the First Amendment and "How to murder/steal/etc."

[Max_Torque]

*Originally posted by doreen *
The only case I remember being somewhat close to this was a magazine running ads looking for people willing to do murder for hire.

We can tackle that one next, if you like. Braun v. Soldier of Fortune Magazine, Inc. The ad in question was:

GUN FOR HIRE: 37 year old professional mercenary desires jobs. Vietnam Veteran. Discrete [sic] and very private. Body guard, courier, and other special skills. All jobs considered. Phone [deleted], or write: [address deleted]

First time I read the case, I didn’t agree with the holding, but I’m willing to take another look, if y’all wanna talk about it…

[erislover]

Max, nice read. I’d have to say I disagree with that verdict as well…the ad seems pretty legit to me. But then again, I’m no jury member. I have a hard time believing any prosecutor would ever want me on his jury

[Joe_Cool]

*Originally posted by ExTank *
**…While I recognoze that the action [on an idea] is separate from the espousing of that idea, IMO the dissemination of certain ideas are of no useful benefit to humane (and human) society in general…

That ideas/information can greatly influence lots of people to heinous mischief is not a controversial or preposterous proposition. Like how it would be great to exterminate 6 million Jews and other assorted and sundry undesirables in order to strengthen and purify your society…Maybe not here in the U.S. of A. But I hesitate to say “Never Again” when history has shown us repeatedly it’s cyclical nature.

And us Americans are exceedingly myopic when it comes to History, due to the great good fortune we’ve been blessed (or cursed) with…
**

ExTank:

You know I usually agree with you. THIS time I agree with you almost entirely. Up to the point where you feel that it’s important to eradicate harmful ideas such as Hitler’s.

I agree that the ideas are horrible, and so are the people who espouse them. I would love to see those ideas eliminated from our consciousness forever. HOWEVER, I think that banning an idea, or a book discussing it, or even a book or movie providing detailed instructions on how to do it on the grounds that somebody will be influenced to follow the instructions is a bad idea, akin to banning weapons because we might kill somebody. Oddly enough, these two concepts are very much alike, as are the arguments against them:

Instruction manuals for murder should be banned because somebody might use the information in the books to harm somebody else.
Guns should be banned because somebody might use the guns to harm somebody else.

Free access to that sort of information will influence somebody to commit a crime they otherwise wouldn’t have committed.
Free access to firearms will influence somebody to commit a crime they otherwise wouldn’t have committed.

Dangerous ideas infringe on the rights of others, because they can be used to hurt people.
Dangerous weapons infringe on the rights of others, because they can be used to hurt people.

We should ban books about dangerous subjects because it will make the world safer.
We should ban guns because it will make the world safer.

Publishers of dangerous information should be held liable for the crimes committed by their readers.
Gun manufacturers should be held liable for the crimes committed by their customers.

See what I mean? We can’t ban ideas or weaken the Freedom of Speech because a few criminals or unstable people abuse it, any more than we can weaken the Right to Bear Arms because a few criminals or unstable people abuse it.

If you disagree, please discuss it with me. I have a lot of respect for you and I’m very interested in knowing your opinions on this.

[Joe_Cool]

I forgot to mention one:

I don’t have to demonstrate need to preserve my Freedom of Speech. Constitutionally protected rights do not need to be justified.
I don’t have to demonstrate need to preserve my Right to Bear Arms. Constitutionally protected rights do not need to be justified.

[SuaSponte]

*Originally posted by aynrandlover *
Sua, I think you’re wrong. We’ve decided that we can breach the first amendment, now its a matter of propaganda. The way these “informational” books are banned is through a sort of slippery law about giving the information knowing that the individual would use it illegally. Loompanics quit the exposioves books because that’s tough to defend, but I can see that it would also be tough to prosecute. Not worth the effort in either case, and the information gets effectively banned without breaching the 1st. This is worse than sneaky, IMO.

To make it a law that information on illegal things is in itself illegal is to destroy the idea that a law could ever be overturned because there could be no one to legally even defend it! I agree Paladin made a legal boo-boo, but as time tells its tale that has done some more damage to freedom of speech.

If you’re referring to my first post, I’ve already withdrawn it and adopted Max’s POV.
If you’re referring to that, look again at the stipulations by Paladin. Now convert those stipulations into words being spoken:

Perry: I hear you know how to off people and hide all the evidence.
Paladin: Yeah, I have.
Perry: Well, I’m gonna kill some people, and I need help planning it.
Paladin: Well, here’s what you do …

This is conspiracy to commit murder. Remember, you can say what you want, but “whatever you say can be used against you in a court of law.” (different context, sure.) Freedom of speech protects your words, but not if those words are acts. Here, Paladin ludicruously stipulated that its book was an act. Again, as Max pointed out, it is extremely unlikely they would’ve been found liable had they not made those stipulations.

Sua

[jmullaney]

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
**Oh, and don’t forget about books about the Holocaust. That’s an idea that, if put into practice, violates people’s rights. Better ban those books! **

Not to mention Army handbooks. Or gun instructions. Imagine if they fell into the wrong hands and someone figured out how to take the safety off! :eek: