Yet somehow the US functions with freedom of speech even with some restrictions.
But we’re not talking about CP are we? We’re taking about how we are still dealing with rightoids censoring books and now the left wants certain ones censored.
I argued against the right censoring books and I’ll continue to argue the same way, regardless of who the next shitty group trying it is.
That’s my point though. If you don’t ban (aka censor) illegal things as a foundation, you end up living in a hellscape. I’m saying your argument isn’t thorough enough. It’s not going far enough. It’s scratching the surface and saying “good enough” when it doesn’t actually appear to be.
I am talking about illegal things because it’s an obvious hole in your argument. What are you talking about about? Because it sounds like you’re being short sighted to me, sticking to a happy path, but I could be wrong. What do you think?
Yeah, let’s put “Der Giftpilz”, meaning “The poisonous mushroom” - a German children’s book from 1938 - up for sale everywhere.
Children should learn how Jews are the poisonous mushrooms of humanity because they rape German girls, killed Jesus and doom humanity if we don’t find a solution to the Jewish Question.
It almost as if education and critical thinking about what one is reading is important.
That book can be read to children in the context of it being wrong. It can be explained to children why it is wrong and that just because they read something in a book doesn’t mean it’s right.
What’s better, educating people to think critically, or banning things so they don’t have to think at all?
I’m sure this will be the reason anyone purchases this book.
Besides you don’t expose children to Polio to strengthen their immune system, you give them a weakened version. The beautifully illustrated book with arguments which sound logical to children, tons of non-verbal messaging and countless hateful stereotypes is not how you educate children.
They will ban books regardless of whether harmful books are banned.
Freedom of speech doesn’t extend to incitement of hatred. If it does, your laws don’t protect freedom of speech as much as they protect the freedom to call for, and eventually cause, genocide.
If you expect your right to say “fuck the police” or wear a shirt emblazoned with the same, you can’t go around saying the law should keep someone from wearing a swastika. BOTH are protected by the right to free speech, as much as you and much of the left don’t want to admit it.
I stand for the PRINCIPLE of free speech rather than wheeling it out to defend speech I like but then pretending like it doesn’t exist to suppress speech I don’t.
In order to preempt some of the more predictable responses to this, no, private companies cannot violate your right to free speech - only the government can. So if the book company in the OP decides to stop selling some books, I would not consider it to be violating free speech. But I think the conversation has strayed from that specific instance at this point.
That’s illegal and for good reason.
Yet somehow the US functions with freedom of speech even with some restrictions.
But we’re not talking about CP are we? We’re taking about how we are still dealing with rightoids censoring books and now the left wants certain ones censored.
I argued against the right censoring books and I’ll continue to argue the same way, regardless of who the next shitty group trying it is.
That’s my point though. If you don’t ban (aka censor) illegal things as a foundation, you end up living in a hellscape. I’m saying your argument isn’t thorough enough. It’s not going far enough. It’s scratching the surface and saying “good enough” when it doesn’t actually appear to be.
I am talking about illegal things because it’s an obvious hole in your argument. What are you talking about about? Because it sounds like you’re being short sighted to me, sticking to a happy path, but I could be wrong. What do you think?
Yeah, let’s put “Der Giftpilz”, meaning “The poisonous mushroom” - a German children’s book from 1938 - up for sale everywhere.
Children should learn how Jews are the poisonous mushrooms of humanity because they rape German girls, killed Jesus and doom humanity if we don’t find a solution to the Jewish Question.
This book can be legally sold in the US.
It almost as if education and critical thinking about what one is reading is important.
That book can be read to children in the context of it being wrong. It can be explained to children why it is wrong and that just because they read something in a book doesn’t mean it’s right.
What’s better, educating people to think critically, or banning things so they don’t have to think at all?
I’m sure this will be the reason anyone purchases this book.
Besides you don’t expose children to Polio to strengthen their immune system, you give them a weakened version. The beautifully illustrated book with arguments which sound logical to children, tons of non-verbal messaging and countless hateful stereotypes is not how you educate children.
A conservative could say the same thing with a different book.
Stop trying to ban books.
They will ban books regardless of whether harmful books are banned.
Freedom of speech doesn’t extend to incitement of hatred. If it does, your laws don’t protect freedom of speech as much as they protect the freedom to call for, and eventually cause, genocide.
Free speech DOES extend to hatred, though.
Did y’all forget the ACLU once defended the National Socialist Party of America’s right to free speech?
If you expect your right to say “fuck the police” or wear a shirt emblazoned with the same, you can’t go around saying the law should keep someone from wearing a swastika. BOTH are protected by the right to free speech, as much as you and much of the left don’t want to admit it.
I stand for the PRINCIPLE of free speech rather than wheeling it out to defend speech I like but then pretending like it doesn’t exist to suppress speech I don’t.
In order to preempt some of the more predictable responses to this, no, private companies cannot violate your right to free speech - only the government can. So if the book company in the OP decides to stop selling some books, I would not consider it to be violating free speech. But I think the conversation has strayed from that specific instance at this point.