Freedom of speech/ paedophilia

[Mysticrose_x3]

"I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."


The main issue: Should the freedom of speech be preserved even when the speech is about something as vile/disgusting/morally wrong as pedophilia?

The Details: I recently watched a movie and corresponding documentary about a series of convictions against parents claiming that they had sexually abused their children. The children where coerced and basically forced to say their parents had abused them- the interrogators would not accept "no" as an answer and would reward the children if they said "Yes," etc. I started looking up more information about that, and I found a manual detailing how to "practice child love"
This is a 170pg PDF file detailing how to find a child [family, friends, day cares, preschools, elementary schools, parks, etc] and then coerce them into sexual acts while minimizing the possibility of the child "telling"- that is, using coercive methods while making the child believe they are playing a secret game of which they are in charge.
The manual is VERY detailed, and overall- disgusting.

I tried to find some kind of online tip line where i could report the link to the manual and where i found it so that it could at the very least be removed, if not more- but I discovered that it is legal to posses and distribute this manual under freedom of speech, because although there are many pictures of preschool aged girls, they are non pornographic. There is however detailed depictions of a sexual act between a 5 year old girl and her stepfather.
~~
The "authors" of the book are listed as:
The Mule
Project leader and main writer
professional writer
Dr.X
Child psychologist
Dreamer
Child pedagogue and specialist in socialization
Daycare-Assistant
Experienced daycare worker with additional experience from
kindergartens, preschools, schools and babysitting
HuntingHighNLow
Extremely experienced child lover from out in the field
still not caught after decades of hunting
and dozens of little kiddie lovers and kiddie orgasms


~~
So my question to you- do you think that this type of material should remain legalized, or should there be restrictions on freedom of speech?

[unalisaa]

We had a discussion about this very recently, which you may find interesting. I shall sum up my main point of view, though: Yes, publishing this should be legal. Restricting freedom of speech means abolishing freedom of speech. There is no partial freedom of speech: making it partial stops it from being free.
I am disgusted by paedophilia. I'm disgusted that anyone would coerce anyone, especially children, into anything.

[Mysticrose_x3]

I'm kind of on the fence.
I do believe in freedom of speech, but this kind of manual allows pedophiles to abuse children- it will inevitably lead to god knows how many children being abused and scarred for the rest of their lives.

If this was more about a pedophiles arguging that sexual contact with kids is okay- and doesn't harm them- i would deeply disaree, but they still have the right to voice that opinion- no matter how wrong it is. But to give a guide on how to sexually abuse children...

I think a good middle ground is that freedom of speech should be allowed unless it is encouraging or instructing others on how to harm others.
So, articles defending say- lynching, child abuse, animal abuse, racial hatred, and any other distasteful thing you can think of is legal,
but instructions on how to practice these things without getting caught shouldn't be. =/ I'm on the fence.

[unalisaa]

See, I disagree with that. I don't think manuals make innocent people commit crimes. I think criminal people will find information, no matter whether it's legal or not. And I have a moral problem with restricting information on how to do illegal things, for what if something is morally right is suddenly made illegal? It simply gives the government too much power over moral judgement.

[Mysticrose_x3]

I agree that it won't make an innocent person commit a crime; for example, I saw it and I was appalled- I didn't go out and sexually assault a child. However, with pedophilia in particular, there are people out there who have a natural inclination to be sexually attracted to kids, and a manual like this will arm them with information they need to satisfy their desires without getting caught

Still, you're right that government shouldn't have power over what is morally correct, with so many different cultures and lifestyles, morality shouldn't be decided by government.

But by allowing this kind of material to be distributed- there are children out there who have been abused, who could have been spared had this sort of material not existed.

I'm in college right now, I work in a preschool in a few years I'll be an elementary school teacher. I imagine the kids in my preschool, the loving trusting kids, and how this manual encourages people to get jobs at schools in order to gain access to them. It's an unfortunate truth that it is incredibly easy to sexually abuse children in this kind of setting. Where I work, there are certain safeguards in place- when taking children to the bathroom, you have to wait by the open door in clear sight- that kind of thing, but kids are so trusting and innocent that they'll think nothing of stripping down in front of you or asking for your help with their undergarments. This manual encourages people to seek out employment in preschools for the sole purpose of taking advantage of this kind of innocence and vulnerability.

Where a random person might try to just "go for the kill" and sexually abuse a child, and then get caught because the child immediately tells someone, this guide informs that person of techniques they can use to manipulate the child into staying quiet and believing that they where in charge of - and the cause of the abuse. So no, it doesn't turn innocent people into criminals, but it enables the criminally inclined to become skilled criminals.

Maybe there needs to be a separation between freedom of speech- that is, expressing your opinion, versus actually giving instructions on how to do something that is against the law.

Sorry for the random disjointed thoughts, it's too late (or early, by now!) for such serious thought xP

[TUN3R]

Everybody should have the right to defend themselves, ESPECIALLY, since kids are kids, and kids lie. And of course the parents will always defend their kids...

Even if the parents are the accused, freedom of speech should not be taken away from them.

[Oaktree]

Where a random person might try to just "go for the kill" and sexually abuse a child, and then get caught because the child immediately tells someone, this guide informs that person of techniques they can use to manipulate the child into staying quiet and believing that they where in charge of - and the cause of the abuse. So no, it doesn't turn innocent people into criminals, but it enables the criminally inclined to become skilled criminals.


If a person is inclined to "go for the kill", would they search for books such as the one you mention? Those who will go about it recklessly will do so, and those who will take more precautions will do so. Even if material on how to get away with child molestation were illegal, it would still be out there.

And, as unalisaa has said, restricting speech destroys the notion of free speech. There is no nebulous in-between state when it comes to freedom. There is free or not free. I think that it is best for speech to be free. I also agree with her on the matter of the government potentially making something illegal that really shouldn't be. The government isn't the be-all end-all moral adjudicator. The government can make mistakes and admit corruption. It can't be trusted to always be right.

[Mistermook]

Nothing can be trusted to always be right. Put people in the equation anywhere and there will be errors and interpretations.

[missroxor]

Is this the one that was for sale on Amazon? Didn't they end up arresting the people who bought it or something?

I agree with freedom of speech in principle. I think if this book was a study of the psyche of a pedophile aimed at educating non-pedophiles so they might learn something that could protect children from pedophiles or even aimed at pedophiles themselves to help them come to terms with their illness then I'd have no problem with it. The fact that (from your description) it sounds like a book that teaches people how to commit sex crimes against innocent kids is horrific. To me it seems almost like owning a copy of this is intent....though I suppose there's a lot of people out their with a morbid sense of curiosity. As others have said, reading or owning the manual won't make people commit crimes but I think a large proportion of the people who would buy it have probably already had thoughts of that nature and a manual like that could potentially give them the confidence or know-how to actually act on their perverted thoughts. It sounds dangerous.

