PDA

View Full Version : Beyond the limits of Free Speech?


Robert Toy
03-31-2007, 02:23 AM
You want freedom of speech...here it is:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,262700,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,262700,00.html)

Penguin Queen
03-31-2007, 02:33 AM
See... yes, it's not a good thing, this website, & the bloke's intention to help "paedophiles out of the closet" is frankly disturbing.

But the problem I have with the media calling attention to cases such a these is that this then obscures the fact that actually, the vast majority of children who are abused, are abused by a family member, family friend or other person in their immediate environment, like a teacher or priest or someone -- a person they know and trust.

The nasty stranger is a bogeyman. Maybe because the actual truth is that much more disturbing that poeple are reluctant to face it.

Qué sé yo...

davids
03-31-2007, 02:39 AM
And there are actually people against lynching-sorry-I am a simple man who would lynch this bastard-draw and quarter him-I know I know it is making me like the people I hate and all that bull-so it is and so I am-lynch the bastard I say!! Sorry Bob that I cannot add anything more constructive but it pisses me off to a degree that violence roars its ugly head-I hate war-violence-bullys-and people like this-among others-so now someone can say what a rotter I am for this and-frankly Scarlet I do not give a damn! luv and hugs Dave

Celia Cyanide
03-31-2007, 02:40 AM
"As disturbing and offensive as we find this, there's no evidence of a crime, or even suspicion of illegal activity,"

I'm confused...how is it not illegal to post a recognizable photo of a child without permission? I think it's even illegal to do that to adults.

Rolling Thunder
03-31-2007, 03:03 AM
You on an 'anti-free speech' binge today, Robert? :D

Perks
03-31-2007, 03:58 AM
Well personally, I'm glad to know this guy's leanings right out there on the face of things. One less person you have to wonder about. In being this vocal, he's virtually harmless. His community and local police are well aware of him and he'll not be able to sneeze out of line.

It's perverse and upsetting, but he's not saying anything we don't already know. There are people with these proclivities - that's well established. Why they're wired this way is the stuff of textbooks. What they have to understand is that they can't act on these impulses, regardless of how natural they feel, which is what he's proclaiming. (Although, he clearly doesn't 'get it' completely, even using the word 'consensual' in the same interview that he mentions being attracted to three-year-olds.)

I seriously doubt him signposting to school events, public parks and swimming pools is any revolutionary inspiration to pedophiles out there.

The only thing I object to (besides the whole avenue of interest - which is entirely beyond my control) is the use of pictures of children who have no signed release for there images to be used. That's no bueno.

Other than that, I hope all the local pedophiles sign up on the site, post their pictures and addresses and favorite haunts. Forewarned is forearmed.

Bravo
03-31-2007, 04:04 AM
i feel nauseous.

but im with perks on hoping more pedophiles sign up on the site.

/insert puke emoticon.

Robert Toy
03-31-2007, 04:06 AM
You on an 'anti-free speech' binge today, Robert? :D
I was hoping you would ask!

No, I just really get irritated when people use an Internet forum, anonymous names and hide behind “Freedom of Speech” to spew out things they would never dare say to someone’s face. We have exchanged common courtesy, for flaming using the most disgusting language one can imagine, and anyone and anything is fair game. This is done all under the guise of freedom of speech.

Want a good example? Look under Writing Novels, “What are some good synonyms for "dirtbag"? It has a 5 star rating, 134 posts and 1,218 views, lots of good info on writing Novels!

Well, contrary to what a whole bunch of people would like to believe, there is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech, there are limits and definitely consequences in the real world. On an Internet forum there are no consequences, maybe getting banned but that’s about the extent of it.

*Steps of soap box*

Bravo
03-31-2007, 04:09 AM
im not getting into the free speech angle of this, but something else was kind of interesting about that article.

the man pretty openly said that laws were deterring him from acting out on his impulses.

i wonder if something as severe as castration could put some more fear in pedophiles?

i know we had this discussion before, but the last time it seemed to just stick to whether a pedophile would be "cured" by castration.

well forget about that part. IMO, keeping your penis intact is a pretty good incentive to stay on the right side of the law.

