Government scores victory against woman who can't leave her house

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Alas, while the quotes are nice and meaningful, they also occurred long before the internet allowed pedophiles to group together to share their exploits and their children with each other.

Also, nobody is suggesting that we cannot talk about child porn (ie, "Child porn, which is sexual or nude images involving minors is bad"), but there is no valid reason to be dwelling on and detailing the methods only for the prurient interest - especially when that interest is specifically to an act not only illegal, but the inflicts life long suffering on the victims.

The greatest thing about freedom should be the intelligence and judgement when NOT to use it.

There are actually plenty of valid reasons for certain people to dwell on it and actually detail the methodologies but I am not going to get into the psychiatricts (sp?? word???) of the whole mess.

Nicest thing about the freedom of speech is that it does not have to be valid. It can be whimsy, it can be illusion, it can be the worst things that you can personally imagine and it is still legal to both think it and speak it.

The only valid limits should be whether an accusation is true or not and that is usually handled at the civil level.

Jefferson maintained, and I completely agree, that the right to correspond did not have to be enunciated in the first amendment because it was quite obviously a natural right.

When we put limits on what people can write about we are going down that
big long slippery slope.

Would I find the writings offensive, from your descriptions (of your skimming) most definitely. Would I consciously allow those type of writings to be in my house, most definitely not.

But, what I like or dislike is not and should not be the determining factor. The law has always tried to make a distinction between the idea (speech) and the act (conduct).

Conduct can and should be regulated to some extent. Speech should not.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by sarettah

Jefferson maintained, and I completely agree, that the right to correspond did not have to be enunciated in the first amendment because it was quite obviously a natural right.

When we put limits on what people can write about we are going down that
big long slippery slope.

(blah blah blah edited to make this shorter)

Conduct can and should be regulated to some extent. Speech should not.

Again, you are making some pretty fundamental errors in logic here. First, quoting a man who was President 200 years ago and assuming his opinion would account for the rapid increase in the flow of information and "speech" is a pretty big jump. During the term of his Presidency, people were lucky to see a newspaper once a week (once a month in many areas) and news took weeks to travel from point to point. The vast majority of people would never do any more "speech" than to write a letter to a relative in another part of the country to tell them about the church social and the spring crops.

Your second assumption is that speech isn't conduct. Speech is conduct, it is an act of volition. It is something we do not just by accident, but with intent and the repercussions that come from that intent.

As an example, would you support the rights of someone to print a book called "the Holocaust never happened - So we need to kill all jews now" Would you consider it acceptable for someone to put up a website that explains how to kill children in a manner that still allows you to harvest their organs for transplant? Perhaps a list of your family members names, their addresses, the codes for their security systems, and the best places to put a ladder to be able to shoot directly into their beds?

The miracle of free speech should always be limited by it's harm to others. In Canada, we don't put up with Holocaust deniers, consider the case of Ernst Zundle... you can always donate to the cause of his lack of free speech on his website http://www.zundelsite.org/zundel_per...is_zundel.html - Should he have the right to free speech, to teach what is clearly a lie, only because he has MUST have that right? Would you approve of him as a history teacher for your family school? After all, he has the right, no?

The so-called slippery slope exists because through the years, the US constitution has been used (and abused) until it has become a series of bizarre absolutes, legally correct only in the most narrow of ways.

[Sexyteaser]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Again, you are making some pretty fundamental errors in logic here. First, quoting a man who was President 200 years ago and assuming his opinion would account for the rapid increase in the flow of information and "speech" is a pretty big jump. During the term of his Presidency, people were lucky to see a newspaper once a week (once a month in many areas) and news took weeks to travel from point to point. The vast majority of people would never do any more "speech" than to write a letter to a relative in another part of the country to tell them about the church social and the spring crops.

Your second assumption is that speech isn't conduct. Speech is conduct, it is an act of volition. It is something we do not just by accident, but with intent and the repercussions that come from that intent.

As an example, would you support the rights of someone to print a book called "the Holocaust never happened - So we need to kill all jews now" Would you consider it acceptable for someone to put up a website that explains how to kill children in a manner that still allows you to harvest their organs for transplant? Perhaps a list of your family members names, their addresses, the codes for their security systems, and the best places to put a ladder to be able to shoot directly into their beds?

The miracle of free speech should always be limited by it's harm to others. In Canada, we don't put up with Holocaust deniers, consider the case of Ernst Zundle... you can always donate to the cause of his lack of free speech on his website http://www.zundelsite.org/zundel_per...is_zundel.html - Should he have the right to free speech, to teach what is clearly a lie, only because he has MUST have that right? Would you approve of him as a history teacher for your family school? After all, he has the right, no?

The so-called slippery slope exists because through the years, the US constitution has been used (and abused) until it has become a series of bizarre absolutes, legally correct only in the most narrow of ways.

Can I hire you?