1st Amendment Rights: Freedom Of Speech Question

by minimus 18 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  darthfader

  It takes little effort to find unsavory information on just about any topic. The fact that this information exists doesnt cause people to commit crimes. Does it make their job easier... sure! Just like killing a person with a gun is easier than a knife. And killing someone with a knife is easier than with a spoon. So the challenge is where do you draw the line. Was anyone directly harmed by the collection and printing of a "criminal acts - how-to manual". I think not. In the McVeigh case, I would say that the access to fertalizer and ammonia nitrate is now controlled in better ways - to prevent "access with ill intent".

  Darth Fader
• 

  JWoods

  Here we also have roots to much of the contraversy over catching terrorist suspects - they will claim that it is no big deal if they have a formula for powdered Anthrax or a Nuclear Bomb detonator on their PC, this is just free speech and they have not yet done anything harmful with it.
• 

  leavingwt

  Compared to the Old Testament, it sounds like a Disney Classic.
• 

  darthfader

  In sure that lots of individuals have access to anthrax "recipes" or nuclear bomb designs. But, it takes a lot more than just instructions to have a working Virus or Nuclear bomb. There are parts of each of these things that are extremely difficult to obtain. I remember an article about a kid collecting smoke detectors to harvest the radioactive material in order to build a working nuclear power plant. He didnt get very far and is pretty messed up: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292111,00.html

  So it's not the complex virus "recipes" or Nuclear Bomb plans that we should be concerned about. I would worry about things like social engineering: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_engineering_(security)

  Darth Fader
• 

  Elsewhere

  I would rather such books be out in the open for the public to know about than for only criminals to know about them.

  If you outlaw books then only outlaws will have books.
• 

  Elsewhere

  > I remember an article about a kid collecting smoke detectors to harvest the radioactive material in order to build a working nuclear power plant

  lmao... very funny! The kid was a moron who didn't realize that the radioactive material in smoke detectors produces radioactivity less powerful than the human body.

  He could have put together a pile of the stuff and I could have come along and shielded it using a paper bag.
• 

  bigwilly

  Freedom of information. Just because it's out there doesn't mean it's going to happen. It's like the age old racist and antigay propaganda, reading about or associating with these people does not make you one of them. Likewise (as minimus pointed out) reading this material does not equal acting on it. The issue is with the person that acts on it, not those that have something to say on the matter. We all have dark thoughts on occasion, the difference between most people and Tim McVeigh's of the world is acting on it. Sociopaths, murderers etc will do what they do with or without someone publishing a book.

  If we're going to ban a book (or books) based on damage caused or lives lost, it should be this one:

  
• 

  JWoods

  It seems that I vaguely remember both this documentary and also a Law & Order episode based loosely on it.

  I believe I remember that in the Law & Order, ADA Sam Waterston actually prosecuted the book publisher as being a conspirator to the murder, or at least threatened to do so to get their mailing list.

  Of course, one other factor to remember is that the relatives of such a victim would almost certainly have a civil suit against the publisher.
• 

  minimus

  ADA Sam Waterson---he's too much of a zealot. He needs to chill.