A Fleshner Fantasy wrote:But the problem is, where do you draw the line? Sure, you don't want to support this scum bucket, but the point is, there are going to be much more mild versions of such activities, so what do you do in those cases? If you don't abide by the free speech laws, you get into a sticky situation where the authorities are making judgement calls constantly to determine if something is "bad" enough to make it illegal. Also, the problem is, once you get into judgement calls, people won't know what they can and can't do. So as much as I hate to say it, I think you have to protect this guy's right to free speech.
This has nothing to do with free speech. Read the thread. The law (or possibly laws) the guy broke has nothing to do with free speech.
Art Vandelay wrote: Madison wrote:
You brought up an argument than nobody was making (people being in favor of child rape), then proceeded to debase the point as if you were refuting someone. That's the very definition of a straw man argument. I can refute what you say while pointing out strawmen. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
Actually, you guys are arguing "free speech" this and "free speech" that when free speech is irrelevant to the discussion. The idiot broke decency laws. That is the situation before us and you cannot refute the fact that he broke those laws, so it is of no surprise to see you lob the strawman out there to try to distract from the fact you are wrong.
I've mentioned "free speech" once:
yeah, a little scary when people in law enforcement want to draw the line of free speech at speech that they don't find offensive.
Which was more a general statement than a comment on this specific case and was in direct response to this:
Judd said he was frustrated that Greaves' book was protected under freedom of speech laws, even though it was created "specifically to teach people how to sexually molest and rape children."
This guy is all about free speech, until someone says something he doesn't like. It scares me when people in positions of power think that way.
And I'm not saying he didn't break a Florida law...he very well may have, that will be decided in court. What I'm saying is that the law in question is ridiculous, and the method by which Florida officials arrested this guy appears to have been entrapment in my opinion. I can hold both of those opinions while simultaneously pointing out your straw man argument. I didn't bring it up as a distraction, I brought it up because it was a blatant and humorous use of a strawman. If we're going to debate something, debate things that are actually being said, not things that you create out of thin air and then refute as if you've made some grand point.
So in other words...
You - The law is dumb and the way they caught him is wrong.
Me - Disagreeing with the law doesn't mean someone has the ability to not follow it. As to the method in which they caught him, no one forced him to ship to Florida and it is no different than an undercover agent buying drugs from a suspected drug dealer and then arresting him.
Yet I'm the one with a strawman? I get a kick out of that since you have zero legs to stand on in this discussion, which is exactly why you lobbed the strawman out there. You have zero to argue, you can't win, so distracting is the only chance you have at anything in this thread.
StlSluggers wrote:Art, I think he's harping more on me. I think it's a first amendment issue. I completely understand that Florida thinks this is an obscenity issue, but creating an unconstitutional law doesn't suddenly give them the right to ignore the first amendment. I think he might very well get convicted in his first trial, but I imagine his appeals will be strongly in his favor. That's how these things work (the anti-gay marriage laws in California are a great and recent example of the majority of the people wanting something and the Constitution prevailing in spite of the majority).
Of course, I may be wrong. Maybe they wrote a great law that works around the first amendment, but I'm highly skeptical. As I said earlier, their loosely-written law seems to allow prosecution of works of literature where a minor is consuming alcohol or drugs, because that "clearly depicts a minor engaged in any act or conduct that is harmful to minors." And any other number of acts would fall under that definition. It's a terrible law that won't stand the test of the appeals courts.
Personally, I hope this sees the Supreme Court, but I think this guy's dire financial state, coupled with the unexpected scrutiny he's suddenly feeling, and the fact that Florida probably won't appeal it past the state level will result in this getting wrapped up long before the SC has a chance to comment on this mess. And there's the whole entrapment mess, too. Florida really effed the pooch on this one, that's for sure.
I gave you a link earlier that would have been much easier to defend, but no one even tried. And with how that trial went, this one will go the same way. And obscenity/decency laws are not unconstitutional. Not even close. I have the "right" to carry a gun, a license to do so, but I can't load up like Rambo and go walking down the street because that would be illegal. There are limits to any "right", and while you might not like it, that doesn't change the fact. So even if by some crazy stretch this did fit into free speech (which it doesn't), he still crossed the line.
Since Florida isn't using that law to go after someone writing books about kids drinking, having consensual sex, or similar, it should tell you that Florida is using the law correctly and not abusing it.
Florida got it right and it will send a very clear message to other child rapists that this country will not tolerate or protect them.
Mookie4ever wrote:I side completely with Madison here.
Free speech has never been absolute, it's all a question of where you draw the line. I just happen to be in favour of drawing the line where a how-to book on child molestation is hateful and should be illegal.
Dang. Now I can't use the "I'm the only one who gets this!" line.
Neato Torpedo wrote:"You can't say or write this, or we'll throw you in prison. But this is NOT a free speech issue."
Mad, you're going to get nowhere arguing that this and other decency laws aren't related to free speech. You COULD bring up the abridgment of free speech in times of clear and present danger (e.g. shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater) but then again, it's not a clear and present danger.
Textbooks on criminology can be used as a how-to for committing a crime and covering up evidence but you can't nail an author on that. Hell, you could look at the TV show Dexter and notice that the protagonist outlines in detail how to kill someone and dispose of the body so no one notices. But is anyone calling for the heads of the TV producers or the textbook authors? Of course not, because we don't hate them. The guy that wrote this book is a reprehensible human being, and we're all letting our hatred and our fear cloud our judgment. What the police should do is investigate to see if he's committed any of these crimes himself, because if he's writing in as much detail as some people are saying, it's conceivable that he's speaking from experience. But if he didn't actually do anything, and he has some sort of mental problem and just wrote this thing for the attention (wouldn't surprise me) then he shouldn't be treated by the law as if he did actually abuse children.
He's not in jail for anything he said, he's in jail for what he wrote and for distributing it.
If he had been arrested for dropping an F-Bomb in public, then you guys would have a case as far as this being a free speech issue, you'd still lose, but at least the argument would make sense. But that isn't what happened.
OMG! Television is real? I always thought it was fake! Need to bust those CSI shows as well, they show how they catch criminals, so that's a direct way of showing criminals what NOT to do if they want to get away with their crimes!
I have no hatred or fear of this guy. My blood pressure hasn't increased one beat during this story. Yes, he is scum, but if I let every scumbag out there get to me I'd have died from a heart attack a long time ago. So there is no clouding of judgment on my end. He broke the law and should be punished. Pretty simple stuff.
Yes doctor, I am sick.
Sick of those who are spineless.
Sick of those who feel self-entitled.
Sick of those who are hypocrites.
Yes doctor, an army is forming.
Yes doctor, there will be a war.
Yes doctor, there will be blood.....