This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
When Does Free Speech Cross the Line?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
On a side note - people, try to keep the discussion civil and on topic. While this isn't a religious thread, it's fair that religious material can be brought up if relevant as an example to the topic of whether religious speech / books should be protected by free speech laws. But don't get into an argument of what religion is good / bad / does evil / etc..(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
MyTie
I'm scared to think what society would look like if that were the case.
Oh,books that were banned are usually the best to read. Candide for a book that was banned in America, or Animal Farm elsewhere. Even getting an accurate depiction of the beliefs or professed beliefs of someone one despises comes in handy - I've read transcripts of Osama Bin Laden's speeches, but not "My Struggle".
I've read all three of those. Animal Farm was over my head, but I was only 8. Osama Bin Laden was repetative. Mein Kamph was long winded. Each of Hitler's sentences is like 7 pages long (ok I exaggerate). I think I have a copy of Animal Farm and Mein Kamph. I've also read the Koran and the Bible.
Post by
Patty
To be fair, most of those who are going to read those books, more then likely are already set in a certain mind set and want them specifically to learn how to do what it says there.
Or, you know, trying to see things from a different perspective to try and see how some things are made into 'sense'. I've read Mein Kampf, Breivik's manifesto and other extremist writings, that doesn't mean I'm going to go shoot a bunch of teenagers because of their sympathy to the invading Muslims, or that I do daily "Zeik heil!"s. I mean, most historians end up reading memoirs, diaries or actual books written by people who may be considered evil, simply to put things into perspective. Furthermore, I think that it's a good thing to preserve those writings, simply because it gives us more of an insight into maybe underlying tensions, the mindframe that some people have, and if that helps prevent even one hate crime, it's worth it. To destroy them and forget about their ideology would be reckless.
Post by
gamerunknown
Oh yeah, you guys read a translation (or the original) of the Communist manifesto? I find it kind of humorous that Marx spends half the book denouncing various Socialist parties when I think his son in law, a socialist, ended up eulogising at his funeral. Or perhaps oddly prescient given the party that would later claim the name of German socialism...
Post by
Sweetscot
I too think the line is really subjective but there IS a line.
In this case I really just think Amazon shouldn't be selling it. Something like that is just so obviously over the line that I kind of think that a child with parents that would follow the book to the letter are so out there and stupid that there poor child is doomed whether they read that book or just came up with the ideas themselves seeing as how the information inside isn't really all that original.
I know for me things like the giant billboards showing extremely graphic pictures of abortion images that are in the beds of trucks driving around some cities are WAY over my line because they (imo) present a danger to the drivers and pedestrians near them by distracting drivers. Signs outside a clinic? sure. stationary billboards? I don't like super graphic ones but not sure they should be censored. MOVING very graphic signs? Are you freaking crazy? woo you converted someone...for 2 seconds before they crash into the back of the flatbed in front of them and die...
THAT sort of stuff that gets a pass from "free speech" gets my goat. Stuff like the book in the OP? I think is probably not over the line, simply becaue a grain of common sense would tell the reader that what they are doing is both wrong and illegal, however I very much agree with the basic sentiment of the OP that things presented as fact by supposed experts can be very dangerous.
This thread reminded me of this guy:
http://www.infomercialwatch.org/tran/trudeau.shtml
It's a similar thing to the op, only he messed up with how he billed it on tv.
Post by
gamerunknown
The foetus thing doesn't constitute an argument either - it looks scary, sure... but I don't think people would be happy if pro-choice campaigns showed harlequin foetus saying "this should not be allowed to live".
Post by
Gone
I havnt read any of the posts on this yet, I just read the original post and wanted to leave my opinion while I still had my thoughts together.
This is nowhere near the most harmful thing that can be taken from free speech. I have read things on the internet that can be even worse, articles on how to painlessly kill yourself, guides on how to make a home made bomb, how to cook meth, ect (not sure of those last two are legal or not but you get the idea). The thing is though, that when you start to penalize people for the words that come out of their mouth, thats a slippery slope and a dangerous precident to set.
