Freedom of Speech. Where is the Line Drawn?

we live in a great country where we can say just about anything, especially on the internet and not face legal consecquences.

last night i was watching a television program where a young boy was molested and murdered by 2 men. after a search of the 2 men´s vehicles police found information on how to seduce young boys, molest them, kill them, and hide the evidence. this website is now facing criminal prosecution in addition to a civil lawsuit filed by the victim´s parents.

i was disgusted to find out that there are many websites that give out information on how to commit felony crimes such as how to seduce and molest young boys and girls. i thought they should be punished to the full extent of the law, but then i realized that they may not be doing anything illegal at all. according to the law, they´re not committing a crime any more than anabolicreview is committing crimes by allowing members to give out information on how to illegally use steroids.

sometimes i think there should be exceptions to the first amendment, but if exceptions are made, where does it end? where do the lawmakers draw the line of how to censor free speech? are we in danger too?

Hmmm....you make a very good point Dr. It's quite controversial. It's really weird when you think about it. What we are doing here...on this board, should we all be punished to the fullest extent of the law for steroid abuse/information/etc...

I think however that for people like us, we aren't actually putting any individual at risk of death. Those sites which you mentioned, are telling people in detail on how to harm/kill a person. Sites like this one, are more of a medical/cosmetic type of site, which we only suggest different opinions on steroids.

But still...a very good point.

Don't smoke your brain dealing with this issue unless you're getting paid good money to do so.

all out is right but u still have to think about these type of things. i mean what if it was your child that was beatn and shit. u wouldnt like that too much and u would definately care. but this site is all about help instead of harm and those others are twisted fuk up.

shit like this makes my stomach turn but its every where thats the problem.I reckon the sick fucks that produce the information should be jailed as well.If any cunt hurt my 2 boys id rip his heart out with a blunt spoon..............HITMAN

I think most people will agree that seducing, raping, killing and covering up young boys is appalling and providing information on how to do so is equally reprehensible.

But I would stand up and fight for their right to free speech--in spite of the fact that I am appalled by what they say. (Hell, if I ran across a person like that I wouldn?t mind the chance to get 10 minutes of ?street justice? in a dark alley!) As long as the speech of the least popular of our society is protected, so is all of ours.

To censor anybody?s free speech is the first slide down a long, slippery slope. Free speech MUST be absolute, otherwise nobody?s speech can never be truly free.

I have lived overseas for a number of years and I have lived in countries where free speech is not a given. Public support for limitations on unpopular opinions are easy to impose. The ?fringe? is quickly isolated; unpopular opinions are snuffed and the masses cheer.

Once that first step is taken and absolute freedom of speech is breached, then any group with the power or money to influence the media can make a concerted effort to use the media to sway public opinion on virtually any matter; it?s not hard to do. The ?great unwashed masses,? as long as their lives are comfortable, are generally content to follow. Slowly more and more groups are isolated, particularly those groups that threaten the status quo, groups that threaten those in power. Still, as long as the average Joe is not threatened, nobody squawks.

Until one day, the powers-that-be and the media they control have attained virtually total power. Now people might start to see that the path they are on is NOT the path they want, but can they voice their opinion without fear of retribution? No. They are too far down that slope; the government has iron-fisted control and nothing short of revolution will shake it?s grip.

To open freedom of speech to selective interpretation by ?the powers that be? means that we have to put our trust in the powerful to act benevolently and in out best interests. It also means that they must be able to do so as we grant them even more power and temptation to use that power to their own advantage.

It?s a sad fact that sick-fucks like child molesters can abuse free speech. But it?s far scarier and ultimately more damaging to us all if we allow freedom of speech to be anything short of an absolute...

First, my dear doctor, allow me to congratulate you on achieving over 1,500 posts. Truly a milestone, a remarkable achievement and a major contribution to the body of scholarly literature in our field in a short period of time. (Love this collegial shit!)

Anyway, o denizen of the secret volcano lair, you're tapped into one of my favorite subjects - Constitutional issues, with a focus on First Amendment law. It makes for esoteric bedtime reading, but what the hell. So even though I'm on vacation (and minimally on the board this week), I thought I'd provide a few comments. (Yeah, just a few. No magnum opus for a change, just a mini opus.)

The First Amendment does guarantee full freedom of speech, to the extent that one can write instructionals on how to do things that are legally or morally wrong. Companies like Loompanics Publishers and Palladin Press, for example, have long published manuals on everything from how to cheat on taxes to how to kill someone to how to build bombs. And yes, those publications are legal.