Perks
03-31-2007, 04:10 AM
The thing is, there's much, much that's unsavory out there. Mass media and omnipresent global communication has made this planet a great deal smaller than it's ever been. Secrets are not very anymore. We all know so much more than we used to and there's no putting these horses back in the barn.

But it's not new.

Rolling Thunder
03-31-2007, 04:11 AM
Actually, Bravo, the title is a mere hook. The OP subject is free speech.

Bravo
03-31-2007, 04:13 AM
Actually, Bravo, the title is a mere hook. The OP subject is free speech.

i know.

:2angel:

Perks
03-31-2007, 04:15 AM
i wonder if something as sever as castration could put some more fear in peodophiles?

i know we had this discussion before, but the last time it seemed to just stick to whether a pedophile would be "cured" by castration.

I fear castration as punishment for sexual crimes. Not that I don't think it's warranted, but some of these vicious impulses may lead to dead women and children (and the more rare male victims) if a spent attacker thinks two steps ahead of himself.

That may be more or less groundless, but it worries me anyway.

Rolling Thunder
03-31-2007, 04:22 AM
i know.

:2angel:

That angel doesn't fool anybody. ;)

Robert Toy
03-31-2007, 04:22 AM
I fear castration as punishment for sexual crimes. Not that I don't think it's warranted, but some of these vicious impulses may lead to dead women and children (and the more rare male victims) if a spent attacker thinks two steps ahead of himself.

That may be more or less groundless, but it worries me anyway.
I agree with you if castration is the punishment, he is more likely not to want a live witness.

William Haskins
03-31-2007, 04:24 AM
the guy in the article is disgusting.

but i'm also disgusted at the (rare, but vocal) people on this forum championing some form or another of speech restrictions.

it's bad enough on forums infested with zealots who can't see past their own agendas, but it's especially disgusting on a writers' site.

makes me fucking sick.

robeiae
03-31-2007, 04:28 AM
You can't say that here, William.

Robert Toy
03-31-2007, 04:30 AM
the guy in the article is disgusting.

but i'm also disgusted at the (rare, but vocal) people on this forum championing some form or another of speech restrictions.

it's bad enough on forums infested with zealots who can't see past their own agendas, but it's especially disgusting on a writers' site.

makes me fucking sick.
Take some Maalox

William Haskins
03-31-2007, 04:30 AM
No, I just really get irritated when people use an Internet forum, anonymous names and hide behind “Freedom of Speech” to spew out things they would never dare say to someone’s face.

anonymous pamphlets and tracts have a long and noble history for advancing ideas and opinions that might be dangerous or controversial. while freedom of speech allows for assholes like the one referenced in the article, it also allows for people like sophie scholl.

Well, contrary to what a whole bunch of people would like to believe, there is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech, there are limits and definitely consequences in the real world. On an Internet forum there are no consequences, maybe getting banned but that’s about the extent of it.

no one here has ever said that freedom of speech is absolute. and there are damn well consequences, even on an internet forum.

*Steps of soap box*

if you're done with it, i can suggest a good place to store it.

William Haskins
03-31-2007, 04:31 AM
Take some Maalox

take a constitutional.

Robert Toy
03-31-2007, 04:35 AM
if you're done with it, i can suggest a good place to store it.
Does it have anything to do with pearls?

William Haskins
03-31-2007, 04:55 AM
damn right it does.

Robert Toy
03-31-2007, 04:58 AM
At least you’re consistent.

Why are we doing this?

William Haskins
03-31-2007, 05:03 AM
what are we doing?

Robert Toy
03-31-2007, 05:05 AM
killing time?

William Haskins
03-31-2007, 05:06 AM
from where i sit, you're using the sick behavior of an individual to implicitly advocate restrictions on speech, and i'm saying that's stupid.

xhouseboy
03-31-2007, 05:20 AM
Must be comforting for parents to know that this guy's paedophile buddies adhere to a code of ethics. No coercion as far as touching goes. It must be consensual.