And the fact is, nobody abuses a child this bad just because of something they read in a book unless they had it inside them already. No more than a kid blows up his school because he read an article online, or somebody commits suicide because they learned how on the internet. Do you really think any of these familys would have been a happy functional family if they hadnt read this one book? No maby the abuse would have been different but it still would have been there.
And no I dont think you should penalize the people who made this book, thats the worst type of scapegoating. The blame needs to lie where it belongs, with the people who abused and killed their kids. I think that as far as harmful free speech gos, it resides with the publishing company and the book stores to decide what to publish and put on their shelvs. And I have no doubt after this much exposure it most likley will be pulled.
I remember once I was bored surfing Amazon and I looked up a nazi flag because I wanted to see what kind of reviews there would be, and it was actualy disturbing how many skinheads and such were in vast support of hanging that kind of thing "with pride" outside your house (what was even more disturbing was that amazon started suggesting nazi crap to me after i looked that up in the "what you might like" section >.<). Do I think that Amazon should pull this item? No.
Yes this book is terrible, but its still just a book. It didnt jump off its shelf and beat kids, and while it may have given peopleideas to do terrible things, its still the people who did those things that hold responsibility.
Post by
Sweetscot
The foetus thing doesn't constitute an argument either - it looks scary, sure... but I don't think people would be happy if pro-choice campaigns showed harlequin foetus saying "this should not be allowed to live".
It's not so much a matter of what the shocking image is, it's that people are being allowed to use it in a way that endangers traffic. I would say that both sides of that debate have a right to protest, even to use graphic imagery to do so, but to use it in a way and a place that endangers those who see it is wrong to me.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
This is a good example of a debatable point. I think if a publication company wants to stay in business for longer than 5 minutes, they will fact check their books. This isn't a perfect process, but it is fairly good. We don't have books telling us to but an ammonia/bleach mixture in baby bottles to calm upset stomachs.
To be fair, it's a much closer leap to say "lets try to use all the parts of a plant we already eat" than to say lets feed children houshold cleaning products. We're forever watching them use flowers and unusual plant essences on cooking shows, and they keep coming up with new flavors and ingredients to grab a new market share- I know that I have seen aloe drinks in the store, and I also know that aloe is a strong laxative that is no longer used as such because of the chance of severe side effects. So, someone could easily say "if they put it in a drink, it must be safe to eat" and get themselves in trouble. And, with things like the Kindle, it's getting much easier to self-publish, on legitimate sights,without going through all of the hoops you would have to for a print book. They might be wary of a medical guide published this way, but a cookbook?
This is a pretty bad example. I don't think the joker should get in trouble. There was no way they could have predicted a shooting happening there. If I were to tell someone to meet me somewhere, but plan on standing them up, and they get in a car wreck on the way there, that car wreck is in no way my fault.
There, again, is a huge leap between standing someone up, and having them get in an accident, and telling an armed police officer that someone is armed and could be a threat. In the first instance, the end result of your "prank" isn't illegal- if it goes as planned, they waste some time, and are maybe embarassed. In the second instance, in the best possible secenario, you're still setting up your victim for an assault and false imprisonment, as the cop will physically grab the person, slap cuffs on them, and hold them until they know there isn't a threat. The first one is rude- the second is tricking the cop into being your agent in physically restraining and imprisoning the person. The second is already a crime- if you file a false report, or lie to a police officer, you will get charged- precisely because if a cop believes someone is dangerous, they may use force to neutralize the threat.
I think in both of your counter-examples, you are eliminating the burden of common sense, and ignoring that some things are much more likely and much more dangerous than others. If we gave human beings zero credit for having any capability for critical thinking, and zero credit for making decisions within any kind of context of common knowledge or common sense, then yes you are just as likely to feed a child bleach as a salad. If you really couldn't precieve that telling an armed policeman that someone is an immediate threat is more dangerous to that person than having them sit impatiently in the parking lot of the Cheesecake Factory, then they would be equally reprehensible.
