This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
When Does Free Speech Cross the Line?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Ok- I read an article today on CNN about a little girl who died as a result of the abuse of her adoptive parents. She died of hypothermia after she was left outside naked, and had been starved and beaten. Story is here:
http://www.king5.com/news/crime/Skagit-County-couple-charged-in-death-of-adopted-child-130822743.html?hpt=ju_bn6
What struck me, is that the article mentioned that the parents had referenced a book called "To Train Up a Child" as where they learned their disciplinary techniques. I was curious what kind of book would advocate things like beating your kids with plumbing tools, and starving them, so I looked it up to see if maybe it had been blown out or proportion. I found almost 800 comments on Amazon by people who had read the book, and described in detail the child abuse it dictated- whipping infants under a year with a ruler for crying, using punishment to "break the child's will", whipping a child even if they had listened when you told them to stop, setting kids up to fail so you can whip them to assert dominance, etc.
This book is still actively available on Amazon.com, and while some of the 5-star reviews are sarcastic, and list this as a good book to raise a bully or abuse your child, there ARE people put there who are using it as guide. It has also been linked to the death of two other children.
What I want to ask, is does free speech cover this? Does it cover writing a how-to manual about abusing your kids, how to break their spirit, what tools to use so that you don't get caught, etc? When someone picks up a pen, and writes a manual as though an informed authority, using (in this case) their interpretation of the bible to back up what are criminal acts, are they allowed to advocate whatever they want, or is giving advice that is leading to children being killed and abused something criminal? At the very least, should their book be pulled from amazon, and the profits from the book used to help the children it has lead to the abuse of?
Or, do you agree with them and think that you should repeatedly whip your children, as young as 7 months, into submission every time they cry, get angry, don't follow your instructions to the letter, can't sleep, etc.? I'm not asking if you think it's wrong to spank a child, swat them on the hand to stop them from doing something, etc. I know people will have differing opinions on that. I'm talking about taking a tree branch and hitting your kids on the bare legs, or whipping infants.
Here are the comments from people who have read the book, with excerpts:
http://www.amazon.com/Train-Up-Child-Michael-Pearl/product-reviews/1892112000/ref=cm_cr_pr_hist_1?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addOneStar
Post by
Azazel
I think Free Speech is over the line when it's offensive or hurtful to someone else, and this book certainly qualifies for that.
Post by
Jubilee
If there is a direct link between the words someone says or writes and an action that harms another person, then I think some accountability is to be had. If you can't make such a case and you are just annoyed by what the person is writing, then I don't think there is a problem.
Post by
Adamsm
I think Free Speech is over the line when it's offensive or hurtful to someone else, and this book certainly qualifies for that.
Agreed.
Post by
chaosultimamage
The Anarchist Cookbook is grounds for being arrested in some (probably most, really) places, though there may not be a case to hold you for very long. I think this is a bit more dangerous as it isn't really called anything out of the ordinary (How to Beat the #$%^ Out of Your Child) and child abuse is completely illegal anyway.
I mean, as Freedom of Speech goes, the guy should have a right to say how he feels, verbally or in text, but he shouldn't be able to write and sell a book about that.
Post by
Jubilee
I think Free Speech is over the line when it's offensive or hurtful to someone else, and this book certainly qualifies for that.
Agreed.
Is porn over the line? Many people find that offensive and hurtful.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
I think Free Speech is over the line when it's offensive or hurtful to someone else, and this book certainly qualifies for that.
Agreed.
Is porn over the line? Many people find that offensive and hurtful.
I don't think so; but this book? If the author wrote it, then hid behind free speech to keep it going; yeah it should be removed and the copies destroyed. There are some sites out there that teach people about S&M and BDSM, and look at the people who die from screwing things up; something like that should be taken down as well. Would be the same if it was a copy of the KKK bible, the Black Mass, or any of the other really offensive material out there: Should be removed from circulation because it doesn't really help anyone....other then that small segment of the world who enjoys using what's in the the books to cause pain, suffering and hatred across the world.
Post by
xaratherus
I think Free Speech is over the line when it's offensive or hurtful to someone else, and this book certainly qualifies for that.
Agreed.
I think that statement looks good at face value, but it's a bit too pat for me.
For example, a mother tells her daughter - a heavy drug-user - that she needs to clean up her life or she's going to lose guardianship of her infant son. That statement would probably be hurtful to the daughter - but does that mean that said exercise of free speech "crosses the line"?
Another example: Someone tells me that I'm going to Hell because I'm gay. A few years ago, I would have found that highly offensive (now, I do my best to just ignore them). Does that mean they've "crossed the line"? Let's say that I then respond to them that they're an idiot for believing in their "Invisible Sky Daddy" (something that, I'm sad to say, I've said before in anger), and that hurts them; does that "cross the line"?