Maybe he should have also explained how their consensual policy could possibly apply to children, some as young as three.

This insane timebomb is attempting to hide in plain sight. And when he blows, he'll probably blow big style.

Robert Toy
03-31-2007, 05:22 AM
from where i sit, you're using the sick behavior of an individual to implicitly advocate restrictions on speech, and i'm saying that's stupid.
Good, now we are into clear speak. You have your opinion and I have mine. You call my opinion stupid, and it makes you “fucking sick” and that’s your right.

I will not call your opinion stupid because that’s your belief. I happen to believe that individual’s sick behavior, pornographic sites, etc. should not enjoy the right of free speech. I will repeat what I had said in an early thread, I find it hard to believe the founding fathers meant for this type of “speech” to be protected.

So, we agree to disagree.

dclary
03-31-2007, 05:27 AM
the Supreme Court wrote in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), striking down West Virginia (http://www.answers.com/topic/west-virginia)'s law requiring students to salute (http://www.answers.com/topic/salute) the American flag, "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion."

And if ERA has its way, Sex either. So vote for ERA, and let pedophilia become fully constitutional.

Yay ERA!

dclary
03-31-2007, 05:30 AM
It's interesting to know that our concept of freedom of speech is only as old as the 60s, and chief justice Warren. Before that, it was perfectly acceptable to arrest people like Tour and Pendragon for their seditious, "I hate Bush" rhetoric.

William Haskins
03-31-2007, 05:41 AM
I find it hard to believe the founding fathers meant for this type of “speech” to be protected.

which ones precisely? the one who fucked his teenage slave, or the one who hung out in cathouses as a boy, fathered an illegitimate child and shacked up with a woman for 44 years without marrying her, siring two kids in the process?

please don't play the "mt rushmore is mt olympus" card... those men knew exactly what they were protecting, and knew that distasteful things would be protected in the process.

Robert Toy
03-31-2007, 05:49 AM
which ones precisely? the one who fucked his teenage slave, or the one who hung out in cathouses as a boy, fathered an illegitimate child and shacked up with a woman for 44 years without marrying her, siring two kids in the process?

please don't play the "mt rushmore is mt olympus" card... those men knew exactly what they were protecting, and knew that distasteful things would be protected in the process.
Must you always have the last sarcastic post?

I respect you beliefs, try for once to respect someone else’s that may differ from yours.

William Haskins
03-31-2007, 05:56 AM
there was nothing sarcastic about that post. just the fact, ma'am...

Robert Toy
03-31-2007, 06:02 AM
there was nothing sarcastic about that post. just the fact, ma'am...
You would define, “please don't play the "mt rushmore is mt olympus" card...” as?

You just can’t accept, and respect that someone is entitled to an opinion different than yours can you?

William Haskins
03-31-2007, 06:22 AM
it was merely a literary device of sorts to caution against seeing the founding fathers as something more-than-mortal.

You just can’t accept, and respect that someone is entitled to an opinion different than yours can you?

what is this obsession with respect? i can accept that you have a different opinion, and i'm fully capable of judging it of little or no consequence when our divergent opinions are about movies, or books, or even politics.

when it's about free speech, i have no desire nor duty to humor anyone.

Robert Toy
03-31-2007, 06:26 AM
it was merely a literary device of sorts to caution against seeing the founding fathers as something more-than-mortal.



what is this obsession with respect? i can accept that you have a different opinion, and i'm fully capable of judging it of little or no consequence when our divergent opinions are about movies, or books, or even politics.

when it's about free speech, i have no desire nor duty to humor anyone.
Sad

MacAllister
03-31-2007, 06:32 AM
Robert, I'd like to rename this thread, actually, for the purposes of not showing up on Google searches about kiddie pr0n.

Would you, or other thread participants, like to suggest something less bald and frankly misleading?