The only legal recourse against such publications, when they can be construed as causative of a specific incident, is through civil law rather than criminal law. Civil cases do not require the same level of proof, evidentiary standards, or legal protections as do criminal cases. Certainly, the most well known example of this principle over the past few years is O.J. Simpson, who was acquitted of murder at criminal trial, while a civil jury held that he was the proximate cause of (meaning directly responsible for) the victims' deaths. Absurd that one could be acquitted at criminal trial but ruled guilty at civil trial for the same thing? Of course it is, but that's the nature of the law.

Freedom of speech is a proverbial good news-bad news situation. To bring it home, the same freedom that protects someone who writes How to Sexually Abuse Little Boys and Girls also protects those who write How to Use Anabolic Steroids. Some people will read the former and engage in sexual abuse, but most will not. Some people will read the latter and will use AS, but many will not. (It is reasonable to assume that more people will use the latter actively, but that is anecdotal.)

So how far does freedom of speech go? It goes anywhere short of creating a clear and present danger, which the law interprets literally to mean a grave and immediate danger. The classic example is that it is illegal to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater (although it is quite legal to yell "Theater!" in a crowded fire). It could be construed as illegal to yell "Kill the [racist epithet]" in the midst of a white lynch mob, just as one could theoretically be busted for yelling "Jump!" to someone standing on a window ledge and threatening suicide. In all of these situations, the danger is clear and present.

Now, Dr. Evil notes, "[The] website is now facing criminal prosecution in addition to a civil lawsuit filed by the victim´s parents." Can the owners/writers be successfully prosecuted for the web site? No, not unless they specifically advocated a specific case of sexual abuse and murder of a child. And even if convicted at a lower court level, they would stand a good chance of winning an appeal. But can they be sued civilly? Absolutely.

See the difference? If you are a Nazi and say, "Kill the Jews!" you are constitutionally protected. But if you say, "Hey, Joe, go down to Mr. Goldstein's store and kill him because he's Jewish," you are not protected. Likewise, if you say, "I think that kids should be raped and killed," you are constitutionally protected. You are warped and perverted, but constitutionally protected. If you take part in, or even advocate or direct, a specific act, you are criminally liable and will likely fry.

Finally, is the law good? Not always, but it's the lesser of evils. If you don't buy that, just look at religion. Would you rather be a Muslim in America or a Christian in Iran? Unpopular views are designed to be protected and, for better or worse, that includes unpopular moral views. Hence, even the National Man-Boy Love Asociation (a pedophilia site) can maintain a web presence whether the rest of us like it or not. (And lest I sound like I'm defending NAMBLA, I don't like it. But that's the law, and it really does protect unpopular views, including the ones that are discussed on this very board about anabolics.)

What we are left with is a potential Pandorra's Box. If you censor any one unpopular subject, you have opened up the prospect of additional subjects being censored. In other words, once you censor speech because a child may be abused or murdered, the obvious next step is to censor S&M pornography because a woman might be raped, then to censor an AS board because someone might try steroids.

Having said all that, I'm with the dude that said 2000 years ago, "Be wise as serpents and harmless as doves." The fact that persons have published a pro-child sexual abuse web site opens them, at the very least, to investigation. And chances are that somewhere, they will be found guilty of something that is illegal. Presented with a search warrant, who knows what kind of pictures these guys have on their computers (and child sex picturesa are illegal under criminal law). Who knows what type of activities the site owners might personally be involved in?

Just as we know there may be, um, "official parties" that monitor posts on AS boards, you can bet your test-filled buns that there are official parties that monitor pedophilia boards, and they will take appropriate action whenever possible. Granted, the solution is corrective rather than preventive, and it would be more effective to shut such boards down now, but the bottom line is that, for better or worse, even perverts are entitled to the protection of the law - until they cross the line of the law.

Big difference Dr. Evil. AR and that site have different purposes and different consequences.

AR is designed to help people, the other site is designed with harm as the heart of its intent.

AR is where folks come of their own accord, and freely discuss and take AS of their own volition. That website is condoning the taking against their will the children that are murdered.

The intent of AR is not to help someone commit a crime, that site has has its only intention, to help someone commit a crime. That is a HUGE difference.

just my 2¢

hey tnt, i didn't realize i hit the magical 1500 post mark :)

i understand the law and agree with most of it. like people said, this website is obviously different from the one that provides tips on how to molest boys and girls. while i'd love to see that site get shut down and punished, i would not do it if i were a legislator. i refuse to hold a double standard of making one adivce of an illegal activity illegal while not doing anythng to another.

JESUS GUY! WAY GOOD STUFF HERE! BUMP!