View Single Post
Old November 11th, 2010 #7
MatthewM87
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1
Default Freedom of Speech

I believe that it is the first admnd. that we have freedom of speech. Whether we agree or not is not the issue. By law we are obligated to allow the freedom of speech. Also you must take into consideration the fact of the matter we allow other books, and video clips that are fit into the same catagory.

Example, you can purchase books that show step by step instructions on how to kill someone. Also we are able to have websites devoted to this.... http://www.linkbase.org/articles/How...ll-Someone.htm.

Look on any youtube, or public video site and type in "decapitation," you can most likely find explicit materials that show directions, (if not the act itself.)

Can we stop this..... No, unfortunantly, we have an obligation to hold our Constitutional Admnds. to their true words.

Ethically, and morally we as a culture are shocked by this however, if you are offended by this DON'T READ IT.... We can only protect our kids from everything that does not match up with our core values.

View points aside, If you were to write a book on everything you believed in and published it..... Would you want the Country to Ban the book just because they thought you were crazy? Literature is just that. It is a neutral body that is made up of everything that makes us human. To censor some of the bad literature is to silence all literature. This simple RIGHT is among the few that hold us in opposition against a Dictatorship that would silence even the best of intentioned books.

If you do not want this book on the market you are basically stating, "You want to take away the rights of one person because you do not agree with what they have to say."

Course it is a big problem around the world.... People want their rights but refuse to give rights to others. Or in this case take a Constitutional Right away.

We as a society are to quick to take rights away from Homosexuals, and Imgrs. and people of different faiths.

The real problem does not belong with the website or the book itself. Make a distinction to give an educated rebutle on the content. We can not bann the book but we can discuss the actual aspect of the book.

I guess now should be the part where I tell you that I was just picking the opposite to do so. But I am not. I think we as a culture and a society need to use more logic, and think more critically as a whole. When we are trying to do something along this lines, we should see what kind of slippery slope we are headed down.

I am against Child molestation and think we should have those who commit the act placed in a facility where they can receive psychiatric help and seek treatment for their "-philia."

We as a culture want everyone to fit into a peg. The truth is what we should think as individuals and how we act are complete opposites and hold little to no meaning within the opposing settings. I am for taking a stance and voicing the opinion, however, we should approach the argument from the content, not on the book itself.