Robert Toy
03-31-2007, 06:45 AM
Robert, I'd like to rename this thread, actually, for the purposes of not showing up on Google searches about kiddie pr0n.

Would you, or other thread participants, like to suggest something less bald and frankly misleading?
I’ll leave that up to you. The name I took directly off the story title on CNN, sorry.

William Haskins
03-31-2007, 06:47 AM
i would suggest "beyond the limits of free speech?", which seems to encapsulate the spirit of the original post.

though i hasten to add that things didn't work out so well the last time i suggested a title for a thread that wasn't mine. and robert's already getting a little sandy...

Robert Toy
03-31-2007, 06:49 AM
i would suggest "beyond the limits of free speech?", which seems to encapsulate the spirit of the original post.

though i hasten to add that things didn't work out so well the last time i suggested a title for a thread that wasn't mine. and robert's already getting a little sandy...
Sounds like a great title.

Robert Toy
03-31-2007, 06:54 AM
Robert, I'd like to rename this thread, actually, for the purposes of not showing up on Google searches about kiddie pr0n.

Would you, or other thread participants, like to suggest something less bald and frankly misleading?
Mac, change it to "beyond the limits of free speech?" Please.

MacAllister
03-31-2007, 07:08 AM
Done. Thank you, gentlemen.

blacbird
03-31-2007, 08:08 AM
vote for ERA, and let pedophilia become fully constitutional.


Of anyone here can realistically connect the dots that led to this piece of wisdom, please let me know. Thank you.

caw

Anthony Ravenscroft
03-31-2007, 05:45 PM
Of anyone here can realistically connect the dots that led to this piece of wisdom, please let me know. Thank you.

caw
Spongiform encephalitis?

(IANAD)

McDuff
04-01-2007, 11:45 PM
I'm confused.

One, this is hardly hiding behind anonymity on the internet. The story used his own real name and apparently everybody, including the police, knows where he lives. He's the least anonymous guy in the world.

Two, we already have limits on free speech. You can't libel or slander, you can't use someone's image without their permission, you can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater or otherwise incite a riot. It seems that this is the kind of thing that can be addressed with a well drafted, specific law by the relevant legislatures.

So why, exactly, are we raging against the entire principle of "freedom of speech" which is a fundamental cornerstone of democracy in the civilised world? That's a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, then burning down your house to make sure it's dead.

Perks
04-02-2007, 12:38 AM
It seems that this is the kind of thing that can be addressed with a well drafted, specific law by the relevant legislatures.


I'm curious, how would you word such a law? If he hasn't broken any of the existing laws, what are you going to put in place that sets the line begind where he currently stands?

McDuff
04-02-2007, 01:18 AM
IANAL(awyer/egislator), but it would seem fairly straightforward to say that anyone who propagates information with the intent to cause harm or to enable others to cause harm to minors is guilty of X and shall be sentenced to Y years in prison. You'd need to brush up the wording with someone who knows the first thing about how to write legislation (well, I know the first thing. You'd need a guy who knows things two to seventy-nine A subparagraph six B), obviously, but I can't see a big problem with that.

Robert Toy
04-02-2007, 01:27 AM
IANAL(awyer/egislator), but it would seem fairly straightforward to say that anyone who propagates information with the intent to cause harm or to enable others to cause harm to minors is guilty of X and shall be sentenced to Y years in prison. You'd need to brush up the wording with someone who knows the first thing about how to write legislation (well, I know the first thing. You'd need a guy who knows things two to seventy-nine A subparagraph six B), obviously, but I can't see a big problem with that.
First issue, the courts could argue for decades on the definition of “harm”, you would need 50 pages in an attempt to cover all definitions and the ACLU would challenge every one of them.

Perks
04-02-2007, 01:36 AM
According to him, he's looking to avoid harm to precious, albeit sexy, children. He is admitting to an unpopular attraction, but he acknowledges that he's not allowed to act on his impulses.