I don't agree with living in a dictatorship obviously but I guess if it was put to the general public to vote yes or no I'd vote yes, make this illegal! Trully determined pedos will still find a way or manage without the manual, afterall pedophilia is nothing new, but I think if this book being illegal prevents just one potential pedophile from being encouraged to harm a child then I think it will have been worth it. Like I said, I agree with freedom of speech in principle but I guess I have some issues with freedom of speech that incites horrific abuse of innocent young kids.....yes, I am aware of the contradiction there :/

I'd be curious to know if there's any difference of opinion with those who have children....okay, now I kinda feel like Brian in that episode of Family guy, "until you have kids you don't know!!!" :lol:

[Mistermook]

I have a daughter, though she's an adult now, and I don't think they should censor the book. I'd reserve the right to not associate with someone with the book, but then I reserve the right to not associate with people who have too many Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin books littering their coffee tables too. I feel the same way about all sorts of things. I don't agree with them, sometimes because I've read them thoroughly and exposed myself to the idea, but you can't criminalize an idea and you can't lock it away with the book just because the book is written on paper and that burns easily.

Just because you're wrong, or even evil, about something doesn't mean you've done anything criminal. It can be evidence supporting your criminality once you've done the crime, but just because I know several different ways of killing someone doesn't mean I'm a murderer and just because someone's got (or even wrote) a book about diddling kids doesn't mean they're a child molester. Hell, if the thought itself is dangerous, so vile that it Must Be Contained, then I don't see how you police it: To carry that thought on through you're arresting the cops for doing due diligence investigating the crime. "They saw the book! Unclean!"

[Tempscire]

There is no partial freedom of speech: making it partial stops it from being free.
And, as unalisaa has said, restricting speech destroys the notion of free speech. There is no nebulous in-between state when it comes to freedom. There is free or not free.
In that case, we already do not have freedom of speech at all; therefore, what's a few restrictions? See the classic example of yelling "fire!" in a movie theater as unprotected speech. Similarly:
Maybe there needs to be a separation between freedom of speech- that is, expressing your opinion, versus actually giving instructions on how to do something that is against the law.
We already have laws like this, as well. It's a violation of the DMCA to explain how to violate a copyright protection mechanism.

[unalisaa]

See the classic example of yelling "fire!" in a movie theater as unprotected speech.
I have never heard of this before. Would you care to elaborate? Is it illegal to yell "Fire!" even if a fire is, in fact, occurring? Where does this law apply?

Maybe there needs to be a separation between freedom of speech- that is, expressing your opinion, versus actually giving instructions on how to do something that is against the law.
What if one was to print instructions in order to satirically express one's opinion? How would this be differentiated from actual instructions, law-wise?
Does "Go play on the highway" count as an instruction for something illegal?

[Tempscire]

I have never heard of this before. Would you care to elaborate? Is it illegal to yell "Fire!" even if a fire is, in fact, occurring? Where does this law apply?

Sorry, the "falsely" is kind of implied in that statement (the original quote from which it is taken does include that modifier, but it's usually dropped when repeated): if there's actually a fire, then yes, feel free to shout it. If there's not, and you needlessly cause a panic (with its ensuing possible people injured, lost revenue for theater, probable wasted time of fire department), then you cannot protect yourself against charges for this sort of 'prank' with claims of 'free speech.' It even has its own page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater) on Wikipedia. It's not a law in and of itself, but an interpretation of first amendment rights and the limits thereof, and it is the classic, nigh-archetypal example for those limits.

It's derived from Schenck v. United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States), which established the "clear and present danger" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger) test. Brandenburg v. Ohio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio) updated/overturned it with the "imminent lawless action" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action) test. (This begins to address your second question.)

Something else I just recalled but hadn't previously mentioned are laws against libel and slander, which ostensibly curtail free speech where it wrongly has a deleterious effect.

[Mysticrose_x3]

The amazon book you're talking about is not what I'm referring to, the amazon book was actually more of something that I would say should be legal- disgusting, but legal. The amazon book was more of a "there's nothing wrong with having sexual relationships with kids" which although it is gross, it should be legal.
The manual I'm referring to, is a step by step guide on how to rape a child. For those with a morbid curiosity, I'll go into detail.



.....................Skip if you're not interested.....................

The text first describes the philosophy behind "child love" and claims that it, in itself, does not harm children- what harms some children is society's negative view on "childlove" not the act itself, and as long as the act is not forceful, the child will not be harmed by it. Then it goes into details on various methods of finding a child, and then it goes into the steps- step one, ask the child if they want to play a game. Explain that the game is a secret game that a chlid and an adult can share where the child is in charge, and the point is to touch each other and feel good. Once the child agrees, the molester will tickle and suck the child's feet, then end the game, thus making the child laugh, be silly, and comfortable with the game. The next time they "play" the molester will tickle, suck, etc, the child's hands and arms, and if the child is comfortable, ask the child to remove their shirt and go for the chest/stomach. I'm sure you can figure out what the next few steps are, the final steps include the child preforming/receiving oral sex it stops short of actual sexual intercourse, although it describes genital to genital contact.
All throughout the manual tells the reader what to say, how to explain things to the child, and even gives an example scenario of how each step should play out.
.....................................................................................
Details over.



I just can't justify this, even under freedom of speech. We should be allowed to express ourselves, give our opinions, and fight for what we believe in- but to give step by step instructions on how to harm others- particularly young, vulnerable children?

A sex offender is a sex offender, but this manual gives tips, tricks, and techniques to aid the sex offender in staying undercover- how not to get caught, etc. Freedom of speech isn't justifiable when it causes this kind of damage.

I also don't believe freedom is an all or none deal, because if it is- none of us are free. My high school history teacher explained it well: as a society, we all agree to give up a small bit of freedom in exchange for safety. Because any form of government/society limits our freedom. If we had total and complete freedom, we could do as we please- steal, rape, and kill as we please- because we are totally free. However, the freedom to do those things are taken. So none of us have the freedom to do as we please, we cannot kill the guy next door because he plays his music too loud, and in exchange for that lack of freedom, we are protected from the guy across the street killing us because our dog pooped on their lawn.

We aren't free to do some things, but we are free to do others. To give a less dramatic example- we cannot build an addition to our home without the proper permants. It is our property, yet our freedom to build on said property is taken by the government. However, in exchange for having to ask the government for permission, we are assured that other buildings as well as our own are sound and safe to use.

