StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Its called free speech and freedom of the press.

Holy fucking shit, NAMBLA actually exists outside of South Park??!?!??

Alyeska wrote:Its called free speech and freedom of the press.

When someone publish hate literature,everyone will try to shut it off,should`nt they do the same with that.

Alyeska wrote:Its called free speech and freedom of the press.

Pedophilia is illegal.

While NAMBLA advocates pedophilia, it doesn't actually depict it on its website or in its publications which is why its managed to survive many attempts at law suits and other legal action.

Dalton wrote:

Alyeska wrote:Its called free speech and freedom of the press.

Pedophilia is illegal.

So? Using that line of reasoning murder mysteries should be banned as well.

Freedom of speach is a good thing but there has to be a line drawn somewhere.
In the this case I will never use amazon for anything if more people stoped using it then it would surly wither up and die

LT.Hit-Man wrote:Freedom of speach is a good thing but there has to be a line drawn somewhere.

No, the moment you draw a line you no longer have free speech.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

LT.Hit-Man wrote:Freedom of speach is a good thing but there has to be a line drawn somewhere.

No, the moment you draw a line you no longer have free speech.

True but what is the lesser ofthe two evils
Stoping things that are covered by the freedom of speach laws that will prevent inconect children from being victimzed.

Or not drawing the line to keep a persons right to free speach open and alowing inconet children to be hurt?

Sea Skimmer wrote:

LT.Hit-Man wrote:Freedom of speach is a good thing but there has to be a line drawn somewhere.

No, the moment you draw a line you no longer have free speech.

So, if I yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater and the ensuing stampede kills three people, will you accept the explanation that I was excercising my right to free speech?

LT.Hit-Man wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:

LT.Hit-Man wrote:Freedom of speach is a good thing but there has to be a line drawn somewhere.

No, the moment you draw a line you no longer have free speech.

True but what is the lesser ofthe two evils
Stoping things that are covered by the freedom of speach laws that will prevent inconect children from being victimzed.

Or not drawing the line to keep a persons right to free speach open and alowing inconet children to be hurt?

Whats to stop the government from being more restrictive? Why not crack down on the racists? Now how about the people who support anti-government movements? What about those anti-republicans now...

Certain lines once drawn always move closer.

What you fail to realize is that free speech is a very important thing and the best way to defend yourself is through more free speech. You prove those who spout dangerous material to be wrong. You do not relent. Rather then take the easy route and also remove constitutionaly garunteed freedoms, why not take responsibility to try and fix society? Why not charge those responsible for doing the bad deeds? Don't blame the stupid magazine, blame the idiot who thought the magazine was truthful.

Kuja wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:

LT.Hit-Man wrote:Freedom of speach is a good thing but there has to be a line drawn somewhere.

No, the moment you draw a line you no longer have free speech.

So, if I yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater and the ensuing stampede kills three people, will you accept the explanation that I was excercising my right to free speech?

That's inciting civil unrest and against the law.

Kuja wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:

LT.Hit-Man wrote:Freedom of speach is a good thing but there has to be a line drawn somewhere.

No, the moment you draw a line you no longer have free speech.

So, if I yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater and the ensuing stampede kills three people, will you accept the explanation that I was excercising my right to free speech?

This is not the same thing. Bad as NAMBLA is, they do not advocate breaking the law. They wish to change the law, but they don't want to break it. Yelling Fire causes people to panic and it puts others in danger. NAMBLA is a semi lobyist group trying to get its ideas legalized. You might as well ban racist groups that spout inequality while living in the bounds of the law when saying it.

LT.Hit-Man wrote:
True but what is the lesser ofthe two evils
Stoping things that are covered by the freedom of speach laws that will prevent inconect children from being victimzed.

Or not drawing the line to keep a persons right to free speach open and alowing inconet children to be hurt?

Prove that shutting down a legal publication will actually do anything to reduce pedophilia. Also please demonstrate where the line should be drawn and how you intent to prevent the whole thing form being massively abused.