I'm not defending his perversion, but I don't see how you can imprison him for thinking what he thinks or indeed talking about what he thinks.

Robert Toy
04-02-2007, 01:42 AM
According to him, he's looking to avoid harm to precious, albeit sexy, children. He is admitting to an unpopular attraction, but he acknowledges that he's not allowed to act on his impulses.

I'm not defending his perversion, but I don't see how you can imprison him for thinking what he thinks or indeed talking about what he thinks.
That is the major problem with trying to establish a new law to prevent/limit such thought/crimes. If you can enact a law that would do that, what’s to stop them arresting you for writing a book about harming someone, albeit fictional?

Perks
04-02-2007, 01:44 AM
Robert, which side of this fence are you on? Lol!

Robert Toy
04-02-2007, 01:52 AM
Robert, which side of this fence are you on? Lol!
Rather than attempting to enact laws, which do not/cannot be enforced without infringing on our treasured right of freedom of speech. If someone says or does something that offends you, kill the little bastard. End of story.

Perks
04-02-2007, 01:53 AM
Well, I'll drink to that. Praise be and pass the ammunition.

McDuff
04-02-2007, 02:29 AM
Robert, do you say this because you do know the second to seventy-third things about legislation, or because you're reading from the standard right-wing hymnbook about the ACLU? Given that you apparently have precious little regard for the rule of law, I'm inclined to suspect the latter.

I might be misunderstanding, of course, and not getting that after murdering this guy that you would face the murder rap under the principles of civil disobedience. I'm not sure exactly what law you would be able to claim was unjust, though. Would you prefer a modification to the laws against murder that made an exception in the case of some dude being, like, really skeevy?


Perks, that's the kind of thing that legislators do. We have laws on the books that reasonably and legally define harm even in the absence of intent to cause harm -- manslaughter being the most obvious one that springs to mind, criminal negligence being another. It's fairly easily demonstrable that what this guy is doing has the potential to cause harm to minors, even if he says it isn't. I'm not entirely sure, in all honesty, why what he's doing isn't illegal already. It seems more like a loophole that needs closing than an entirely new species of law that needs dreaming up.

Perks
04-02-2007, 02:38 AM
Perks, that's the kind of thing that legislators do. And boy howdy, do they ever.

I am against legislating thought and looking to criminalize conversation. I want to know what these freaks are thinking and chatting about.

Mustangpilot
04-02-2007, 02:57 AM
Robert, do you say this because you do know the second to seventy-third things about legislation, or because you're reading from the standard right-wing hymnbook about the ACLU? Given that you apparently have precious little regard for the rule of law, I'm inclined to suspect the latter.
.


Ah, the dreaded right wing. How many of you have heard of the past president of the Virginia chapter who has been indited for child porn. He had explicit photos and videos of children being raped, damn near snuff stuff. The left wing media has spiked that story. Imagine that.

Robert Toy
04-02-2007, 02:57 AM
Robert, do you say this because you do know the second to seventy-third things about legislation, or because you're reading from the standard right-wing hymnbook about the ACLU? Given that you apparently have precious little regard for the rule of law, I'm inclined to suspect the latter.

I might be misunderstanding, of course, and not getting that after murdering this guy that you would face the murder rap under the principles of civil disobedience. I'm not sure exactly what law you would be able to claim was unjust, though. Would you prefer a modification to the laws against murder that made an exception in the case of some dude being, like, really skeevy?


Perks, that's the kind of thing that legislators do. We have laws on the books that reasonably and legally define harm even in the absence of intent to cause harm -- manslaughter being the most obvious one that springs to mind, criminal negligence being another. It's fairly easily demonstrable that what this guy is doing has the potential to cause harm to minors, even if he says it isn't. I'm not entirely sure, in all honesty, why what he's doing isn't illegal already. It seems more like a loophole that needs closing than an entirely new species of law that needs dreaming up.
I’m sorry you misunderstood my post.

I lie, I actually don’t give a rat’s ass how you are inclined to interpret the post, and just for information there are seventy-six things.

