the weaker clear and present danger test established by Schenck v. United States, but this test has since been replaced by the imminent lawless action test established in Brandenburg v. Ohio. The canonical example, enunciated by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in Schenck, is falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. This is an example of immediate harm."
and obviously child pornography


btw trump would like to show us how to get boobs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IrE6FMpai8&nohtml5=False
25 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/7/16 , edited 4/7/16

RedExodus wrote:

protection under free speech is not unlimited bruh

some forms of speech are unprotected like
"Obscenity, defined by the Miller test by applying contemporary community standards, is one exception. It is speech to which all the following apply: appeals to the prurient interest, depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. (This is usually applied to more hard-core forms of pornography.)"
and
"Speech that incites imminent lawless action was originally banned under the weaker clear and present danger test established by Schenck v. United States, but this test has since been replaced by the imminent lawless action test established in Brandenburg v. Ohio. The canonical example, enunciated by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in Schenck, is falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. This is an example of immediate harm."
and obviously child pornography


btw trump would like to show us how to get boobs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IrE6FMpai8&nohtml5=False



Considering that the Communist Manifesto, The Anarchist Cook Book, and many other arguably more dangerous and vile works have been given a pass, none of this applies.

However, if you believe that the book or books in question violates the law, then you file a suit. Only the courts can decide if it does not have free speech protection. Under the doctrine of innocent til proven guilty, it should be presumed to have such protection til judicially decided otherwise.
Posted 4/7/16 , edited 4/10/16

Ryulightorb wrote:

i mean on one side...freedom of speech on the other side....fuck this guy....i say we lock him in a cell with some rapists and let him out after 30 days and see how he feels


^ pretty much this.
17225 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
(´◔౪◔)✂❤
Offline
Posted 4/7/16

Master_Trump wrote:

Again, this arbitrary separation of public and private, and attempting to say that rights end in the private sphere is not only wrong, but dangerous.

You sound no different than the wackjobs that propose rape should be legal on private property. Hell, if Constitutional rights end in the private space than all rights end in a private space.

Absurd and sophomoric
"You can't remove a book from your private property"
35156 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / F / Seireitei, Soul S...
Online
Posted 4/7/16 , edited 4/10/16

Master_Trump wrote:

So, let us get this straight:

A man writes a book and you want to have it censored because it goes against your grain?

There is no constitutional framework to deny his right to free speech.

It is perfectly fine to not buy his books, it is fine to ask others to not buy his books. It is not fine to try and remove ANY book from market because it ruffles your pajamas.


And how would you feel if a female that you know, especially a relative, was forced to have sex, which is rape, by a guy who read this guy's blogs and books, and bought the books from Amazon to boot? Would you defend his right to free speech then?
Posted 4/7/16 , edited 4/8/16


Like it or not that's how it is. The 1st Amendment doesn't apply to non-government entities except when it's their own speech and keeping government from unduly curtailing it, they have no legal obligation to help others with theirs.

And compelling someone to provide a forum for speech they do not agree with and find repugnant and morally reprehensible is free speech?


I fail to see how this is in anyway similar to people advocating legal rape on private property. Also, not all rights end in the private sphere, you do have some rights; just not the same ones when dealing with the government.


Trololol?
18802 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F
Online
Posted 4/7/16 , edited 4/7/16

BlackRose0607 wrote:


Master_Trump wrote:

So, let us get this straight:

A man writes a book and you want to have it censored because it goes against your grain?

There is no constitutional framework to deny his right to free speech.

It is perfectly fine to not buy his books, it is fine to ask others to not buy his books. It is not fine to try and remove ANY book from market because it ruffles your pajamas.


And how would you feel if a female that you know, especially a relative, was forced to have sex, which is rape, by a guy who read this guy's blogs and books, and bought the books from Amazon to boot? Would you defend his right to free speech then?


^^^^ this
Posted 4/7/16 , edited 4/10/16

Master_Trump wrote:


RedExodus wrote:

protection under free speech is not unlimited bruh

some forms of speech are unprotected like
"Obscenity, defined by the Miller test by applying contemporary community standards, is one exception. It is speech to which all the following apply: appeals to the prurient interest, depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. (This is usually applied to more hard-core forms of pornography.)"
and
"Speech that incites imminent lawless action was originally banned under the weaker clear and present danger test established by Schenck v. United States, but this test has since been replaced by the imminent lawless action test established in Brandenburg v. Ohio. The canonical example, enunciated by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in Schenck, is falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. This is an example of immediate harm."
and obviously child pornography


btw trump would like to show us how to get boobs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IrE6FMpai8&nohtml5=False



Considering that the Communist Manifesto, The Anarchist Cook Book, and many other arguably more dangerous and vile works have been given a pass, none of this applies.

