Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Scholar
#26 Old 23rd Mar 2011 at 12:28 AM
Quote: Originally posted by CmarNYC
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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).

Quote:
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.
Advertisement
Theorist
#27 Old 23rd Mar 2011 at 3:52 AM
Quote:
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).

Quote:
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.

Hi I'm Paul!
Scholar
#28 Old 23rd Mar 2011 at 4:44 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Robodl95
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" 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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
Scholar
#29 Old 23rd Mar 2011 at 12:06 PM
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.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Scholar
#30 Old 23rd Mar 2011 at 1:20 PM
Quote: Originally posted by 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.


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.
Scholar
#31 Old 23rd Mar 2011 at 1:43 PM
Policies and laws are still different and must not be confused with one another.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Scholar
#32 Old 23rd Mar 2011 at 4:33 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Nekowolf
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.
Scholar
#33 Old 23rd Mar 2011 at 5:05 PM
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.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Scholar
#34 Old 23rd Mar 2011 at 6:14 PM
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.
Scholar
#35 Old 23rd Mar 2011 at 9:00 PM
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.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Scholar
#36 Old 23rd Mar 2011 at 10:43 PM
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."
Theorist
#37 Old 23rd Mar 2011 at 11:27 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Oaktree
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.
Scholar
#38 Old 24th Mar 2011 at 12:59 AM
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.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Test Subject
#39 Old 24th Mar 2011 at 2:29 AM
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?
Theorist
#40 Old 24th Mar 2011 at 3:17 AM
Quote: Originally posted by edinfresno
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.
Scholar
#41 Old 24th Mar 2011 at 3:31 AM
@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.
Scholar
#42 Old 24th Mar 2011 at 5:57 PM Last edited by Nekowolf : 24th Mar 2011 at 7:52 PM.
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/...5/ai_n21390940/
Quote:
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...llider-97502843

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Test Subject
#43 Old 17th Mar 2014 at 10:17 PM Last edited by ankoku teion : 18th Mar 2014 at 8:02 PM. Reason: repairing my bad grammar
[QUOTE=Mysticrose_x3]I'm kind of on the fence.
"this kind of manual allows pedophiles to abuse children"

no it doesn't, pedophiles and those with a pedophilic nature already know how to do all this. it comes naturally, a guide will make little or no difference to this. the sad fact of humanity is that we all know how to manipulate and coerce others, children or otherwise, and will do so for our own advantage.

there are no degrees of freedom, you are either free or you are not. to limit freedom is to destroy freedom. as horrible as things like this are everyone has the right to voice their opinion.
Test Subject
#44 Old 17th Mar 2014 at 10:29 PM Last edited by ankoku teion : 17th Mar 2014 at 10:39 PM. Reason: expanding
i would be greatly interested to know the religious standpoint of people commenting.

personally i believe that sexual acts with those with a large age gap is at least a bit creepy(e.g. between a 70 something and a 30 something) and at most very wrong (e.g. between a child and an adult).

i would like to note that there are cultures where sexual acts between two children is considered funny and between an older child (say 11+) and a young adult(under 18) are less taboo although not entirely accepted
Test Subject
#45 Old 17th Mar 2014 at 10:42 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Tempscire
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:

We already have laws like this, as well. It's a violation of the DMCA to explain how to violate a copyright protection mechanism.


i agree that we do not have freedom of speech, but i do not consider this as a valid argument for further rules and restrictions
Top Secret Researcher
#46 Old 17th Mar 2014 at 10:50 PM
Has anyone here ever heard of the Werther Effect?

In 1774, a book called The Sorrows of Young Werther was published in Germany. The novel ended with the protagonist, Werther, committing suicide by shooting himself in the head. Many people who read it started to dress and act like Werther. There was a huge spike in suicides, most of them people who shot themselves in the head.

Would those people have killed themselves if they hadn't read that book? Probably not.

Something like that manual harms children. Is someone's right to freedom of speech more important than a child's right not to get raped?
Test Subject
#47 Old 17th Mar 2014 at 11:05 PM
[QUOTE=hugbug993]Has anyone here ever heard of the Werther Effect?

In 1774, a book called The Sorrows of Young Werther was published in Germany. The novel ended with the protagonist, Werther, committing suicide by shooting himself in the head. Many people who read it started to dress and act like Werther. There was a huge spike in suicides, most of them people who shot themselves in the head.

in sociology there is something similar called the Hawthorne effect, people act the way they feel they are expected to act by those around them. external influences affect some people greatly. although not to the extent that they would do something they didnt already have some inclination towards.
Theorist
#48 Old 18th Mar 2014 at 7:09 AM
Quote: Originally posted by hugbug993
Would those people have killed themselves if they hadn't read that book? Probably not.


So I take it that you're suggesting that if your friend commits suicide and it gives you the inclination to feel depressed and suicidal, what you're saying is that we should arrest your friend's corpse for making you unhappy and suicidal? When your friend finds a girlfriend and it makes you feel lonely and suicidal, should we arrest them at that time as well? What if you're suicidal because your local sports team is poor, or because no one is friendly at your college or high school? Surely we should consider the children in this instance as well, and throw either group into prison for endangering your life?

Is child molestation the crux? Well, surely people molested children before this book was published. I dunno, perhaps other pedophiles are prompted by pictures of children's sportswear in advertisements. Censor them or not? And I've heard about pedophiles doing the proverbial "hovering about the daycare" - people who encourage large assemblies of children in one place... are they promoting pedophilia? They say that most pedophiles strike near home though, should parents actually allowed to associate with children or not? It could endanger them. It's certainly an in for a potential pedophile or three. Though certainly for encouraging the government to take away people's children to save them from molestation you'd promote a certain amount of suicidal thoughts, and we'd have to put you in jail...
Top Secret Researcher
#49 Old 18th Mar 2014 at 6:33 PM
Mistermook, quit the ad absurbum.

Also, you didn't answer my question. Is someone's freedom of speech worth more than a child's right not to get raped?
Test Subject
#50 Old 18th Mar 2014 at 8:01 PM
Quote: Originally posted by hugbug993
Mistermook, quit the ad absurbum.

Also, you didn't answer my question. Is someone's freedom of speech worth more than a child's right not to get raped?


I'm going to say no.

however, the two are not mutually exclusive, the freedom of speech, even in this case, does not cause paedophilia, that exists anyway.
 
Page 2 of 3
Back to top