Are there any books you would ban?

[PaulSacramento]

Never.
I would never ban ANY book nor any freedom of speech.

True freedom comes from hearing the most vile and horrific views that you would oppose with your dying breathe BUT defending to the death a person's right to say them.

Freedom is something that you have or don't, there is no "little bit" or "almost".

[Danieltwotwenty]

I wouldn't necessarily "ban" books, but rather, as a Christian if I were a bookshop owner I'd focus upon books with healthy messages that were not antithetical to Christian beliefs or values. There's no reason is there why you couldn't make the bookshop your own, as Michael Gerber notes, businesses are an extension of who we are, so...

I think I hear axes grinding in the distance.

If you can hear axes, then I'd start running from your house if I was you. Evidently your family's had enough.

I am more worried about redneck, xenophobic, Pauline Hanson loving Queenslanders with all their guns.

[Danieltwotwenty]

Never.
I would never ban ANY book nor any freedom of speech.

True freedom comes from hearing the most vile and horrific views that you would oppose with your dying breathe BUT defending to the death a person's right to say them.

Freedom is something that you have or don't, there is no "little bit" or "almost".

Where would you say does your freedom end and another's begin and vice versa?

[RickD]

Never.
I would never ban ANY book nor any freedom of speech.

True freedom comes from hearing the most vile and horrific views that you would oppose with your dying breathe BUT defending to the death a person's right to say them.

Freedom is something that you have or don't, there is no "little bit" or "almost".

Where would you say does your freedom end and another's begin and vice versa?

Probably when one takes away another's right to live by his conscience.

[Danieltwotwenty]

Never.
I would never ban ANY book nor any freedom of speech.

True freedom comes from hearing the most vile and horrific views that you would oppose with your dying breathe BUT defending to the death a person's right to say them.

Freedom is something that you have or don't, there is no "little bit" or "almost".

Where would you say does your freedom end and another's begin and vice versa?

Probably when one takes away another's right to live by his conscience.

I knew one of you was going to say that, you are so predictable.

I would say when you choose to discriminate and persecute people.

[Philip]

True freedom comes from hearing the most vile and horrific views that you would oppose with your dying breathe BUT defending to the death a person's right to say them.

Yeah, that SOUNDS great, sounds so noble - that is, until people want to distribute books on anarchy, bomb-making, hideously hateful racial stuff, "How to Love Sex with Little Boys," etc. There is a point in which certain things kept legal do not make us more free. There ARE books I would ban in a minute! Child porn, etc. In fact, a society that recognizes that certain things are so out of bounds and dangerous to our society that they should be illegal.

[PaulSacramento]

True freedom comes from hearing the most vile and horrific views that you would oppose with your dying breathe BUT defending to the death a person's right to say them.

Yeah, that SOUNDS great, sounds so noble - that is, until people want to distribute books on anarchy, bomb-making, hideously hateful racial stuff, "How to Love Sex with Little Boys," etc. There is a point in which certain things kept legal do not make us more free. There ARE books I would ban in a minute! Child porn, etc. In fact, a society that recognizes that certain things are so out of bounds and dangerous to our society that they should be illegal.

It's not noble Philip, it simply IS.
Freedom of expression either IS or isn't, there is no "half way".
You'd ban those books? why? because they offend your sensibilities? well the bible does that for some so where and WHO draws the line? the majority? well, that is why we have abortion being legal.

We are NOT talking about freedom to ACT but freedom to express a view and opinion.
One can have a illegal view and opinion ( like favoring the death penalty in a place where it is not legal) and still be able to express it.

But here is perhaps the most singular PRO to unrestricted freedom of speech:
You learn what people actually THINK.
You learn WHO those people that think a certain way are or at least you get an idea of the number of people that may think the same way.
Let that sink in.

Evil doesn't like the light, it likes the dark, the dark where it can remain hidden and grow.

[Philip]

You'd ban those books? why? because they offend your sensibilities?

NO! Not because they offend my sensibilities, but because they are PROVEN to be highly dangerous to society. That's common sense! There ARE things that make us LESS safe. If we, as a society, fail to recognize and address them, we're fools! I'm only speaking to things that may inspire things of violence, or that are physically highly dangerous, or that can ignite and inflame so as to tear us apart. Yes, that takes wisdom to know the difference. And NO human laws are going to perfectly address what only the collective majority of a society's hearts and minds see as reasonable to prohibit.

well the bible does that for some

Well, ignoring the Bible won't cause harm (at least beyond spiritually so). No one is going to be harmed, hurt or forced to this or that. NO ideas in there command us to harm others. Yes, it might hurt peoples' SENSIBILITIES, but again, that's not what I care about. Note that Germany has banned Nazi-related publications. But, of course, we have to be careful what we allow to be defined as hate speech. Opinions one disagree with are not necessarily dangerous or inspire hate.

Paul: so where and WHO draws the line? the majority? well, that is why we have abortion being legal.

Look, it's true that we have to ask who will draw the line. But if we, as a people, are unwilling to recognize that certain lines need to be drawn, we're hurting ourselves. I would ban abortion in a skinny minute, if I could. Wouldn't you - for abortion used for other than circumstances where a birth would likely take the mother's life (a VERY rare thing, BTW)? Note that while we don't live in a theocracy, God forbade certain things from Israel - because He knew them to be highly destructive and harmful. THAT is showing wisdom. Of course, as we live in a quasi-democracy, and everyone has certain rights, this makes for only a very narrow area of things that would fit what I'm talking about.

The secularists amongst us are already banning, through the courts, what it says is unacceptable and will not be allowed. The idea of truly free expression in America is becoming a sick joke! The pure secularists recognize as useful the idea that unlimited freedom of expression is great - AS LONG AS it is they who define what is allowed and not allowed. And so, then it becomes a matter of numbers of people who have certain sensibilities, who elect people of certain views, who appoint judges and make laws that reflect their sensibilities.

