• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should bomb-making instructions be protected free speech?

Should publishing/posting bomb-making instructions be protected as free speech?

  • Yes

    Votes: 35 70.0%
  • No

    Votes: 14 28.0%
  • IDK/Other

    Votes: 1 2.0%

  • Total voters
    50
You start speaking Spanish?

I seriously tried to find the clip in English, but I just couldn't. It's a shame too. There shouldn't be a single minute of Simpsons not located somewhere on youtube.

Basically, the teacher asked Bart if he knew what would happen if you mixed acids and bases, and he kinda shrugged it off.

Then...boom.
 
I'm guessing you're referring to Mayor Bloomberg's soda ban proposal. If it makes any difference I've never supported it, but I don't consider this a...nanny'ish' (since we're making up our own words) thing to do.

I didn't necessarily have that specific item in mind when posting it, but it's an example. I could list others, but I figured that this talking point is the most obvious example of a parallel.

I consider bombs an entirely different thing, because at least for the most part, there is hardly anything good that comes out of making a bomb.

By definition, this means that some good can come of making a bomb. There is "hardly anything good" that comes out of sugar, firearms, drugs, alcohol...are you a proponent to banning all of these too?

Soda intake however can be regulated by the individual, and whether or not the individual is responsible is his own problem.

Making a bomb can be regulated by the individual as well, and a bomber is indeed responsible.

The great thing is someones choice to drink ungodly amounts of soda has a limited impact on my life. Someone planting a bomb in my home-town, however, could definitely have an impact on my life. I'm not sure that you need a high-grade bomb to take out a shed, and even so, that doesn't seem like a very common way of dismantling things.

How many public concessions are given to people who are overweight and obese? There may not be as many external factors (at least as many obvious ones) for sugar when compared to bombs, but that is hardly an issue.

If the potential to harm others if misused also constitutes a ban, I hope you enjoy walking to work from here on out. Remember what I said about deaths from obesity compared to bombs? Care to venture a guess if more people die to bombs or vehicular crashes?
 
I don't see ANY qualifications in that amendment. Congress may make NO law abridging the freedom of speech. Seems clear enough for me. Again what part of Congress shall not do you not understand?

I think it is you who does not understand what "speech" is. Every moron in the country tries to hide behind a misinterpretation of that. Larry Flint for example tried to call close up shots of a womans ***** "speech". By the way you never answered my question. Are you for a web site that instructs you how to kidnap, torture, rape and kill children? Is that freedom of speech? A simple yes or no will do.
 
I think it is you who does not understand what "speech" is. Every moron in the country tries to hide behind a misinterpretation of that. Larry Flint for example tried to call close up shots of a womans ***** "speech". By the way you never answered my question. Are you for a web site that instructs you how to kidnap, torture, rape and kill children? Is that freedom of speech? A simple yes or no will do.

As long as it is only instructions and not pics or video of raping and killing a real kid I am fine with it.
 
Maybe you should have paid attention. It's one of the simplest things in all of Chemistry to make things blow up. I took a lot of science, and I can tell you that from high school chemistry, I learned enough to be able to build "bombs". It's not tough.

It's like claiming you didn't know thermite was nothing more than rust powder and aluminum powder ignited with a high temperature source like Magnesium after taking high school chemistry.

I passed with a low B but my grade isn't all that relevant. In Chemistry, we rarely had an objective that included blowing things up. In fact, we never did. We normally tried to avoid blowing things up in the lab. Sure there are some basic mixtures that could prompt a small explosion, but nothing near the level of a high-power bomb. That my friend, is not common knowledge. I could however learn within a matter of minutes on how to make one I'm sure, but that's what we're discussing.

I seriously tried to find the clip in English, but I just couldn't. It's a shame too. There shouldn't be a single minute of Simpsons not located somewhere on youtube.

Basically, the teacher asked Bart if he knew what would happen if you mixed acids and bases, and he kinda shrugged it off.

Then...boom.

The cartoon grossly exaggerates what would actually happen. Most of the acids that are readily available aren't capable of anything more than a violent bubbling that causes acid to leap onto the skin. It wouldn't explode though.

