We read:
"Phillip Greaves II got some infamy a few weeks ago when his book advocating pedophilia was "outed" on Amazon, forcing the book giant to take contradictory views in a few short days. First, Amazon defended freedom of speech and then caved on the issue. I said nothing because Amazon has the right to make any decision it wanted there.
But now the real scum of society are getting involved, by that I mean low-life, publicity-seeking, red-neck sheriffs from some backwater county in Florida. The sheriff of Polk County, one Grady Judd, had Greaves arrested on obscenity charges because of the text in the book—there were no photos.
The First Amendment, which applies to the states and has since the 14th amendment, clearly says that there should be 'no laws' regulating free speech.
This was pure speech, written words alone. That some hick Sheriff got a bug up his ass over it shouldn't give him the right to impose his view of the First Amendment on the entire country. Whether Greaves book is 'obscene' is impossible to say as the word has absolutely no rational, objective meaning."
The Supreme Court ruled that what makes child pornography illegal, is not the content or the ideas being conveyed, but the use of children to produce the images. But there were no images here, just ink on paper, a combination of letters conveying ideas that the Sheriff, and most of the rest of us, would find problematic. But, even if it conveyed an idea that we all find offensive, it is protected. Rights are not determined by majority support.
Source
9 comments:
What I take away from this article, is that it's author is okay with pedophilia. And having read the original article, the folks who commented there are okay with it also. What is wrong with these people?
I,ll bet that book can be found in all the bookstores in SAN FRANFREAKHOLE
Brian,
"What I take away from this article, is that it's author is okay with pedophilia. And having read the original article, the folks who commented there are okay with it also. What is wrong with these people?"
I didn't see it that way at all, possibly excepting the 4th comment on that site. Rather, I saw it as a defense of freedom of speech, regardless (and indeed, perhaps especially) of that speech being offensive and immoral to most. After all, if all speech were popular, freedom of speech would require no defense.
For myself, for example, I detest pedophilia AND support free speech. FWIW, I also detest Marxism in all its guises (100m dead would agree with me) but still think that Marxists should have the right to speak their views, notwithstanding that those views have proven measurably more dangerous in the last century alone as compared to pedophilia).
Any precedent of speech-control, once established, would inevitably be put to use in the very service of pedophilia, as has already happened in the past; e.g. the Nazis were rife with it. So let's not set that precedent in the first place.
jjr,
FWIW, looks like another comment of mine was deep-sixed for some reason just an hour or two ago, on this thread. Methinks your site's immune system is a little overactive! :)
Free speech is free speech, I don't care of the writer is advocating pedophilia or pasteurization, we're not supposed to put people in jail for writing an offensive book.
Besides, amazon.com still sells "Lolita," a book about a desperate man who falls in love with the 13 year old daughter of his girlfriend. They also sell "100 days of Sodom" which depicts all kinds of obscene stuff (it was written by the Marquis de Sade), yet some guy writes a disgusting book and he gets arrested? It's a terrible blow for free speech.
http://libertarians4freedom.blogspot.com/
What's wrong with people that want to have sex w/ children? No idea. And I don't care.
What's wrong with people that don't understand the 1st Amendment? I don't know that either. But I care. I care why someone would willingly throw something as well established and necciary as free speach out the window for ANY reason confounds me.
Stinky
I rescued your comment from the spam box
It is run by Google, not me
jjr,
Google's spam filter is turning into an automated version of the Fawlty Towers' "whatever you do, don't mention the war!" skit.
I dunno which keywords that I used were the triggers for it this time, since I use basically the same words as others here. Perhaps because I mentioned both pedoph... and Naz... in the same comment?
Anyway, thx. Mostly I just wanted to give you a heads-up on what was happening, but you appear to be on top of it anyway.
We seem to be in googles hands more each day, and that's not a good thing.
Post a Comment