The same should apply to freedom of speech.
Ideally, we are NOT free to give instruction on how to rape young children, but we ARE free to give our opinion on said subject-
so, it is illegal to say "How to rape kids- step one- xyz. step two- xyz" but it is legal to say "Actually, there is nothing wrong with sexual relationships between children and adults."

or at least, that's how I feel things should be.

[Oaktree]

@Mysticrose_x3: The "freedoms" taken away by governments are those that cause direct harm to others (I put "freedoms" in quotation marks because I don't think we have the right to harm others, so I don't think of it as a freedom, but that's beside the point). Publishing a book about how to molest children does not molest children. Child molesters molest children. It's like the adage "guns don't kill people - people do". Information is not inherently harmful. We don't live in the world of H. P. Lovecraft where knowledge corrupts and drives people to do terrible things. We live in a world where people can choose to act on knowledge or not, where they can entertain a thought without accepting it. Information is not inherently harmful, so people should not be punished for sharing it. If the type of information leads to suspicions of having committed a crime, fine, pursue any evidence you can find in such a case (but keep in mind that the information expressed is circumstantial evidence).

Unfortunately (but really fortunately), we live in a world where there has to be a victim before a criminal can be punished. That means that children will be hurt, people will be victims of theft, rape, murder, etc., but it also means that innocents can't be persecuted for the thoughts in their heads. I don't want to see children get hurt, but it's not right for the government to pursue charges on a victimless crime.

[Robodl95]

Well this is interesting. I think that because it's instructing doing something illegal then it should not be allowed. Would you be allowed to publish a book detailing how to hack a website or a book on how to rob a home? Probably not, my understanding is that freedom of speech is under following all the laws? Like you're allowed to make movies BUT if that movie is child pornography it's illegal? Same concept?

[TRIriana]

@Mysticrose_x3: The "freedoms" taken away by governments are those that cause direct harm to others (I put "freedoms" in quotation marks because I don't think we have the right to harm others, so I don't think of it as a freedom, but that's beside the point). Publishing a book about how to molest children does not molest children. Child molesters molest children. It's like the adage "guns don't kill people - people do". Information is not inherently harmful. .

I would disagree with that, and it's possibly a cultural gap between our way of thinking as we don't have freedom of speech in the American sense, in the UK. The difference between the old gun adage and the book in question is that guns have a use other than murdering people. They're used for hunting animals or sports, for example. A book about how to molest children will only be an interest to child molesters. It doesn't even have the defence of being a work of fiction exploring human nature, like Nabakov's Lolita. From what has been said it's more like a step-by-step on how to literally molest a child.

[Mistermook]

Would you be allowed to publish a book detailing how to hack a website or a book on how to rob a home?
In the US you'd certainly be allowed to publish such books as long as they didn't cover some fairly explicit legal boundaries that have little to do with censorship.

For instance, I can write a self-defense book and in that self-defense book I talk about the soft spots on a person one hits hard and kills another person with striking. If someone reads my book of instructions and they kill someone then I've not conspired to help them kill the person.

If I include specifics in that same book about killing black people with my instruction manual for murder? Then I might be guilty of conspiracy for hate crime statutes in some US jurisdictions I think, but I'm not entirely clear on that (and I bet a lot of DA's aren't either.)

If I tell you to kill someone in my book, and you do it, then I'm perhaps conspiring with you to commit a crime.

If it's fairly clear that I'm joking, or that my purpose is clearly as a work of fiction though, it's legal, no matter how many times a character in my book says "Kill the Jews," or "Joe Smith has to die."

If my book has detailed technical references to someone's proprietary alarm system in it, as an aid to its instructions on how to kill someone? Then it possibly violates someone's intellectual property. It's not criminal for doing so, but when they sue me I better have deep pockets. If there's computer code in there? It probably violates the DMCA.

There are certainly instances in the US where freedom of speech prior restraint has been suggested and even performed as a remedy for contentious issues, but except for during wartime when revealing national security interests endangers lives we've had a fairly dim view on such things. And yes, I can see how someone might suggest that showing how to do something so despicable as molest a child could be dangerous, but on the other hand I know that if it were presented differently, as "How the common house cat molests your kids, by Whiskers" and had cute pictures in it, the book would almost certainly be protected by satire rules. Detailed troop movement reports and the names of spies in foreign countries would never be protected in that way, so it's a different animal.

Like you're allowed to make movies BUT if that movie is child pornography it's illegal?
Except what you're suggesting isn't criminal in and of itself, the real analog would be if you were suggesting criminalizing and censoring a book that might teach child pornographers how to make child pornography, but does not explicitly tell them to do so. By which token you might squash half of the books on making movies out there, since no doubt some child pornographers have referenced them and therefore have explicitly received instruction from those texts on performing a criminal act.

A book about how to molest children will only be an interest to child molesters.
Except for child psychologists, or police officers profiling child molesters, or judges who might oversee child molestation cases, or social workers, or parents, or people who think a child is being molested. Except for all those people I guess a book on child molestation without any otherwise criminal content is solely of interest to criminals.

How is anyone supposed to know about child molestation if no one's allowed to read a book on child molesters? What other crimes should we also proscribe any reference to in our libraries? Disallow the instruction of? Should we ban Agatha Christie books because she sets out instructions for how to commit murders? Accounting books, because they give references for tax evasion? Huckleberry Finn (since it's been in the news recently) because it's instructional on how to use offensive language?

...as always, IANAL and any lawyer around will probably tell you that the law isn't quite that simple once people's panties are ruffled anyways.

[TRIriana]

In the US you'd certainly be allowed to publish such books as long as they didn't cover some fairly explicit legal boundaries that have little to do with censorship.

For instance, I can write a self-defense book and in that self-defense book I talk about the soft spots on a person one hits hard and kills another person with striking. If someone reads my book of instructions and they kill someone then I've not conspired to help them kill the person.

If I include specifics in that same book about killing black people with my instruction manual for murder? Then I might be guilty of conspiracy for hate crime statutes in some US jurisdictions I think, but I'm not entirely clear on that (and I bet a lot of DA's aren't either.)

If I tell you to kill someone in my book, and you do it, then I'm perhaps conspiring with you to commit a crime.

If it's fairly clear that I'm joking, or that my purpose is clearly as a work of fiction though, it's legal, no matter how many times a character in my book says "Kill the Jews," or "Joe Smith has to die."

