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
30236 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
It doesn't matter.
Offline
Posted 4/7/16

redokami wrote:


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


there's also an option to pay change to share it but they only promise to share it with a set number of people.
It's like they deliberately cut of exposure to extortion more money.
18722 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F
Offline
Posted 4/7/16

Sir_jamesalot wrote:


redokami wrote:


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


there's also an option to pay change to share it but they only promise to share it with a set number of people.
It's like they deliberately cut of exposure to extortion more money.


I have signed TONS of these and never once have had to pay, I have also shared the links to my friends on facebook , they sign , and share
34924 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Florida
Offline
Posted 4/7/16
If they banned it, could I get it for free?
If so, I'd sign.

I can't give my opinion until I actually read it.
25 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/7/16 , edited 4/7/16
I have appreciated this dialog.

Only through civil discourse can we truly grow as a society.

I will return after a time of rest and labor, to respond to any further dialog.

Good night my fellow citizens
18722 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F
Offline
Posted 4/7/16

Master_Trump wrote:

I have appreciated this dialog.

Only through civil discourse can we truly grow as a society.

I will return after a time of rest and labor, to respond to any further dialog.

Good night my fellow citizens


the way you worded this made me giggle
30236 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
It doesn't matter.
Offline
Posted 4/7/16

redokami wrote:

I have signed TONS of these and never once have had to pay, I have also shared the links to my friends on facebook , they sign , and share


That's not my point.
I'm not saying the option to pay is a requirement, I'm saying they offer to share the petition with a set number of people depending on how much you donate.
11732 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M
Offline
Posted 4/7/16 , edited 4/7/16

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.


did u make this account just to troll?

the last one about child porn shouldve made it a no-brainer. if you think child porn is protected under free speech then you should feel safe finding and downloading some which you really shouldn't. people get jailed for this when their possession is confirmed to be child porn, its common sense and well defined

also i don't remember "arguably more dangerous and vile works" being part the conditions i stated in order to not have protection. ud have to be more specific then that to see if it should get a pass
1127 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/7/16 , edited 4/7/16
Someone explain to a non-US person please... Person A writes a book about a subject as is their right to free speech. Person or Persons B don't like subject of said book so they start a petition which voices their opinion as is their right. How is person B's right to free speech any less important than person A's?
30236 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
It doesn't matter.
Offline
Posted 4/7/16

Master_Trump wrote:

Good night my fellow citizens


Don't forget to argue against the right to protest when you come back to argue the right to free speech.
18722 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F
Offline
Posted 4/7/16

RebRebel wrote:

Someone explain to a non-US person please... Person A writes a book about a subject as is their right to free speech. Person or Persons B don't like subject of said book so they start a petition which voices their opinion as is their right. How is person B's right to free speech any less than person A's?


it is because of what the content is, child porn is not protected and you go to jail for that, so why cant practically advocating rape and telling people how to get away with it , via book, why cant that be ...well not punishable, but not allowed? if a man decided to rape a woman using the process stated in this guys book(s) and says so, then that isn't right. also this man even admits he rapes
1127 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/7/16

redokami wrote:


RebRebel wrote:

Someone explain to a non-US person please... Person A writes a book about a subject as is their right to free speech. Person or Persons B don't like subject of said book so they start a petition which voices their opinion as is their right. How is person B's right to free speech any less than person A's?


it is because of what the content is, child porn is not protected and you go to jail for that, so why cant practically advocating rape and telling people how to get away with it , via book, why cant that be ...well not punishable, but not allowed? if a man decided to rape a woman using the process stated in this guys book(s) and says so, then that isn't right. also this man even admits he rapes


You misunderstand my post, I'm not supporting the subject I'm asking why the opinions of people protesting or petitioning the work are according to some in this thread not protected by the same rights of free speech?
18722 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F
Offline
Posted 4/7/16

RebRebel wrote:


redokami wrote:


RebRebel wrote:

Someone explain to a non-US person please... Person A writes a book about a subject as is their right to free speech. Person or Persons B don't like subject of said book so they start a petition which voices their opinion as is their right. How is person B's right to free speech any less than person A's?


it is because of what the content is, child porn is not protected and you go to jail for that, so why cant practically advocating rape and telling people how to get away with it , via book, why cant that be ...well not punishable, but not allowed? if a man decided to rape a woman using the process stated in this guys book(s) and says so, then that isn't right. also this man even admits he rapes


You misunderstand my post, I'm not supporting the subject I'm asking why the opinions of people protesting or petitioning the work are according to some in this thread not protected by the same rights of free speech?


so you are asking why, me, person B, is not protected?
probably because we are "going against" ____ insert something here
its always like this
"i have the freedom of speech!"
"well I don't like what you are saying"
"well im protected more than you because im not standing up against someone"


forgive me if im being vague, its 4:40 am im tired lol
Posted 4/7/16 , edited 4/7/16
vv Oh my god there's a legit forum for this guy vv

https://www.rooshvforum.com/
6073 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 4/7/16 , edited 4/7/16


It's not rape it's a snuggle with a struggle. End quote
1127 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/7/16

redokami wrote:


RebRebel wrote:


redokami wrote:


RebRebel wrote:

Someone explain to a non-US person please... Person A writes a book about a subject as is their right to free speech. Person or Persons B don't like subject of said book so they start a petition which voices their opinion as is their right. How is person B's right to free speech any less than person A's?


it is because of what the content is, child porn is not protected and you go to jail for that, so why cant practically advocating rape and telling people how to get away with it , via book, why cant that be ...well not punishable, but not allowed? if a man decided to rape a woman using the process stated in this guys book(s) and says so, then that isn't right. also this man even admits he rapes


You misunderstand my post, I'm not supporting the subject I'm asking why the opinions of people protesting or petitioning the work are according to some in this thread not protected by the same rights of free speech?


so you are asking why, me, person B, is not protected?
probably because we are "going against" ____ insert something here
its always like this
"i have the freedom of speech!"
"well I don't like what you are saying"
"well im protected more than you because im not standing up against someone"


forgive me if im being vague, its 4:40 am im tired lol


Got it so the answer is essentially there is no difference since stopping the petition would essentially be censoring your right to free speech. Thought so.

For the record I'm not sure this approach is the best way to stop guys like that, I mean "I raped a drunk girl because drunk people are easier to control than sober people isn't exactly an instruction manual, it's more a admittance of wrong doing. People are still going to do this regardless of whether a book exists no matter how unpalatable the subject. Stopping one book isn't going to protect anyone.
27250 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/7/16 , edited 4/7/16
He's free to write any book he wants no matter how horrible as long it's not slander or revealing some kind of unprivileged information.

Don't like? Don't buy. But don't make it so a store can't sell it or other people can't buy it.

I suppose you're free to start and sign petitions as well, but I don't really see how free speech to limit free speech helps free speech. Granted, free speech/expression rights are sometimes outweighed by certain consequences brought about by that speech, but I don't believe this is one of those instances. His statements are so obviously off that there is no danger that reasonable people will be influenced by his writing. I've read books that teach people how to stealthily carry weapons and nobody complained about those.

I agree that freedom of expression does not make him exempt from backlash, but this doesn't seem to be about the moral implications of what he is saying than about hitting him in the wallet. If there is to be backlash, fine. But at least make it of the same kind. It's unfair to respond to speech one does not like by doing things that bring about a very real consequence. Sort of like those Facebook people who will go around contacting a person's friends, bosses, and family because they don't like what that person said in a comment. It's not fair even if that person has said racist and horrible things online.
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.