I think that the only fair way to handle such a complex issue is to take it on a case-by-case basis. In this instance, I think the involvement of this same book in the deaths of multiple kids probably merits some sort of warning to stores that carry the book.
There are some sites out there that teach people about S&M and BDSM, and look at the people who die from screwing things up; something like that should be taken down as well.
There are sites out there that teach people how to repair their garbage disposals and water heaters; there are hundreds of people who die each year from accidental electrocution trying to do their own home repairs. Should those be taken down because they're potentially dangerous if applied incorrectly?
Would be the same if it was a copy of the KKK bible, the Black Mass, or any of the other really offensive material out there
Millions consider the actual Christian Bible to be just as harmful. Should we remove it from circulation as well? After all, I (and millions of others) find it offensive and hurtful.
Post by
gamerunknown
Well, some forms of speech are nearly universally censored, such as blueprints as to how to produce weaponry. Other speech is universally punished, such as announcing intention to murder someone or hiring an assassin to do so.
I don't think the book should be banned. I don't think it should necessarily be given a platform either and there should be routine checks by social workers at parents' houses to ensure they comply with child safety laws. To be honest, the execrable bronze age morality is written fairly explicitly in the Bible. In Sunday school if one was disobedient when I was growing up, they provided a Bible instead of a whipping, but I happened across Proverbs, Leviticus and the Book of Songs and found the passages enthralling. As you note, the justifications for beating one's child can be found within, along with misogyny and regulations of slavery. The Quran has passages where it says that Jews were turned into apes and pigs and that unbelievers are the vilest of animals. Should that passage occur about Muslims in a secular screed, I assume it would be denounced (if not censored). The original book of Mormon contains some fairly blatant racism: if people believe, their skin becomes whiter.
Of these, only the Book of Mormon has been edited, anything else would be decried as intolerance.
Even without the justification provided by such texts, some people are psychopaths and live to harm others. Others, while being capable of empathy, have an authoritarian personality. Those should be checked for in prospective parents and combated above what they read or watch or listen to in my opinion.
As for child abuse, if an adult disagrees with an individual that in turn hits them, it would count as assault (or grievous bodily harm). Should an adult hit a child for disagreeing with them, it's not punished at all.
Edit: "Lolita" contains a fictional account of a paedophile's kidnapping of a girl and raping her. I detest rape in all forms, but I think the book is one of the best written in the English language. I usually absolutely loathe anti-heroes and characters I can't personally identify with, but Nabokov's writing just shines through the entire book. Now, it's a little different since as far as I'm aware there haven't been any homage kidnappings (thankfully, though there is a slightly bizarre fashion style named after the book in Japan...), but should there have been, would Nabokov be to blame?
Post by
Atik
Would be the same if it was a copy of the KKK bible, the Black Mass, or any of the other really offensive material out there: Should be removed from circulation because it doesn't really help anyone....other then that small segment of the world who enjoys using what's in the the books to cause pain, suffering and hatred across the world.
Can say the same about everything. Especially religious books which groups love shoving in people faces, quoting, altering, and interpreting to fulfill their personal wants.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I don't think offensive is a reason to limit free speech, and I think there are many things that people have the right to say that are going to be hurtful to some people.
However, I think that when communication is actually dangerous (not just upsetting, but is causing injury, death and helping promote criminal activity), then free speech takes a back seat to public safety. I fully support someone's right to write a book about how much they hate the government, and call officials every name in the book. However, if they crossed the line by listing weaknesses in government security, and giving hypothetical detailed scenarios about how someone could cause harm to these people he hates (basically, giving terrorism instructions) that's over the line. If someone wants to write a book because they think that drinking Dr. Pepper can help treat cancer, because of personal experience, and they advocate drinking one a day- fine. If they say that it only works if you stop other treatments, however, and encourage people to skip surgery and chemo to try their soda cure, and people die as a result, then that's criminal.
@Gamer- there is a difference between someone writing a fiction about a crime, and when someone writes a how to book about a criminal activity, including how not to get caught, and tells readers you have to do this or you aren't teaching your children right.
Post by
Azazel
Would be the same if it was a copy of the KKK bible, the Black Mass, or any of the other really offensive material out there: Should be removed from circulation because it doesn't really help anyone....other then that small segment of the world who enjoys using what's in the the books to cause pain, suffering and hatred across the world.
Can say the same about everything. Especially religious books which groups love shoving in people faces, quoting, altering, and interpreting to fulfill their personal wants.
Don't. I won't hesitate to report this if ANYBODY turns this into a religious war.
