Re: ^3: Boycott O'Reilly

[simon.proctor]

I like to read arguments like this. No really.

How do you expect encryption to become stronger unless you try to break it? How do you expect safes to be *safe* without trying to open them?

Your argument is like that of the medeival doctors who couldn't open a dead body for medical study.

As for sale to the general public (lockpicking et al). I thought there was the concept of freedom of speech? Or is that freedom of speech except where the listener doesn't like what is being said or we don't really like the person saying it?

I do martial arts. In the context of my art I own hand weapons (not firearms) and many books both modern and old on the subject. Should I burn all my books as they *may* show someone how to stab someoneelse? Maybe I should be classified as a lethal weapon and removed from the general public. After all, you never know do you?

[Abigail-II]

I thought there was the concept of freedom of speech?

Yes, and? First of all, "freedom of speech" refers to what the government isn't allowed to do. But even in a non-legal sense, "freedom of speech" isn't a magic wand that can justify any deed.

Freedom of speech gives you the right to speak. But that's just the right to speak. It doesn't give you the right to be heard - others have the right to ignore you. Nor does "freedom of speech" lift you from your moral or legal responsibilities.

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't have the opinion that O'Reilly shouldn't have published to book. I just think this book has more reasons to exist that just "freedom of speech".

Abigail

[simon.proctor]

 I just think this book has more reasons to exist that just "freedom o
+f speech".

So do I. I indicated it in my own ineffectual way with the opening part of my node. But that doesn't matter ;).

I'm not so naieve to believe that any granted freedom is a guarantee of right to exercise that freedom. But thats an argument for a different forum on another day.