By definition, this means that some good can come of making a bomb. There is "hardly anything good" that comes out of sugar, firearms, drugs, alcohol...are you a proponent to banning all of these too?

The rest just boils down to opinion; sugar taste good, firearms can be fun to use (responsibly, of course), the use of some drugs for recreation can be interesting, and well, there's no telling what happens when too much alcohol is involved. These are much different things from bombs though, and aren't comparable in the least.

If the potential to harm others if misused also constitutes a ban, I hope you enjoy walking to work from here on out. Remember what I said about deaths from obesity compared to bombs? Care to venture a guess if more people die to bombs or vehicular crashes?

But see, these sites that instruct people on how to make a bomb aim at causing the most casualties as possible. Most people who go out in vehicles don't aim at killing every other driver on the road.
 
Last edited:
[sarcasm] Hey, bombs are arms. We have a right to bear bombs. Bombs don't kill people. People with bombs kill people. Take away their bombs and they will just find another way. Next thing you know the government will be coming for your bombs. When bombs are outlawed, only outlaws will have bombs. [/sarcasm]

This message brought to you by the N.B.A. LOL!

Sorry. Just couldn't pass up a chance to show a nutter what they sound like.

When I originally posted the above, post #5, I was just trying to be sarcastic in a humorous kinda way. I was predicting that it wouldn't be long before some of our esteemed DP resident's would come along and basically say the same thing. Only, really mean it.

"The gov't's coming for our bombs! Oh noes! Don't give up your rights!"

Seriously???

Well, I hope they do come for your "right to bear bombs," and then stick you and your's in a dark hole with telemarketers calling on the phone all day. LOL!
 
There are websites giving exact details on how to make bombs easily, including such as was used in the Boston murders and attack. Should the government be able to outlaw it? Should websites that give bomb-making instructions be protected free speech?

anonymous polls are worthless
 
There are websites giving exact details on how to make bombs easily, including such as was used in the Boston murders and attack. Should the government be able to outlaw it? Should websites that give bomb-making instructions be protected free speech?

Yes it should be. The government should have no control over the internet whatsoever.
 
I think it is you who does not understand what "speech" is. Every moron in the country tries to hide behind a misinterpretation of that. Larry Flint for example tried to call close up shots of a womans ***** "speech". By the way you never answered my question. Are you for a web site that instructs you how to kidnap, torture, rape and kill children? Is that freedom of speech? A simple yes or no will do.

I already answered directly in post 25. Here's the recap of the back and forth.

You:
It is fairly easy to abduct a child then rape and murder him or her too but I would be for banning sites giving you instructions on how to do it well, how bout you?

Me:
Nope. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. What part of Congress shall not do you not understand?

I think that is a VERY direct answer. But I help to clarify further, Nope to any speech restrictions of any kind by the government. Further yes people should be specifically allowed to have a website that's says how to kidnap, rape, mutilate and torture children if that is the website they want.

The government is SPECIFICALLY prohibited from abridging speech. Want to know why your rights are steadily eroding, just look in the mirror and you will see a large part of the problem.
 
I already answered directly in post 25. Here's the recap of the back and forth.

You:
It is fairly easy to abduct a child then rape and murder him or her too but I would be for banning sites giving you instructions on how to do it well, how bout you?

Me:
Nope. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. What part of Congress shall not do you not understand?

I think that is a VERY direct answer. But I help to clarify further, Nope to any speech restrictions of any kind by the government. Further yes people should be specifically allowed to have a website that's says how to kidnap, rape, mutilate and torture children if that is the website they want.

The government is SPECIFICALLY prohibited from abridging speech. Want to know why your rights are steadily eroding, just look in the mirror and you will see a large part of the problem.

I just don't know what to say except freedom of speech has been basterdized.
 
I just don't know what to say except freedom of speech has been basterdized.