However, if you believe that the book or books in question violates the law, then you file a suit. Only the courts can decide if it does not have free speech protection. Under the doctrine of innocent til proven guilty, it should be presumed to have such protection til judicially decided otherwise.


Okay now listen, I'm all against censorship but I do hope you realize you're defending a rapist and a possible child molester.
30236 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
It doesn't matter.
Offline
Posted 4/7/16 , edited 4/7/16
I use my right to protest because amazon has low standards even after a similar t-shirt debacle.
What I don't understand is how change.org says they will show the petition to a set number of potential supporters.
Wouldn't the smart things to do is to show the petition to large sites for maximum effect : effort ?
25 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/7/16 , edited 4/8/16

prh99 wrote:


Master_Trump wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:

i mean on one side...freedom of speech on the other side....fuck this guy....i say we lock him in a cell with some rapists and let him out after 30 days and see how he feels



What you recommend is a violation of the 8th amendment.

If he has made claims in his books that could count as crimes, then he should be tried in a court of law on those charges. Until found guilty in a court of law, innocence should be presumed. When found guilty in a court of law, the punishment should still not violate the Constitution.


prh99 wrote:


K3n21 wrote:

Yeah cuz fuck the right to free speech...


It's someone else's service, there is no right to free speech.


Again, this arbitrary separation of public and private, and attempting to say that rights end in the private sphere is not only wrong, but dangerous.

You sound no different than the wackjobs that propose rape should be legal on private property. Hell, if Constitutional rights end in the private space than all rights end in a private space.

Absurd and sophomoric


Like it or not that's how it is. The 1st Amendment doesn't apply to non-government entities.

And compelling someone to provide a forum for speech they do not agree with and find repugnant and morally reprehensible is free speech?


I fail to see how this is in anyway similar to people advocating legal rape on private property.




You fail to see that denying a right in any instance can lead to other rights being denied on the same basis?

Your failure to think rationally is unfortunate.





BlackRose0607 wrote:


Master_Trump wrote:

So, let us get this straight:

A man writes a book and you want to have it censored because it goes against your grain?

There is no constitutional framework to deny his right to free speech.

It is perfectly fine to not buy his books, it is fine to ask others to not buy his books. It is not fine to try and remove ANY book from market because it ruffles your pajamas.


And how would you feel if a female that you know, especially a relative, was forced to have sex, which is rape, by a guy who read this guy's blogs and books, and bought the books from Amazon to boot? Would you defend his right to free speech then?



Feelings do not once enter the equation, and have no baring on civil discourse.

I pity the man that attempts to rape a woman within my circle, each one is armed thanks the 2nd amendment and a wonderful shot. At least one occasion the need for those arms arose, and my loved admirably neutralized the threat.



TotalQuirk wrote:


Master_Trump wrote:


RedExodus wrote:

protection under free speech is not unlimited bruh

some forms of speech are unprotected like
"Obscenity, defined by the Miller test by applying contemporary community standards, is one exception. It is speech to which all the following apply: appeals to the prurient interest, depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. (This is usually applied to more hard-core forms of pornography.)"
and
"Speech that incites imminent lawless action was originally banned under the weaker clear and present danger test established by Schenck v. United States, but this test has since been replaced by the imminent lawless action test established in Brandenburg v. Ohio. The canonical example, enunciated by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in Schenck, is falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. This is an example of immediate harm."
and obviously child pornography


btw trump would like to show us how to get boobs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IrE6FMpai8&nohtml5=False



Considering that the Communist Manifesto, The Anarchist Cook Book, and many other arguably more dangerous and vile works have been given a pass, none of this applies.

However, if you believe that the book or books in question violates the law, then you file a suit. Only the courts can decide if it does not have free speech protection. Under the doctrine of innocent til proven guilty, it should be presumed to have such protection til judicially decided otherwise.


Okay now listen, I'm all against censorship but I do hope you realize you're defending a rapist and a possible child molester.




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



The content of the speech, nor the person expressing the speech have any effect on my position as to is classification as free speech.

Now do I find the content reprehensible? Without question. Do I find the person who composed this speech to be monstrous? Surely.

However, it is a weak person who only stands by their conviction when it is easy.

18802 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F
Online
Posted 4/7/16

Sir_jamesalot wrote:

I use my right to protest.
What I don't understand is how change.org says they will show the petition to a set number of potential supporters.
Wouldn't the smart things to do is to show the petition to large sites for maximum effect : effort ?


it is up to us, the signers to do that, that is why after signing there is a option to share it to twitter and facebook etc
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.