If my book has detailed technical references to someone's proprietary alarm system in it, as an aid to its instructions on how to kill someone? Then it possibly violates someone's intellectual property. It's not criminal for doing so, but when they sue me I better have deep pockets. If there's computer code in there? It probably violates the DMCA.

There are certainly instances in the US where freedom of speech prior restraint has been suggested and even performed as a remedy for contentious issues, but except for during wartime when revealing national security interests endangers lives we've had a fairly dim view on such things. And yes, I can see how someone might suggest that showing how to do something so despicable as molest a child could be dangerous, but on the other hand I know that if it were presented differently, as "How the common house cat molests your kids, by Whiskers" and had cute pictures in it, the book would almost certainly be protected by satire rules. Detailed troop movement reports and the names of spies in foreign countries would never be protected in that way, so it's a different animal.


Except what you're suggesting isn't criminal in and of itself, the real analog would be if you were suggesting criminalizing and censoring a book that might teach child pornographers how to make child pornography, but does not explicitly tell them to do so. By which token you might squash half of the books on making movies out there, since no doubt some child pornographers have referenced them and therefore have explicitly received instruction from those texts on performing a criminal act.


Except for child psychologists, or police officers profiling child molesters, or judges who might oversee child molestation cases, or social workers, or parents, or people who think a child is being molested. Except for all those people I guess a book on child molestation without any otherwise criminal content is solely of interest to criminals.

How is anyone supposed to know about child molestation if no one's allowed to read a book on child molesters? What other crimes should we also proscribe any reference to in our libraries? Disallow the instruction of? Should we ban Agatha Christie books because she sets out instructions for how to commit murders? Accounting books, because they give references for tax evasion? Huckleberry Finn (since it's been in the news recently) because it's instructional on how to use offensive language?

...as always, IANAL and any lawyer around will probably tell you that the law isn't quite that simple once people's panties are ruffled anyways.

Perhaps you're misinterpreting my post to cover far too broad an area. I don't believe that information into the minds of Paedophiles should be banned. There is a difference between a Psychologists study on X and a step-by-step instruction guide on how to do X. For that matter I don't think the public should have step-by-step instructions on "How to Hack the Pentagon", for example. That doesn't mean no one in the world should have that information- in order to counteract it, I imagine the Pentagon's security services would have that manual.

If you re-check the post above, you'll notice I provide an example of where writing about Paedophilic acts would not be banned.

[Mistermook]

There is a difference between a Psychologists study on X and a step-by-step instruction guide on how to do X. For that matter I don't think the public should have step-by-step instructions on "How to Hack the Pentagon", for example. That doesn't mean no one in the world should have that information- in order to counteract it, I imagine the Pentagon's security services would have that manual.
Perhaps you'd like to detail for me a cookbook that tells describes the food and the way something is cooked, and yet does not teach you the recipe? In any essential way as to construe differences, a book describing sexual predators techniques for grooming small children as a clinical detail, a work of fiction describing the techniques for molesting children in the context of fairies and goblins, and a book entitled "How people could molest children" containing relevant data on the topic all contain the same essential information that's being described as criminal. Certainly someone could write such a book and invite investigation into their lives for criminal activity on the subject, but there is no crime in the publication of such a work.

Hacking the Pentagon is a separate free speech issue, as it's covered by national security exceptions. Hacking your Iphone books, on the other hand, exist and legal, even though they describe criminally proscribed activities.

[Mysticrose_x3]

A cookbook is a completely different thing- the point of a cookbook is to teach you how to cook- not to teach you the psychology behind cooking.There can quite easily be a book that says "pedos believe that sexual relationships between children and adults are not harmful to the child. They do xyz..." versus, "sexual realtionships between an adult and a child is not at all harmful, there's nothing wrong with it, so this is how to do it"
yes, a lot of the information is similar, but it is in a different context. Encouragement and instruction of an act vs. understanding of what causes such act.
Also, it should be clear that this book is in NO WAY fiction. It does not state anywhere that it is fictitious, and it even states that the co-authors are directly involved with molesting children.

Hacking your iphone book isn't going to HURT anyone, it's a victimless crime- sure it might hurt apple's pocket, but it isn't physically or emotionally really hurting anyone. Hacking the pentagon could hurt/kill millions which is why it's protected. It is a national safety issue. Molesting a child manual could potentially hurt hundreds, or more, of children. It is a children's safety issue, and it's not protected, but it should be.

You're right about it having other uses though. I, as a current preschool worker, future teacher, and hopefully future parent learned a lot of things that could help me protect children in the future. For example - a guy walking his dog down the street would have seemed harmless to me before, while a guy walking alone down the street, could be potentially suspicious if he doesn't live in the area/doesnt seem to be just passing through. If I'm at the park and I see a child approaching an strange adult with a dog as they chat, I'd smile and say "cute" however if I saw a child approaching a strange adult who is alone, chatting with a random child, I might keep an eye out. The book explicitly talks about getting a dog is a child magnet and gives you a good excuse to hang around parks/neighborhoods. So yes, it did educate a non child molester on how to protect children, but that same information could be delivered in a completely different, safer way. "Pedos might use a dog as an excuse" versus "you should get a dog because it's a great excuse!"

[Mistermook]

A cookbook is a completely different thing- the point of a cookbook is to teach you how to cook- not to teach you the psychology behind cooking.
So now you're proscribing what a cookbook shall and shall not be? If it discusses the psychology behind cooking then what sort of book is it? If the cookbook has no psychology in it, but instead has legal but provocative pictures of children inside it handling the food, is it no longer a cookbook but instead a criminal act of publishing? What about the Bible? The Bible describes acts of incest, slavery, murder, and rape, when did it stop being a religious book and start becoming an instruction manual for teaching bronze age goat herders on "how to commit 'sin' most efficiently"? It even gives an instructive list for how to sin in the way most confrontational to God.

No.

You don't get to say what a book should or should not be, what goes in it or how people use it. You can call one book and instruction manual and the other a psychological text, but in the end what you're declaring is how people should or should not read this book. That's impossible to police. It's thought crime.

There can quite easily be a book that says "pedos believe that sexual relationships between children and adults are not harmful to the child. They do xyz..." versus, "sexual realtionships between an adult and a child is not at all harmful, there's nothing wrong with it, so this is how to do it"
There's plenty of books out there that say all sorts of criminal behaviors are right, books on how to get out speeding tickets and how to illegally create moonshine. Unless there's a specific provision of law that I'm unaware of (and which I'll gladly take into consideration if presented with such) in the US there's no such division of "crimes which one can discuss in books" and "crimes which are so vile they cannot be written about."

I'll agree that there's substantial difference in the public perceptions of the differences in the books we're both describing, I'm just saying that legally there is no difference whatsoever.