Yes by the likes of you and yours. Free speech means JUST that. All the nuance and trying to insert exceptions is a attempt to circumvent the constitution which is VERY clear. Speech isn't free if there are things you CANT say. It wouldn't be free speech it would be limited speech or less than free speech.
 
Personally, I agree with Tara Reid on this matter. Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself.

Bombs have no legitimate use except terrorism and I would ban bomb making instructions.

You obviously have never seen FPSRussia, Sons of Guns or any video where people shoot things and blow them up.

We have licensed pyrotechnics for a reason.

[sarcasm] Hey, bombs are arms. We have a right to bear bombs. Bombs don't kill people. People with bombs kill people. Take away their bombs and they will just find another way. Next thing you know the government will be coming for your bombs. When bombs are outlawed, only outlaws will have bombs. [/sarcasm]

This message brought to you by the N.B.A. LOL!

Sorry. Just couldn't pass up a chance to show a nutter what they sound like.

Bombs are ordnance not arms, this straw man is not analogous.
 
Trying to censor the information will not work and will create an incentive for people to want to get it and try it out for the thrills.
 
Sorry, I won't search, and would not link to such a website if I knew. The news has been covering a specific website specifically set up by Al Quida for how to make bombs to use and how to use them for terrorism, which appears is where the Boston bombers found their design and made it exactly from, using it exactly as suggested.

I voted no. Since bombs are always illegal without strict permits/Lincense, I believe such websites could be outlawed, banned and removed.

If bombs can be permitted/[licensed], why in the world would you be okay with banning a website with just info. IIRC, you are somewhat against some gun control because of incremental-ism wouldn't this be the same process with speech? Once you start down that road...

I vote for no censorship. The gov't never has the citizens' best interest in mind.
 
There are websites giving exact details on how to make bombs easily, including such as was used in the Boston murders and attack. Should the government be able to outlaw it? Should websites that give bomb-making instructions be protected free speech?



Yes.

In fact, we should offer "IED construction and deployment 101" as an elective in High School.


Okay I'm being a bit ironic. But DAMMIT, I get SO tired of hearing the reaction to EVERY DAMN THING that happens as some version of "pass a law; restrict freedom more; ban this, ban that; make it illegal to know something or try to learn something; make it illegal to make knowlege available".

It's one step shy of book burning. Ban knowlege! We can't allow people to KNOW dangerous things!!



Yes, I'm ranting a bit. I'm just so damn sick of hearing "restrict freedom" or "ban things" as the solution to every mother****ing problem that my head is about to explode.


I need a beer.
 
There are websites giving exact details on how to make bombs easily, including such as was used in the Boston murders and attack. Should the government be able to outlaw it? Should websites that give bomb-making instructions be protected free speech?

No, leave it available and monitor suspicious activity.
 
No, leave it available and monitor suspicious activity.

I agree with that but we know how well the government is at lawful monitoring.
 
I don't consider bomb recipes on the internet free speech anymore than I do sending ricin through the mail.



Whatever happened to common sense?
 
I don't consider bomb recipes on the internet free speech anymore than I do sending ricin through the mail.



Whatever happened to common sense?

Sending ricin in the mail could be assault, if not attempted murder. Creating a bomb that doesn't hurt another person or destroy another's property is nothing near a crime.

Try a new strawman.
 
Sending ricin in the mail could be assault, if not attempted murder. Creating a bomb that doesn't hurt another person or destroy another's property is nothing near a crime.

Try a new strawman.
"Could"? A bomb "could" be an assault, too. Using your logic: creating ricin from a recipe off the internet that doesn't hurt another person or destroy another's property is nothing near a crime either.
 
"Could"? A bomb "could" be an assault, too. Using your logic: creating ricin from a recipe off the internet that doesn't hurt another person or destroy another's property is nothing near a crime either.

And you'd be right. If you jam a ton of ricin into an envelope and mail it to the middle of the ocean, I wouldn't see a crime taking place.
 
And you'd be right. If you jam a ton of ricin into an envelope and mail it to the middle of the ocean, I wouldn't see a crime taking place.
Says the guy who voted for the party of the flag burning amendment.
 
Back
Top Bottom