And EVERY news editor, every producer, director, etc., they are constantly editing things to reflect THEIR views, deflecting or eliminating whatever that conflicts. So they are eliminating other ideas from being exposed. So, what I'm speaking of happens anyway. It's just that they don't call it censorship, but free expression as THEY define it!

So, I don't know how we COULD reasonably ban certain things, because many have different sensibilities. I'm just simply saying that allowing certain forms of expression do NOT make us more free - often, much the opposite - although it sounds high and lofty to state such.

[RickD]

Ban all books. Reading is overrated.

What did anybody ever learn from reading?

As long as we have tv, we're ok.

[PaulSacramento]

So, I don't know how we COULD reasonably ban certain things, because many have different sensibilities. I'm just simply saying that allowing certain forms of expression do NOT make us more free - often, much the opposite - although it sounds high and lofty to state such.

And what about my point:

But here is perhaps the most singular PRO to unrestricted freedom of speech:
You learn what people actually THINK.
You learn WHO those people that think a certain way are or at least you get an idea of the number of people that may think the same way.
Let that sink in.

Evil doesn't like the light, it likes the dark, the dark where it can remain hidden and grow.

[Philip]

Paul: But here is perhaps the most singular PRO to unrestricted freedom of speech:
You learn what people actually THINK.

And sometimes that is NOT a good thing - to give them an unfettered forum, or ability to influence beyond their own evil thinking!

Paul: You learn WHO those people that think a certain way are or at least you get an idea of the number of people that may think the same way.

Letting such people, who support evil things have their own freedom to state their poison only encourages them. I don't WANT them to grow. If they know their ideas are considered an anathema to society, they'll remain marginalized and in the shadows - GOOD! I don't care about their numbers, as my desire is to decrease their numbers by eliminating their ability to influence. So you think the only way to keep tabs on such people is to allow them unfettered influence to spew all kinds of destructive stuff? It's an either/or to freedom? That's PC thinking! It shows an unwillingness to confront evil and it's influences, by insisting we are safer allowing the voice and influence. And, I'm not saying we can force people to only think a certain way, but to eliminate their influence. Are we to wait until the evil actions of such influences take hold, out of this idea of "tolerance." Bullcrap!

Paul: Evil doesn't like the light, it likes the dark, the dark where it can remain hidden and grow.

And so will it not be very limited in growth without it's ability to influence? Cannot monitoring ACTIONS show that dangerous beliefs exist? And so what is the LIGHT? Does it not begin with a willingness to enforce what it believes and asserts? Does the light not confront? Does the light wait upon evil ACTIONS to be proactive? That's not what God did with Israel. That's not how He has instructed the Church to handle evil influences and expressions. Our example in Scripture is that allowing evil influences risks its spread. But again, as for us, I'm only talking of speech that inspires hate or evil deeds that are harmful to everyone. And EVERY law is designed to quench certain actions or behaviors. So, we're already doing what I'm saying, on certain levels. The problem is, we, as a society, are unwilling to call evil influences for what they truly are. And we're treating them with kid gloves as if the mere ideas won't hurt us. Listen, we don't have to allow hateful or dangerous expressions of hate to confront it. We can watch and remain vigilant for evil ACTIONS. The idea that we should only confront the actions, but not proactively prevent the influences, or that by allowing the influences makes us safer - really, that's PC ACLU crap! It's all the excuse those desiring to perpetuate evil need. It's their opportunity to spread their filth, harm and diseases.

We need to call out the evil expressions and influences by letting us define what we know is there, even if we don't now precisely who they include. We don't need them to have the ability to define themselves and spread their own evil influences. Remember, evil so often ties a series of lies to one or several truths - making the lies far more effective. Why give them such opportunity? Which is more harmful? The PC belief is that we're safer with allowing the influences. Wrong!

[PaulSacramento]

Philip, I don't think you understand what I am saying.

By allowing free speech we get to know WHO these people are, WHAT they think and HOW FAR they will go.
Without it, they hunker in the shadows and fester and grow.
Don't believe me?


EX: Hate crime laws that govern speech caused far-extremist groups to hide and grow in the dark in Germany and now people are wondering where all these people are coming from and how they have gained so much of the population.
They fail to realize, because these groups were in the shadows , that they have been there and growing for decades.
They are coming out now NOT because the laws changed but because the popular vote has begun to swing their way.

Sure the security services kept some check on them but even they said that they underestimated the numbers and when asked why, the answer was that when people now they have to hide their views, their number is always hard to estimate.

Another example is of the last few pedophile rings and child porn rings that have been uncovered, the sheer number of people and the huge underground network is mind boggling !
All because they hide and they feed on the dark.

Now, this is NOT a statement to say that we should legalize child porn or anything like that, it is simply a statement of pure fact:
The darkness allows these people to hide.

Know how those rings were broken? how so many were caught?
By investigations started in countries were some of these people felt free to "publicize" their urges.

[Danieltwotwenty]

Ban all books. Reading is overrated.

What did anybody ever learn from reading?

As long as we have tv, we're ok.

I have Netflix, does that mean I more evolved than you?

[RickD]

Ban all books. Reading is overrated.

What did anybody ever learn from reading?

As long as we have tv, we're ok.

I have Netflix, does that mean I more evolved than you?

Not with that bad grammar.

[Danieltwotwenty]

Ban all books. Reading is overrated.

What did anybody ever learn from reading?

As long as we have tv, we're ok.

I have Netflix, does that mean I more evolved than you?

Not with that bad grammar.

It's not bad grammar to make a typo, skipping the "am" was not intentional.

American's shouldn't throw stones when it comes to murdering the English language.