Free Speech

[London Rayne]

Thank You!

[discreetgent]

Lets not confuse Amazon with the government w.r.t free speech. The First Amendment limits only government's restrictions on free speech not on non-governmental entities. Your company can sure as hell regulate the speech of its employees when they act in that role.

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by Sensual Lina

Agreed. I am all for free speach, but there has to be a line drawn in some cases. What if someone decided to publish How To Strangle and Dispose of Prostitute? Would that be OK as well?

Lina

Yeah, it would be a sick book but could the government censor it? Very doubtful.

[London Rayne]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

Lets not confuse Amazon with the government w.r.t free speech. The First Amendment limits only government's restrictions on free speech not on non-governmental entities. Your company can sure as hell regulate the speech of its employees when they act in that role.

We have a winner!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

Lets not confuse Amazon with the government w.r.t free speech. The First Amendment limits only government's restrictions on free speech not on non-governmental entities. Your company can sure as hell regulate the speech of its employees when they act in that role.

No confusion here. Amazon's decision was a business decision and not an act of suppression.

[..]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

Lets not confuse Amazon with the government w.r.t free speech. The First Amendment limits only government's restrictions on free speech not on non-governmental entities.

All True! The problem is the US govt knows this too and has exerted enormous pressure on Google, Twitter, Facebook and Amazon to end their contracts with WL.

In the case of Google (WL intentionally hosted the apache video on youtube) and Amazon I know really quite well what is going on as friends of mine were involved in some of the discussions with the US govt. Also for Google this is internally a very important topic and widely discussed internally.

[..]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

No confusion here. Amazon's decision was a business decision and not an act of suppression.

Word!

(the interesting part is actually how this business decision came to be.)

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by ..

Word!

(the interesting part is actually how this business decision came to be.)

Of course, the business decision could have gone the other way. If Amazon found it financially more advantageous to sell the book, then I bet it would still be up there.

[Mazomaniac]

Originally Posted by Sensual Lina

Agreed. I am all for free speach, but there has to be a line drawn in some cases. What if someone decided to publish How To Strangle and Dispose of Prostitute? Would that be OK as well?

So American Psycho should be banned as well?

See my point about the slippery slope?

Cheers,
Mazo.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

So American Psycho should be banned as well?

See my point about the slippery slope?

Cheers,
Mazo.

I'm with Mazo on this one.

Action, not words are what should be banned.

Many good points in this thread.

[Rudyard K]

I find this exchange interesting. I selected this subject matter because I believed that this subject would be abhorrent to all but the sickest members of this board.

Of course, we get the usual smatterings of “Where do we stop?”, etc. I guess the question to me is…How can we not have some limits here?

There are several “Bill of Rights” amendments. They all have limitations. Why is speech inviolate? The 1st amendment says that the Fed won’t “prohibit the free exercise” of religion. But it is prohibited all the time. You can’t very well tell someone they can’t speak of religion in school and not also be prohibiting. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But we infringe on that right all the time and in numerous locals and ways. The rights are limited by society’s views of the world in its current state. It is one thing to censure as inviolate the discussion of a controversial subject…whether such subject is legal today or not. It is quite another to censure a “How To” discussion on a subject that is “today” illegal.

I believe in “free speech” as much as the next guy. But I do believe there are limits. I just find it incongruous that for the “free speech” issue, there are those who consider it inviolate…but it does not appear they hold as inviolate some of the other issues like religion or arms. They should either be protected as absolutes…or limited by a reasonable society view. I think more the latter.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

I believe in “free speech” as much as the next guy. But I do believe there are limits. I just find it incongruous that for the “free speech” issue, there are those who consider it inviolate…but it does not appear they hold as inviolate some of the other issues like religion or arms. They should either be protected as absolutes…or limited by a reasonable society view. I think more the latter.

Goodness. You've opened a can of worms here. I believe the real intent of the First Amendment was to insure that citizens could speak out against the government and expose the government when it acted inappropriately--without fear of government condoned reprisal.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

The 1st amendment says that the Fed won’t “prohibit the free exercise” of religion. But it is prohibited all the time. You can’t very well tell someone they can’t speak of religion in school and not also be prohibiting. .

Not the same thing...not even close to what is being discussed.

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But we infringe on that right all the time and in numerous locals and ways. .

This had already been addressed.

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

On this topic I take the literary equivalent of the NRA's position: "Books don't rape children, people rape children"
.

Like I said, I'm with Mazo on this one and I think it is a linear position!

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

[FONT=Calibri]I find this exchange interesting. I selected this subject matter because I believed that this subject would be abhorrent to all but the sickest members of this board.There are several “Bill of Rights” amendments. They all have limitations. Why is speech inviolate?

I think you are mostly seeing what you want to see in the responses. The Supreme Court has ruled that free speech does have limits. What those limits are is really under debate here, least as I read it.

As far as freedom of religion, schools can teach a class about religion they can't PROMOTE one over the other. Different.

[I B Hankering]

Article [I.]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;


Some how, over the course of the last century, this Article has been turned on its head. By today's interpretation, the government must proscribe religion except for secularism or atheism; which are also forms of "religious" beliefs.