Encouragement and instruction of an act vs. understanding of what causes such act.
Encouragement to Commit a Crime isn't a crime though. Conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime. In any case, there still has to be an actual crime that's happening or has happened for Conspiracy to occur, and as far as I know there's a drastic difference between me telling Joe to go kick someone and him doing it, and me writing a book and never meeting Joe, and from my instructions on how to kick someone Joe going on and committing Assault & Battery.

Also, it should be clear that this book is in NO WAY fiction. It does not state anywhere that it is fictitious, and it even states that the co-authors are directly involved with molesting children.
Just so we're clear then: This book makes people child molesters, and you've read it? And you deal with children as part of your professional life? How many of them have you molested now that you've read the book, or how many do you plan to molest since reading it?

Hacking your iphone book isn't going to HURT anyone, it's a victimless crime- sure it might hurt apple's pocket, but it isn't physically or emotionally really hurting anyone.
So writing this book molests children? It causes physical harm? The book? What statute is "emotional hurt that occurs by something existing" under? I mean, since you've read the book and you're suggesting that it causes people to become child molesters, once you've molested some children I'm all for you suing the authors and publishers for forcing you to become a baby diddler, but until you actually do molest children per the instructions within the book all I can say is good luck with proving that it's caused you harm by making you only want to assault kids.

Hacking the pentagon could hurt/kill millions which is why it's protected. It is a national safety issue. Molesting a child manual could potentially hurt hundreds, or more, of children. It is a children's safety issue, and it's not protected, but it should be.

As long as you realize there's no legal grounds to stand on, I'm all for declaring that the book is probably Not Good. Now go get some counseling before you molest kids from reading this book, unless you plan on taking one for the team to get that lawsuit on track.

;) (I'm not trying to hurt anyone's feelings btw, or actually endorse the book. It's probably trash, but people have the right to write, and read, trash. It can't be worse than Ann Coulter's books.)

[SuicidiaParasidia]

@Mysticrose_x3: The "freedoms" taken away by governments are those that cause direct harm to others (I put "freedoms" in quotation marks because I don't think we have the right to harm others, so I don't think of it as a freedom, but that's beside the point). Publishing a book about how to molest children does not molest children. Child molesters molest children. It's like the adage "guns don't kill people - people do".

i think the gun helps.
in fact, i think the gun makes it infinitely easier to kill someone than say, stabbing them, or running them over with a car.

just as i think that while pedo pamphlets dont get up and molest children, they do make it easier for sick freaks to avoid being caught in their wrongdoings. they may have run out and done it, anyway, regardless of the pamphlet, but im going to stick with the thought that theyre much less likely to be discovered and punished when they know how to avoid being obvious to others.

[Tempscire]

I think we should let the law of supply and demand take care of this issue.
Yeah, because economic forces have historically been a great regulator of ethical and moral issues.

If there is low demand ... then the books are going to fail and lose money in the marketplace and other publishers are not as likely going to publish more work from an unsuccessful author than from a successful author.
Except when they're self-published and there's almost no money invested in the material. Or the material is published online (also very cheap). If someone really just wanted to get the material out there and didn't care about personally profiting off it financially, economic forces are useless.

[CmarNYC]

Interesting discussion.

I'm conflicted - my head says "Protect freedom of speech" and my gut says "Forget that and protect the children". I don't think there's any absolute black-and-white answer. A few comments on some of the issues raised here:

In my opinion publishing a textbook on how to molest children is very close to being in the shouting "Fire" in a theatre category. It's clearly encouraging and enabling illegal and harmful acts. The INTENT is clearly to encourage and enable illegal and harmful acts. Taking the cookbook argument - the intent of a legitimate cookbook is to share recipes. The intent of a cookbook entitled "How to Poison Your Spouse and Get Away With It" would be to enable murder. They're both cookbooks, they both have recipes, but there's a big difference. As another analogy, compare a comprehensive book on IT security with information on common vulnerabilities and how to correct them vs a hacker website complete with a list of those same vulnerabilities with tools to exploit them. A lot of the content may be the same, but the instructions, the tools, the use to which that information is intended and expected to be put is very different.

Whether it should be illegal - as I said, personally I'm conflicted but I come down mostly on the side that if the intent is to do harm it should be illegal. I think if someone reads that pedophile's manual and goes out and molests a child using the information from it, the writers of the manual take some moral responsibility for the crime.

Which brings up the "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument. That's true, but guns make it a hell of a lot easier for people to kill people, and in many many many situations having a gun in the picture is the difference between someone ending up alive or dead. I'm not saying guns are evil or anything like that, just be realistic about what they are - they make killing quick and easy. The pedophile's manual isn't the same thing but there are parallels - it could make the difference between a child molester being successful and getting away with it or getting caught.

Freedom of Speech isn't and has never been absolute. All kinds of speech is illegal: If it creates a clear and present danger, if it's slanderous or libellous, if it incites illegal actions, in some cases if it's obscene, and if it's false advertising or advertising certain products (think the ban on TV cigarette ads and the restrictions on alcohol ads). I think you could pretty easily argue that a manual that both encourages child molestation and describes how to do it is inciting illegal and dangerous actions.

[Oaktree]

In my opinion publishing a textbook on how to molest children is very close to being in the shouting "Fire" in a theatre category. It's clearly encouraging and enabling illegal and harmful acts. The INTENT is clearly to encourage and enable illegal and harmful acts.

The case that mentioned shouting "fire" in a crowded theater specifically referred to a "clear and present danger" and was later reassessed to be restricted to those things that would cause imminent harm. Publishing a how-to guide on child molestation, while maybe useful to those who plan to molest children, does not provide an immediate threat.

I think if someone reads that pedophile's manual and goes out and molests a child using the information from it, the writers of the manual take some moral responsibility for the crime.

I disagree. I think that the individual who made the choice to commit the crime is responsible for his/her actions. The publisher of the book does not force the child molester to molest children, but simply provides information that one inclined to commit the crime might use. I don't think that the type of person who would publish such a book is a morally upstanding individual, but that person has no hand in the crime itself.

Which brings up the "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument. That's true, but guns make it a hell of a lot easier for people to kill people, and in many many many situations having a gun in the picture is the difference between someone ending up alive or dead. I'm not saying guns are evil or anything like that, just be realistic about what they are - they make killing quick and easy. The pedophile's manual isn't the same thing but there are parallels - it could make the difference between a child molester being successful and getting away with it or getting caught.