Post by
Adamsm
There are some sites out there that teach people about S&M and BDSM, and look at the people who die from screwing things up; something like that should be taken down as well.
There are sites out there that teach people how to repair their garbage disposals and water heaters; there are hundreds of people who die each year from accidental electrocution trying to do their own home repairs. Should those be taken down because they're potentially dangerous if applied incorrectly?As you said, on a case by case basis in those examples; if the site itself is miswritten or has incorrect information on it(which a lot of those site for kink in your sex life actually do have), then yeah it should be removed.
Would be the same if it was a copy of the KKK bible, the Black Mass, or any of the other really offensive material out there
Millions consider the actual Christian Bible to be just as harmful. Should we remove it from circulation as well? After all, I (and millions of others) find it offensive and hurtful.
Case by case in regards to the Christian Bible, but those examples I used....some of the *!@# that exists in the Black Mass is just frightening, and copies of that should still be destroyed wherever it's found. And just from the opening of the KKK Bible; And from Lilith, because she was made as Adam's equal, all of the minorities were created, for they were the mud races, and not worthy of being alongside the pure(paraphrased a little); do you really think something like that needs to remain?
I'm not against Free Speech, but when the term is used as a way to say utter and vicious offensive crap, they need to start changing some of the definitions. I know there is the old quote of 'I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it to the death', but I've never been a fan of that one.
Post by
xaratherus
However, I think that when communication is actually dangerous (not just upsetting, but is causing injury, death and helping promote criminal activity),
This is sort of my thumb rule also.
But even with that concept firmly in mind, I think it's necessary to carefully review the particular circumstances of the situation.
The rule proposed Azazel only works if there is a universal and non-negotiable scale to determine "offense" and "hurt". And there's just not.
And just from the opening of the KKK Bible; And from Lilith, because she was made as Adam's equal, all of the minorities were created, for they were the mud races, and not worthy of being alongside the pure(paraphrased a little); do you really think something like that needs to remain?
I see no huge difference between that and any one of a hundred passages of the Bible that promote what I would consider barbaric consequences for somewhat minor crimes.
I also feel that there could be value in such writing because, like it or not, it
is
part of the history of the United States. Do I find the idea abhorrent? Yes. But does that mean that, properly couched, it has nothing to teach us? No, far from it. It's an illustration of how much we've grown as a culture, and a cautionary tale of what happens when we allow the small-minded to fill us with a fear that overrides our logic and rationality.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I think in this case, children frozen to death, starved, beaten with implements and subjected to emotional abuse to break their will is pretty universal, no?
Post by
Adamsm
However, I think that when communication is actually dangerous (not just upsetting, but is causing injury, death and helping promote criminal activity),
This is sort of my thumb rule also.
But even with that concept firmly in mind, I think it's necessary to carefully review the particular circumstances of the situation.
The rule proposed Azazel only works if there is a universal and non-negotiable scale to determine "offense" and "hurt". And there's just not.
If the book causes death, it should be pulled from the shelves; especially if there are cases where it's proved that they were following what the book says to abuse their children.
Post by
chaosultimamage
I think in this case, children frozen to death, starved, beaten with implements and subjected to emotional abuse to break their will is pretty universal, no?
Definitely.
Post by
gamerunknown
Well, there's always
this irony
suffered by the proponents of limiting free speech. Yes, denigrating someone for something they can't change about themselves is bad. However, for free speech to apply at all, we must apply it equally to speech we dislike as much as speech we like (Christopher Hitchens is really good on this point:
video
).
There are certain instances which free speech does not cover. I listed two. Using racism as an example, one does not have the right to exercise one's freedom of speech in a private venue such as a workplace or an internet forum if the contract excludes it. Another way in which racism could be prosecuted is if someone demonstrated that they developed a stress related illness based on the verbal abuse they received. However, this could be a little controversial, since some people believe they have developed stress related illnesses due to assaults on their "taste and decency" and a lack of "theology and geometry"...
Edit: I cede the point that a book written as an instruction manual that provides instructions to commit crimes or perform actions that are likely to injure people against their will (thus excluding the suicide manual, that is quasi-useful), then it doesn't fall under the purview of free speech. This book would count. But then again so would a few Holy texts, when interpreted literally - since again, the justification for child abuse can be found within them.
Oh and funnily enough , an Asian man that was doing a political survey asked me a few questions, including whether I thought immigrants should have to learn English in order to get citizenship (strongly disagree) and whether racist speech should be punished (slightly disagree). He gave me an odd look.
Post by
Jubilee
However, I think that when communication is actually dangerous (not just upsetting, but is causing injury, death and helping promote criminal activity),
You're still left with the question of where to draw the line, because that argument could be used to ban the Qur'an.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.