The point I am making is that certain communications put people directly in danger, and serve no other purpose. And, while some claims are obviously ridiculous- like bleach in a baby bottle- because we understand the context which bleach is used in, and there are warnings all over the bottle, others would - to someone who had only a passing familiarity with the subject- seem reasonable enough that they wouldn't think to question it. It's not a far leap from salad greens to dandelion leaves to tomato leaves. It's considered a fairly low risk activity to drive across town- you could of course have an accident doing almost anything, but people drive all the time without incident. It is a much more risky activity to have a cop draw a gun on you, and be forced to the ground and handcuffed. Any average intelligent (or even not-so-intelligent) person would know that.
I understand the point you're trying to make, but I feel like the examples you're using aren't really relevant, because they're so far out of context of what the original examples were. I understand my examples weren't necessarily the same as the book in the original post, either- they were more looking for a response from people who thought there should never be a restriction on free speech, ever, under any circumstances.
I guess a third instance would be if a doctor, who is paid to give sound medical advice, decided to tell all of his patients that tomato leaves would prolong their lives if they ate them three times a day. Does he have the right to tell people that, under free speech? If people die, is he not liable? Should people be expected to go and look up every piece of advice a doctor gives them to see if he's right? Or does he have some responsibility to give correct information?
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
xaratherus
I guess a third instance would be if a doctor, who is paid to give sound medical advice, decided to tell all of his patients that tomato leaves would prolong their lives if they ate them three times a day. Does he have the right to tell people that, under free speech? If people die, is he not liable? Should people be expected to go and look up every piece of advice a doctor gives them to see if he's right? Or does he have some responsibility to give correct information?
There are specific laws that cover this, I believe. That's why commercials for "all-natural herbal supplements" state (in fine print, of course) that their claims have not been verified by the FDA, and why "natural" medications that propose to alleviate certain symptoms are required to include a caveat that "they are intended to replace prescribed treatments for X".
If they fail to do so then they can be held liable. As one of the more popular examples from the past several years see Enzyte (Smilin' Bob).
If they do include those, however, then it's questionable if they'd be culpable. They' might still get sued, but it would probably get settled out of court.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
mindthegap5
Simple answer is when it gets offensive.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
706709
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
OverZealous
If someone decides to perform an action instructed by someone else the guilt lies in the person who took the action.
You either have freedom of speech or you don't there cant be a line. Right off in this topic someone mentioned that freedom of speech should be limited to what doesnt hurt or offend anyone.
That opens the door for the govornment to censor EVERYTHING under a blanket cause that its offensive to someone somewhere.
I'm not defending the book or any other media that promotes ignorant thing, what should be said is my opinion is that you have Freedom of speech, and that there are sometimes consequences for it"
But I don't think anyone should ever be censored, because as soon as you draw that line, those who want to censor more than just stuff that should be, start using it as a grounds to silence people.
In that case, the government would already be censoring everything - I am sure you've heard of punishment being issued for "hate speech", yes? If I read your post correctly, anyway, it looks like you're saying that hate speech should be allowed because it might be "Free speech".
Post by
706709
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
"hate speech "is a blanket term, perfect example of how the line can be manipulated. Threats, intimidation, malevolent actions arent speech.= They are criminal actions and violate the right of another to live safely, and should be punished.
Again, law is all about interpretation. "If you come near my daughter again, I'll take you out". Would that constitute a death threat? Or constant verbal abuse based on race or sex that leads to a stress induced illness, one that takes a greater toll on the body than being slapped in the face. Should that be prosecuted? In both of those examples I can't give an honest answer, but I don't think it's clear cut anyway.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
xaratherus
"I'll take you out"? I'd consider that a death threat. I'd use my own judgement before contacting the police though.
NOM (National Organization
Against Homosexuals
for Marriage) recently put up a billboard on the way to Mark Grisanti (a conservative New York senator who helped to pass the marriage equality bill there a few months ago) that simply says, "Mark Grisanti, You're Next".
That, to me, is a threat. "You're next" has a common contextual meaning insinuating violence. "Mark Grisanti, Pack Your Things" would be acceptable if they wanted to indicate they were going to knock him out of office. Apparently they picked up some tricks from Sarah Palin and the whole "crosshairs on Gabrielle Giffords" fiasco.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.