Guns may make it easier to kill, but they are not the responsible party in the death. Further, there are "good" uses for guns, such as in stopping dangerous criminals who are an imminent threat to the safety of another. Also, the fact that guns are only dangerous in the wrong hands and that that person is responsible for any harm he/she causes means to me that guns should not be heavily restricted. It isn't right to take away freedoms from everyone when a minority do wrong.

To apply this to the case being discussed in this thread, a book on child molestation could be used to assess the psychology and methodology of child molestation, allowing a greater likelihood of catching such a criminal. To apply it more broadly, to free speech as a whole, it is better to have free speech for all the good it can do and because it is only right to allow people certain freedoms than it is to arbitrarily restrict speech because it may increase the danger of a particular situation (though I don't believe it is ever the immediate cause of the danger in the first place).

Freedom of Speech isn't and has never been absolute. All kinds of speech is illegal: If it creates a clear and present danger, if it's slanderous or libellous, if it incites illegal actions, in some cases if it's obscene, and if it's false advertising or advertising certain products (think the ban on TV cigarette ads and the restrictions on alcohol ads). I think you could pretty easily argue that a manual that both encourages child molestation and describes how to do it is inciting illegal and dangerous actions.

Some of the cases you list, I think are unconstitutional restrictions on speech. First, define "inciting illegal actions". If you are referring to something similar to the topic of the thread, as I have said, I think the individual who commits the crime is the one responsible. I think obscenity is the most clearly unconstitutional restriction on speech. Obscenity is not harmful; it may be offensive to some, but no one has the right to not be offended. I think it is unconstitutional to ban the advertisement of certain products. The government should not be hobbling the sales of a product unless that product is illegal. Cigarettes are not illegal, so cigarette companies should have the same right to advertisement that any other company has. I don't like the idea of cigarettes being marketed to children, but children can't buy them, so a) only a parent or other close adult could make the decision to allow the child to smoke, which I think, in most cases, would not happen and b) it isn't profitable for cigarette companies to aim big advertising dollars at a demographic unable to buy their products.

[Robodl95]

Some of the cases you list, I think are unconstitutional restrictions on speech. First, define "inciting illegal actions". If you are referring to something similar to the topic of the thread, as I have said, I think the individual who commits the crime is the one responsible. I think obscenity is the most clearly unconstitutional restriction on speech. Obscenity is not harmful; it may be offensive to some, but no one has the right to not be offended. I think it is unconstitutional to ban the advertisement of certain products. The government should not be hobbling the sales of a product unless that product is illegal. Cigarettes are not illegal, so cigarette companies should have the same right to advertisement that any other company has. I don't like the idea of cigarettes being marketed to children, but children can't buy them, so a) only a parent or other close adult could make the decision to allow the child to smoke, which I think, in most cases, would not happen and b) it isn't profitable for cigarette companies to aim big advertising dollars at a demographic unable to buy their products.

I'm not quite sure where you got the idea that obscene language is restricted? Mostly on television it comes down to the age of viewers. I don't think there is a specific law that says you can't say certain words on TV but I may be wrong, mostly it's due to ratings (and the fact that certain ratings can't be shown on public television), it's also due to viewer ratings, their show's popularity will probably suffer if it becomes a pot of foul language.

If you go off and start dropping the F-bomb at McDonalds or somewhere repeatedly then I do think you should be arrested (if someone complains).

Obscenity is not harmful; it may be offensive to some, but no one has the right to not be offended.
What about racial/homophobic slurs? They're swearwords and also considered some sort of hate-crime. If people are offended by something then they have the right to complain/sue/whatever.

[Oaktree]

I'm not quite sure where you got the idea that obscene language is restricted? Mostly on television it comes down to the age of viewers. I don't think there is a specific law that says you can't say certain words on TV but I may be wrong, mostly it's due to ratings (and the fact that certain ratings can't be shown on public television), it's also due to viewer ratings, their show's popularity will probably suffer if it becomes a pot of foul language.

I didn't say anything about tv. Restriction on obscenity was (and, I believe, still is in some places) used to ban things like pornography. I don't think there's anything wrong with porn. I don't use it, but I don't think that anyone who wants to should be restricted from it. The government too often thinks that it's the moral guardian. While he ruled against the movie in question being obscenity, Justice Potter Stewart used the phrase "I know it when I see it" as the test for pornography in Jacobellis vs. Ohio. If obscenity is to be tested by such a lax rule, how can it be fairly judged?

Further, if a tv station wanted to show a television show that had cursing in it, why should they be penalized for it? The FCC will give out fines for "indecent or profane" (http://www.fcc.gov/eb/oip/) programming during certain times of day, simply because children may be around. If you as a parent don't want your children hearing cursing on tv, you can find a station that is aimed at kids and have your kids watch that, but adults with a higher tolerance of profanity should be able to be catered to by local channels, as well. And what's so bad about kids hearing curse words, anyway? My dad cursed like a sailor when I was a kid, but I almost never curse now and never did as a kid. Children aren't corrupted by hearing words that are arbitrarily considered dirty.

If you go off and start dropping the F-bomb at McDonalds or somewhere repeatedly then I do think you should be arrested (if someone complains).

Are you serious? Maybe in a threatening context that person should be arrested, but if he/she is just being loose of tongue with some friends, it's ridiculous to arrest that person. If the business owner asks you to stop and you don't, the business owner should certainly have the right to ask you to leave the property, but if someone else on the premises is so offended by a bit of cursing, that's his/her problem and he/she should leave if it is intolerable.

What about racial/homophobic slurs? They're swearwords and also considered some sort of hate-crime. If people are offended by something then they have the right to complain/sue/whatever.

If you're threatening someone, that is a specific action that is illegal. If you just throw a racial slur at someone with no threat attached, you're a jerk, but you shouldn't be sued for it. Racial slurs aren't pleasant, but you aren't truly hurting someone when you use them. That person may feel sensitive about it, but bringing a lawsuit is way off the deep end of overly-sensitive. I don't think that our society should cater to people who are so thin-skinned they can't make it through the day without finding something to be offended by. Anything can be taken as offensive if you dig for enough made-up justification. People have the right to complain, as part of the right to free speech, but that doesn't mean that they have the right to restrict the speech of others.

[Nekowolf]

As far as I am aware, there are no laws regarding obscenity on television. Rather, it is regulated by the FCC who may have policies, but not actual laws. Radio may be a bit different as all radio (aside from the expensive radio you have to pay every month for) is publicly owned.

[Oaktree]

As far as I am aware, there are no laws regarding obscenity on television. Rather, it is regulated by the FCC who may have policies, but not actual laws. Radio may be a bit different as all radio (aside from the expensive radio you have to pay every month for) is publicly owned.