I’m a card carrying member of the ACLU, are you?

McDuff
04-02-2007, 03:01 AM
The desire to not want to drive people underground is another side to the argument. It did occur to me that if there was a bulletin board where criminals would make posts like "My name is Bob, I live at 452 Evergreen Terrace and on this date I plan to commit the following crimes..." that the last thing the police would want to do would be to shut that thing down. This guy is essentially saying "Look at me, I'm potentially dangerous, here's how the police can keep track of my activities!!"

This is not about legislating thought, though. I would argue, as would many parents of the affected children, that when you're doing something like this you are committing actual harm. Posting a picture of a child on a website devoted to paedophile activities would count as endangering that child's safety to me, and I'm pretty sure it wouldn't take that talented a lawyer to argue it convincingly in court.

Perks
04-02-2007, 03:04 AM
I've already said the pictures are the thing that I find action-worthy on his site. They shouldn't be there.

I have two young daughters, so it's not like I'm talking out my left ear. If their pictures were on that site, they'd be off PDQ. Other than that, the soandso hasn't said anything I didn't already know.

Robert Toy
04-02-2007, 03:08 AM
If you have a few minutes and want to do some research on the subject, I think you will find that parents kill/abuse more children than the Internet/hidden pedophiles by a wide margin.

I'm not saying pedophiles are not a problem, but parents are a bigger danger to the children.

McDuff
04-02-2007, 03:09 AM
Rather than attempting to enact laws, which do not/cannot be enforced without infringing on our treasured right of freedom of speech. If someone says or does something that offends you, kill the little bastard. End of story.
Is there another way to interpret this post other than being less in favour of the rule of law and the state monopoly on force and more in favour of vigilantism? It seems remarkably explicit in intent.

Mustangpilot> have you heard about the Republican Congressman in charge of the House committee for the safety of children who got caught cybersexing with underage congressional pages, or the Catholic priests who abused their altarboys, or any other number of perverts whose actions should probably not be taken as a serious indictment of the organisations to which they belonged at the time?

Also, the press isn't Left Wing, it's incredibly lazy. Seriously, write the story up and send it in to the New York Times. They'll probably print it without even checking if your quotes are real or not.

Perks
04-02-2007, 03:11 AM
I'm not saying pedophiles are not a problem, but parents are a bigger danger to the children.

There should be a law... oh wait...

Robert Toy
04-02-2007, 03:18 AM
Is there another way to interpret this post other than being less in favour of the rule of law and the state monopoly on force and more in favour of vigilantism? It seems remarkably explicit in intent.
Yup, and my un-indicted co-conspirator Perks, she provided the booze and I provided the ammunition.

Perks: "Well, I'll drink to that. Praise be and pass the ammunition."

Robert Toy
04-02-2007, 03:34 AM
Sorry, it's the 2nd of April here, so back to the regular schedule.

Celia Cyanide
04-03-2007, 09:50 PM
That is the major problem with trying to establish a new law to prevent/limit such thought/crimes. If you can enact a law that would do that, what’s to stop them arresting you for writing a book about harming someone, albeit fictional?

So, Robert, what do you propose we should do?

From reading the rest of this thread, it sounds like you don't think this type of speech should be protected. But what is it exactly you think should be criminalized? Admitting an attraction to children? As of right now, it sounds like he isn't breaking any laws (although I'm still wondering about that posting-photos-of-kids-without-parental-consent thing)

I'm asking because I don't wish to put words in your mouth. Like Perks, I'm not quite sure what your position is on this issue, and I am interested to know.

C.bronco
04-03-2007, 10:09 PM
He is completely free to admit to criminal behavior or intent to engage in criminal behavior.
Don't confuse free speech with conspiracy to commit a crime. He is free to confess publicly, which is what he's doing. But, if a thirteen year old can get arrested for making a list of people he or she hates, then this cretin can be arrested for planning to commit one of the most heinous crimes imaginable.