Alyeska wrote: Whats to stop the government from being more restrictive? Why not crack down on the racists? Now how about the people who support anti-government movements? What about those anti-republicans now...

Certain lines once drawn always move closer.

What you fail to realize is that free speech is a very important thing and the best way to defend yourself is through more free speech. You prove those who spout dangerous material to be wrong. You do not relent. Rather then take the easy route and also remove constitutionaly garunteed freedoms, why not take responsibility to try and fix society? Why not charge those responsible for doing the bad deeds? Don't blame the stupid magazine, blame the idiot who thought the magazine was truthful.

Good I'm glad to see that someone is thinking right becuase I do agree that cencorship does no good because it does not get to the root of the problem

Chardok wrote:

Kuja wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:
No, the moment you draw a line you no longer have free speech.

So, if I yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater and the ensuing stampede kills three people, will you accept the explanation that I was excercising my right to free speech?

That's inciting civil unrest and against the law.

And thus my point: there has to be a line somewhere. I'm not advocating banning this particular magazine, just pointing out that there needs to be a line to stop people from being injured in situations like the one I described above. A "no line" policy would be foolish.

Kuja wrote:And thus my point: there has to be a line somewhere. I'm not advocating banning this particular magazine, just pointing out that there needs to be a line to stop people from being injured in situations like the one I described above. A "no line" policy would be foolish.

Your point is not valid. So long as the speech has no harm intended and does not advocate the breaking of laws, there is no justifyable reason to restrict it. Shouting fire in a crowded movie theater is a different example all together of saying something that incites panic and creates a deadly situation.

Alyeska wrote:Your point is not valid. So long as the speech has no harm intended and does not advocate the breaking of laws, there is no justifyable reason to restrict it. Shouting fire in a crowded movie theater is a different example all together of saying something that incites panic and creates a deadly situation.

Which is exactly why a line must be drawn between the two.

Kuja wrote:

Alyeska wrote:Your point is not valid. So long as the speech has no harm intended and does not advocate the breaking of laws, there is no justifyable reason to restrict it. Shouting fire in a crowded movie theater is a different example all together of saying something that incites panic and creates a deadly situation.

Which is exactly why a line must be drawn between the two.

What line? One is speech, one is idiocy. You might as well call it free speech to state your going to kill the president. There is such a thing as common sense. Talking about a subject in the abstract and talking about making it legal is very different from yelling fire in a movia theater.

I'm curious, do any numbers exist as to how common statutory rape is, and what percent of those crimes were considered rape by the child involved, at any later time? Could such numbers even be reliably obtained? I know several girls who, as young as 14, had sex with men or women as much as 15 years older than they were. Some seemed worse off for it, others quite better, just as any relationship leaves both parties changed somewhat. As such I've never known quite what to think about all the age laws regarding sexual activity.

RadiO wrote:Holy fucking shit, NAMBLA actually exists outside of South Park??!?!??

Yeah, I've been meaning to sign some of my friends up for it as practical jokes.

ASIN B0000C4CWK does not exist in our catalog. Would you like to try your search again?

It doesn't matter anymore

RadiO wrote:Holy fucking shit, NAMBLA actually exists outside of South Park??!?!??

Yes, the pedophiles not the Marlon Brando Look Alikes

The proper solution isn't to go running to the government for censorship.

If you don't like the NAMBLA magazine or books, don't buy them.

If you don't like the idea of Amazon selling the magazine, exercise your rights of free speech and association and tell Amazon that due to their selling of this magazine you will shop elsewhere.

If enough people write to Amazon and tell them this (especially people who are on their customer lists), they'll be more than happy to pull the magazine once again.

Hell, Wally World quit selling Maxim due to the complaints of a few soccer moms. Amazon would certainly respond if 100,000 of their customers threatened to boycott over a publication that advocates pedophilia.


The internet is a wonderful tool to organize boycotts with.