Policies are enforced just as much as laws are. Frankly, I think policy-making organizations are unconstitutional because they are essentially making laws by another name and their officials aren't elected.

[Nekowolf]

Policies and laws are still different and must not be confused with one another.

[Oaktree]

Policies and laws are still different and must not be confused with one another.

Explain the difference as you see it and why you think that there should be bodies that are capable of doling out punishment without legislative backing.

[Nekowolf]

Laws are made by government officials in a legislative process. Policies are made by either a single person or a board of some form of organization or company. Policies are enforced by and within the organization as opposed to laws which are usually enforced by professionals trained to enforce those laws, e.g. state and local police departments or the FBI. Laws and policies are different on technicality, although enforcement can be similar to an extent.

As for the latter of the question, I really have no interest in saying. I brought it up not to express my opinion on the matter, but rather to state that laws and policies are not the same. But if you really must know, I fail to see how they are "unconstitutional." As there is nothing about it in the Constitution. Now you can argue about the constitutionality of the FCC itself, but I do not recall anything regarding that government agencies having punishment for breaking of those agencies' policies in the Constitution neither for nor against.

Furthermore, as a government agency, it does have "legislative backing" in that its power, and funding, is granted by the Congress itself, who can thereby limit such agencies' power through legislation.

[Oaktree]

Agencies are part of the federal government, but, when there are no laws backing their policies, they essentially have illegal executive power. The Constitution dictates that the government be answerable to the people, yet agencies are not answerable to the people because there are no laws supporting their actions and their officials are not elected, yet the government supports them.

The Constitution clearly outlines the powers allowed the federal government; anything not listed in that section is not a constitutional power of the federal government. Of course, the federal government already vastly exceeds its constitutional limits, but agencies operating outside of the law are particularly egregious examples of this.

[Nekowolf]

If it is not listed in the Constitution, it does NOT mean the federal government must never ever do it. It simply means... it's not a Constitutional power. That's it. Nor does that make it unconstitutional, either. It's a grey area.

From what I recall, the Constitution doesn't say anything about regulation of medicine, i.e. the Food and Drug Administration. But does that mean it's unconstitutional? That it's not a power of the federal government? No. It doesn't.

[Oaktree]

Amendment 10: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

[Mistermook]

Explain the difference as you see it and why you think that there should be bodies that are capable of doling out punishment without legislative backing.
Congress legislates to create agencies for enforcement of their goals. Congress doesn't have any teeth, and John Boehner or Nancy Pelosi writing some law doesn't mean shit unless there's a department for enforcement and "okay, so there's a law, how do we do it?". Our legislative body legislates, it does not go about performing the acts that it legislates. Therefore it must have power, entrusted in the Constitution in 1.8.18 as the Necessary & Proper clause, to enact laws as it sees fit to perform its duties. This includes delegation of authority, and also delegation of legislative power.

That's why the FCC doesn't need an act of Congress to enact regulation enforcing the will of Congress that it regulate the airwaves. It's already got its mandate and empowerment, and whether you believe it or not it's all nice and Constitutional. Similarly, the Army doesn't phone up the Capital Building when it's deciding whether or not to storm a building with Company C, it's presumably already been given the empowerment even though by a strict sense every bullet fired against an enemy might be interpreted as a separate act of war. Instead we've delegated that authority to enact Congressional will to perform.

The Constitution isn't just about the ideas in there, it's got to have a way to transform legislation into actual work. 1.8.18 gives Congress the power to delegate - it was explicitly reaffirmed in 1825 by John Marshall (that's Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall to you) when he stated that although Congress may not delegate powers that “are strictly and exclusively legislative,” it may delegate “powers which [it] may rightfully exercise itself." It was reaffirmed again by the Supreme Court in 1932, when their ruling stated it was “not open to reasonable dispute” that such a delegation was permissible to fill in details “impracticable for Congress to prescribe" in the case of US v Shreveport Grain & Elevator. “Delegation by Congress has long been recognized as necessary in order that the exertion of legislative power does not become a futility," explained another Supreme Court decision.

The only real hindrance to Congressional delegation of authority is called "intelligible principle." This means that the FCC is tasked to ""regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States a rapid, efficient, nationwide, and worldwide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy," for instance by the Communications Act 1934 as its principle.

The FCC might have expanded the initial scope of that mandate, but it's also still clearly operating within the act of Congress that formed it. Generally though, Congress writes laws that have some sort of indication of what to do, because generally there are sponsors to bills behind the Congressional representatives or at least staffers who know what they're doing.

That's what it's all about. Congress isn't supposed to need an expertise in electronic communication, or building radios, or how to prosecute a war. All it needs to have is the legal notion and the consensus, empower it with a vote and funding, and stuff gets done.

[Nekowolf]

The Tenth Amendment has been argued over its context since the day it was written. That's -your- interpretation of it, and that's that. You can assume you're right all you want, but it doesn't make your argument any more sound. And to assume a position like yours is, well, folly to be quite honest.

For the sake of argument, it's a hypothetical America where States hold massive power because of a very strict and literal interpretation of the Constitution. States hold power of any and all forms of regulation of every kind. So you could have states that have an FCC-like entity. One state, say... Iowa, has laws banning any form of criticism of Christianity because it could be possibly offensive. Where as say, California, there's a very small or no such entity. Of course, the FCC is relatively trivial.

But then every state regulates the safety of food and medicine. Sure, works out for the states that have money, but then states like mine, Michigan, have to cut that state agency dramatically. So what happens? Tainted food and medicine slip through, which ends up posing a health risk. Quite possible a lot of it. There are some things that the States simply shouldn't handle because, guess what, every state is different and some can handle it while others can't. And those that can't? Bad shit goes down. A hell lot worse than if it was a federal agency, because at least then, all the states are equal (as its a federal agency). Though of course I'm sure none of that would convince you, anyhow.

In short, yes, some of this stuff could be a State power depending on how you interpret things. But that doesn't make it a good idea.

[edinfresno]

Freedom of speech is one thing but writing a manual on how to molest kids and then perform tactics/techniques to make the kids feel it's their fault and to keep them quiet is another thing!

Perhaps I'm being overly dramatic here but, to me, this falls into the same category as manuals that give detailed instructions on how to create high explosives from household products and then making bombs from those explosives.

To me, on a psychological and emotional level, the results are the same; great damage results from the realization and execution of the instructions in the manual.

Also, I really don't see how such a manual could be considered socially acceptable even in the least.

Now, did someone mention that Amazon Dot Com actually carried and sold this manual? Vile! Heinous! I find it unbelievable that any book seller that wants to protect and preserve their reputation as book vendors would even consider offering such a thing, much less actually selling it!

