The Free Speech / FCC Paella

[Mazomaniac]

OK, here's an interesting one:

What happens when we mix the Free Speech thread with the FCC thread?

Over in the FCC thread we've got folks arguing that the market will take care of things for itself and that the government just needs to keep it's nose out of the process. Shouldn't that be the case for the publishing business too? Isn't the "free market" enough to ensure that pedo books aren't on the shelves? After all, this whole thing started with Amazon pulling the book. Why do we need LE to step in?

On the other hand, in the Free Speech thread we've got people arguing that there are limits to everything and the government must step in to protect the citizenry in some situations. Why doesn't that same argument apply to the net? If the net is as important to us as people claim it is in the FCC thread shouldn't we make sure that somebody's watching over it as closely as we protect other things we cherish (like, for instance, our kids)?

Seems to me that there's a few people contradicting themselves between these two threads. If we throw these two lines of argument into the same pan do they mix or separate out?

Cheers,
Mazo.

[atlcomedy]

The problem is my brethren here want to stand up for the consititution when they agree with it and deflect its existence when it isn't intheir favor.

I don't want to cut them too harsh a path here. Lieberals are the worst....they forget due process/innocent until proven guilty when convenient.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

OK, here's an interesting one:

What happens when we mix the Free Speech thread with the FCC thread?

Over in the FCC thread we've got folks arguing that the market will take care of things for itself and that the government just needs to keep it's nose out of the process. Shouldn't that be the case for the publishing business too? Isn't the "free market" enough to ensure that pedo books aren't on the shelves? After all, this whole thing started with Amazon pulling the book. Why do we need LE to step in?

On the other hand, in the Free Speech thread we've got people arguing that there are limits to everything and the government must step in to protect the citizenry in some situations. Why doesn't that same argument apply to the net? If the net is as important to us as people claim it is in the FCC thread shouldn't we make sure that somebody's watching over it as closely as we protect other things we cherish (like, for instance, our kids)?

Seems to me that there's a few people contradicting themselves between these two threads. If we throw these two lines of argument into the same pan do they mix or separate out?

Cheers,
Mazo.

Good argument. Consider this, it seems the author actually had sold his entire first run. The copy he sent the Florida Sheriff’s office was his last remaining personal copy. Makes you wonder who bought the rest.

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/12/21/ar...ises-legal-is/

BTW, as a matter of personal interest - because I am a regular Amazon customer - I checked to see if Amazon sells “The Turner Diaries.” They do.

[discreetgent]

Do keep in mind that one of the issues - Free Speech - is constitutional, the other one is not. What is interesting is that the constitutional issue is the one where limits are being discussed.

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

Lieberals are the worst....they forget due process/innocent until proven guilty when convenient.

And I think conservatives are the worst. They tend to promote right to life when it comes to abortion, but they tend to promote the death penalty. If death is wrong, it should be wrong across the board.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

And I think conservatives are the worst. They tend to promote right to life when it comes to abortion, but they tend to promote the death penalty. If death is wrong, it should be wrong across the board.

Thats total bullshit! You are ignoring the whole issue of innocence.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

OK, here's an interesting one:

What happens when we mix the Free Speech thread with the FCC thread?

Over in the FCC thread we've got folks arguing that the market will take care of things for itself and that the government just needs to keep it's nose out of the process. Shouldn't that be the case for the publishing business too? Isn't the "free market" enough to ensure that pedo books aren't on the shelves? After all, this whole thing started with Amazon pulling the book. Why do we need LE to step in?

On the other hand, in the Free Speech thread we've got people arguing that there are limits to everything and the government must step in to protect the citizenry in some situations. Why doesn't that same argument apply to the net? If the net is as important to us as people claim it is in the FCC thread shouldn't we make sure that somebody's watching over it as closely as we protect other things we cherish (like, for instance, our kids)?

Seems to me that there's a few people contradicting themselves between these two threads. If we throw these two lines of argument into the same pan do they mix or separate out?

Cheers,
Mazo.

Great points! Porn on a cable channel is an excellent example. Its there. You don't have to watch if you don't want to. Its available to those who do. Those who don't can even lock it out for their children -- assuming they are responsible enough parents to do so.

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

And I think conservatives are the worst. They tend to promote right to life when it comes to abortion, but they tend to promote the death penalty. If death is wrong, it should be wrong across the board.

The one large group that is consistent across the board on this one is the Catholic Church. These days they oppose capital punishment and of course abortion. Most of us are inconsistent on this one.

[FLWrite]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

...These days they oppose capital punishment and of course abortion. Most of us are inconsistent on this one.

To borrow a bark from PJ's dog (it's the whole Becky thing...) I don't know that I view it as inconsistent. Capital punishment for the heinously guilty and promise of life for the innocent hardly seems an inconsistent policy set.

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Thats total bullshit! You are ignoring the whole issue of innocence.

Originally Posted by FLWrite

Capital punishment for the heinously guilty and promise of life for the innocent hardly seems an inconsistent policy set.

You guys are ignoring the number of persons who were cleared after being convicted and sentenced to death. If more law schools would do innocence projects, the rate would be higher. There's no difference between the innocence of the unborn and the innocence of the wrongly convicted.

The system itself is not perfect, and since it is not, the death penalty should be taken off the table. Most civilized countries in the world do not impose the death penalty. From Wiki:

Since World War II there has been a trend toward abolishing the death penalty. In 1977, 16 countries were abolitionist. According to information published by Amnesty International in 2010, 95 countries had abolished capital punishment altogether, 9 had done so for all offences except under special circumstances, and 35 had not used it for at least 10 years or were under a moratorium. The other 58 retained the death penalty in active use.[46]

I do not understand this rush to the maximum sentence in this country in the criminal law.

[discreetgent]

FWIW the number of executions in the US has declined the last couple of years. There are more and more states that are now taking it off their books or effectively curtailing it in other ways.

[charlestudor2005]

Sorry about the thread drift. Back to the regular subject, and I must say, it has been far too long since I've had paella.

[BTW, for the connoisseurs here, where do you get the best paella?]

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

FWIW the number of executions in the US has declined the last couple of years. There are more and more states that are now taking it off their books or effectively curtailing it in other ways.

Which is probably the best approach -- its there for the heinous crime where there is no doubt of guilt (e.g., that guy in CT who killed the wife & two daughters), but not applied when not needed.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Which is probably the best approach -- its there for the heinous crime where there is no doubt of guilt (e.g., that guy in CT who killed the wife & two daughters), but not applied when not needed.

word!

[WTF]

Two things:

First if you do not believe that a Petra dish contains 'life' as I know it, then you can believe in abortion and not the death penalty and be consistent. Actually you can believe in both without believing the Petra dish part and be consistent!

I happen to believe in both. I just do not believe that in the case of abortion you are taking a life. ( not that I want to start a debate about when life begins...so no abortion after first tri)

So we all can believe in things and for entirely different reasons. It is never as cut and dried as we like to think it is. I am not for killing children and if that is what I thought abortion was I would not be Pro choice. I can understand how people on the other side feel about it though. They think you are taking a life. It means they will never stop trying to outlaw it and that is understandable. I only wish they would put as much effort and money into newborn children's health and welfare as they put into newly fertilized. While I do not find it inconsistent, I do find it strange to give an unwanted child life only to want to put it to death after it has grown up and murdered one of your family members. Ok Ok that was a strech but did I at least make a point?