Celia Cyanide
04-03-2007, 10:45 PM
He is completely free to admit to criminal behavior or intent to engage in criminal behavior.
Don't confuse free speech with conspiracy to commit a crime. He is free to confess publicly, which is what he's doing. But, if a thirteen year old can get arrested for making a list of people he or she hates, then this cretin can be arrested for planning to commit one of the most heinous crimes imaginable.

Except that he isn't planning to commit this crime. He says that he has no intention of acting on his impulses.

C.bronco
04-03-2007, 10:58 PM
I couldn't get onto the site.
What if a group put up a website to discuss their inclinations toward shooting a political figure, with a disclaimer that they would not act on their inclinations? How well would (and should) that fly?

Robert Toy
04-03-2007, 11:36 PM
So, Robert, what do you propose we should do?

From reading the rest of this thread, it sounds like you don't think this type of speech should be protected. But what is it exactly you think should be criminalized? Admitting an attraction to children? As of right now, it sounds like he isn't breaking any laws (although I'm still wondering about that posting-photos-of-kids-without-parental-consent thing)

I'm asking because I don't wish to put words in your mouth. Like Perks, I'm not quite sure what your position is on this issue, and I am interested to know.
I agree the posting of photos-of-kids-without-parental-consent thing being a big no-no, or in my opinion it is, I don’t understand why they can’t stop that.

As to what should or should not be criminalized is a legislative matter, there are a number of items that I personally feel should not, or do not enjoy free speech, such as child pornography; words/speech meant to incite violence (hate speeches); leaking of classified information; slander; liable, etc. All of which have current laws that take care of most of these issues, but most are so full of legal loop holes they are damn near meaningless.

I have a problem with people who write or say things just because they can. In other words they don’t necessarily believe in what they are saying, it's just saying it to draw attention (Ann Coulter comes to mind). You can’t stop anyone from saying what they want but there are and should be consequences and not a free-for-all.

There are a few folks on this forum that make statements for shock value and attention only, no value-added, just blurb.

In the U.S. you can say or print anything you want, the Internet is world-wide and its contents is sometimes contrary to their laws and morals. That can also be seen as an infringement of their rights, or do you just say screw them?

I’m old fashion and still believe in some sense of common decency. Unfortunately you cannot legislate that, your parents have to teach you that.

davids
04-03-2007, 11:52 PM
Yup, and my un-indicted co-conspirator Perks, she provided the booze and I provided the ammunition.

Perks: "Well, I'll drink to that. Praise be and pass the ammunition."

Well Bob the ACLU? Anyway I am a bit hurt. I know I only posted once at the beginning of the thread but I thought at least you would ask me to cut the lead-hot-cross buns of lead for this sick bastardo. I just love a bit of honest vigilanteing-it goes so well with tea crumpets and my white hood! No not that kind of white hood sillies-the kind you wear when planting Petunias to keep the sun off of the old crapper. It is truly amazing how my glied swells up when I read intellectual falldeerawl-thank the Lord above for threads like this. Hic! There-not that anyone gives a crap but I am gonna go soak some buckshot!!!!

Robert Toy
04-04-2007, 12:09 AM
Well Bob the ACLU? Anyway I am a bit hurt. I know I only posted once at the beginning of the thread but I thought at least you would ask me to cut the lead-hot-cross buns of lead for this sick bastardo. I just love a bit of honest vigilanteing-it goes so well with tea crumpets and my white hood! No not that kind of white hood sillies-the kind you wear when planting Petunias to keep the sun off of the old crapper. It is truly amazing how my glied swells up when I read intellectual falldeerawl-thank the Lord above for threads like this. Hic! There-not that anyone gives a crap but I am gonna go soak some buckshot!!!!

Amherst College Literary Club….shhh

davids
04-04-2007, 01:31 AM
Amherst College Literary Club….shhh

ok-quiet is not it?

McDuff
04-04-2007, 01:49 AM
"libel"

Robert Toy
04-04-2007, 01:52 AM
oh shit!