What has the world come to?

[Mistermook]

Perhaps I'm being overly dramatic here but, to me, this falls into the same category as manuals that give detailed instructions on how to create high explosives from household products and then making bombs from those explosives.
Right, because those aren't out there. (http://www.amazon.com/Anarchist-Cookbook-William-Powell/dp/0962303208)

[Oaktree]

@Mistermook: I could understand Congress legislating the creation of the agency and what behaviors the agency will fine or in some way punish. I think that would be supported by the wording and intent of the Constitution. However, when the agencies are the body that decides what policies it will enforce, even when there is no legal backing for those policies, I think it is unconstitutional in the sense of the wording and intent. The intent of the Constitution is to have a government run by the people. The people have no say in a body whose policymakers are not elected.

To apply this to your example of the military: Congress must give approval to go to war. The military doesn't act like it has the expertise and power to decide what situations it will handle; it relies on the vote of elected officials to give it instructions and then it carries out those instructions.

@Nekowolf: If you want to undermine the soundness of my argument, you have to provide actual reasons why my interpretation is wrong. Saying that my position is folly is not a logical argument against my interpretation.

In your hypothetical, you assume that the federal government would not step in to regulate situations in which states violate the US Constitution (in restricting free speech by disallowing criticism of religion) and you assume that states are somehow more corruptible than the federal government. The fact that states would not be as limited as the federal government does not mean that they would hold "massive power". State governments are still answerable to the people, so they would still have to fulfill the wishes of the constituency (as long as the wishes of the people do not conflict with the Constitution). I would argue that having the power for executive agencies in the hands of the state would be better.

States are better able to cater to the needs of their citizens. The federal government is forced to look at the varied tapestry of needs and cultures of the various states as a homogenous entity. Maybe one state has a great education system, for example, so it needs little to no extra money/legislation put into education. Another state may have a worse education system and may decide that it would be beneficial to put more money in or to legislatively raise its standards. At the federal level (the federal government seems to think that it needs to play a hand in education, when this is really a responsibility of the states), the government would probably say "look, we need to improve education" and it would change things across the board. In some states, this could be detrimental. You don't fix what isn't broken.

And, to your point about monetary capabilities of states, I think that self-reliance on the state level would force a greater degree of fiscal responsibility. There is no state that is that dirt-poor that it can't even provide for roads and schools. If states don't have a federal government to go running to when they are about to enter bankruptcy, they would have to be more responsible in using their funds and would be less likely to toss money around at random.

[Nekowolf]

Well firstly, I said it was folly not because of your interpretation, as much as the usefulness of it.

We cannot ascertain the true extent of which the Tenth extends because there is likely no "true" meaning it in. It was written, like all of the Bill of Rights, on varying opinions. Furthermore, we nowadays have problems and other things (such as technologies) that simply were not around during the writing of the Constitution, which leads to argument over the extent the Constitution holds over those things. Your folly is that you are expecting me, and others, to concede to what you believe. That is that the Tenth Amendment should be taken as is. That is, if it's not in the Constitution, then it is a State power. However, I and others may disagree and will not subscribe to that notion.

Your defense was to simply quote the Tenth. Which is fine if you arguing with another who believed the same as you. I don't. So simply quoting its text means nothing, as I see it in a different context.

The context I see it is that just because something isn't explicitly written in the Constitution does not make it a state right. Rather, that is up to the scrutiny of Congress, and should it come before the courts, up to the jurisdiction of the judicial branch as to if it may be upheld. In which case, it very well may be a power that should belong to the States. I see the as is context basically saying "Here's what Congress can do, according to this document. The rest of the power granted in this document is up to the States." Basically, it refers only to the Constitution as is. Powers that are not granted to Congress, nor Congress limited from, are something of a grey area that should be left up to the Congress and the judicial branch to decide if its a state power or a federal power.

However, and this is where I specifically meant earlier, it is the capacity of the States to hold some powers. They may have the ability, but not the capacity. And so those states who are incapable suffer while those who have the means to support those powers end up thriving over them.

And onto the last leg of this post:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5369/is_200605/ai_n21390940/
Most states spend significantly less money to educate poor and minority students than on richer students, with a national funding gap of about $900 per student, according to a new analysis from the Education Trust. In some states, the spending disparity between the highest- and lowest-poverty districts exceeds $2,000.

"In your hypothetical, you assume that the federal government would not step in to regulate situations in which states violate the US Constitution (in restricting free speech by disallowing criticism of religion) and you assume that states are somehow more corruptible than the federal government."

One. It was an example. Fine, if it pleases you, use some other example that might not be unconstitutional. You're just arguing semantics over a hypothetical; it doesn't matter if its constitutional or not because that's not the point. And two. No, I'm not assuming any form of corruptibility. We get a huge amount of things from China. There have been several cases of tainted Chinese products. So one state has an FDA-like agency who finds out that the product, X, is tainted with lead and immediately has it pulled. But another state who has no such agency or one severely underfunded, their recall effort is much slower or inefficient, leading to greater risk of possible health endangerment. Or maybe several local farms get infected, and that food goes out to the local region, but since that state has a lacking FDA-agency, they don't catch on right away, and it leads to more illness or even fatalities than it otherwise would have if it had a stronger FDA-agency. Which it can't, because it can't afford it.

"State governments are still answerable to the people, so they would still have to fulfill the wishes of the constituency (as long as the wishes of the people do not conflict with the Constitution)." They may be "answerable" to the people, but that doesn't always mean not before the damage is already done. And even then, answerable how? Okay, that state manages to get a giant Republican majority in their state legislature. They somehow manage to revoke the ability of a recall election. They pass many bills that end up harming the state. Nothing can be done until the next election. But by then, the stone is already rolling down the hill. So they don't get elected next cycle, big whoop. They'll just throw someone else up to preach about how they'll fix everything because they're just that amazing.

And lastly, oh yes. States are cutting infrastructure, education, public services, etc. because they are just swimming in cash. Absolutely nothing to do with possible debt concerns. "Provide" can be a fun word. It can be so flexible, because it's so broad. You're right, no state is so poor they can't provide such things. Rather, they struggle to adequately provide them, or to provide them well, which of course is even better.

Anyway, this is way off-topic, so I'm out before you make my head asplode into something comparable of a star getting Falcon Punch'd and going supernova.

EDIT: Sorry but a few of you do have that affect on my brain. Though I'm sure I'm no different to others, eh?

And on that note:
http://greennite.deviantart.com/art/Falcon-Punch-Collider-97502843