Would You Support Banning Books That Teach People How To Make Bombs?

[THUNDER HANDS]

Books that detail how to create explosives, nerve agents, ect.

Nicholas Kristoff had an intersting column today in the New York Times discussing the tradeoffs of civil liberties for personal security and he brought up this issue.

Personally, I'm kinda torn on it. As a former journalist I know how vital the 1st Ammendment is, and I know that in order for Freedom of Speech to mean anything it has to cover the extreme ends of the spectrum of ideas.

But does information that can directly be used to kill and maim people qualify as freedom of speech?

I don't know.

What do you think?

[TolstoyAndy]

1. No book Banning .

Not any book on any subject at any time.

Books don't kill people, etc.

[bryant69]

3. What if a guy was standing in your town park

And exhorting people to blow things up, and showing them how? He wasn't harassing anybody, just telling people that they should blow up his target du jour and showing them how to construct the bombs to do it? Does the information change if it's put in a different context?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[ulysses]

5. saying that you *should* blow something up

is quite different from publishing a book on how.

[bryant69]

14. What if someone wrote a book called

"Why you should blow up Democratic Under Ground Members homes and how to do it for fun and profit!"

[ulysses]

15. well yes, you got me.

But that's incitement to violence (and therefore not protected speech), which is still different from a book on bomb technology.

[bryant69]

20. I am playing devils advocate

Which is a little annoying

What if the book was called, "Why Democratic Underground Members deserve to have their houses blown up (Not that I would suggest you do anything like that)"?

Free speech is a tricky issue--but I generally come down on the same side of the fense as you. Free speech is a bit of a misnomer though, because you have to pay for it (and i'm not talking about money, per se); but the price is lower than the price for controlled speech would be.

[ulysses]

21. heh

It can be tricky, and it should be, but the "disclaimer" in your example would be pretty transparent. :)

[rman]

31. isn't that covered under incitement to violence?

so we don't need yet another law to cover that.

such a book would obviousely be more then just a how-to on making bombs; telling the reader what *should* be done and why, not just how.

[HFishbine]

9. Yes

The information does change if put into a different context. It might be a fine line, but there is a line between sharing knowledge and inciting people to criminal acts. It's the difference between training with a firearm at a firing range and shooting your neighbor.

[ulysses]

2. it'd be ineffective anyway.

The knowledge is out there. I doubt Tim McVeigh hit his local Border's at any point in planning Oklahoma City.

No.

[jmags]

23. Well, McVeigh was actually heavily inspired by some

neo-nazi book (can't remember the name) that advocated blowing up governmental buildings. McVeigh's Oklahoma city bombing was very similar to what the book detailed, even down to the time in which the bomb went off.

[ulysses]

24. "The Turner Diaries", as I recall.

And again, *advocacy* is a very different animal in terms of speech.

[supernova]

34. That's it!

Thanks, I was racking my brain trying to remember the name of that book.

The Turner Diaries.

The basic premise is a goverment that has defeated everyone and has no external enemies left to fight or to rally the populace around will being to focus its attention on certain "undesirables" in its own population.

So the population better be ready to fight the government. And be ready to use fertilizer to blow up federal office buildings.

BUT, I'm pretty sure I read a piece (Wash Post?) several years ago about the author. He says he wrote it a way to explore certain theories about governmental power, satire even. He seemed unaware and genuinely surprised that the RW militia crowd were taking the book for a serious manefesto.

[whistle]

4. I would rather see books that show us how...

...to build new fail-safe Windows operating systems and the like. Things that help mankind rather than destroy us. These so called intellectual property protections that hid the inner workings of such technology ought to be free and open. Book burnings have never denied access to knowledge. Rather than ban books on how to make nuclear bombs and other WMD, we should ban the scientists and corporations that profit from the sale of chemical and raw materials than go into such weapons.

[truth2power]

8. "books that show us how to build

fail-safe Windows operating systems." I'm all for that!

But, no, I don't think books that show how to build bombs should be banned. People who do that aren't going to be deterred just because the book isn't in stock at B&N.

Also, sometimes mystery writers depend on inside knowledge of such things to research their novels.

[terryg11]

6. is this going to include advanced science texts?

while they may not give explicit instructions on how to build a bomb they sure help develop the knowledge to do it. People use their own thoughts and feelings to decide wht they will do with things they know and learn.

Kristoff is correct, we do make some trade offs for civil liberties and security. Only problem is our security will never be completely guaranteed, not even in a police state. At least give us some freedoms then

[HFishbine]

11. You inspire an additional thought

There are people who the government will want to instruct on how to make bombs. So, we are not talking about banning books that instruct but rather limiting their distribution to the approved Raytheon and Lockheed Martin employees.

[terryg11]

13. a new class of society?

the military class? they are special in that they have been entrusted wth this dangerous knowledge and so of course are above most others in society?

[ret5hd]

16. exactly...

and how would you stop books that said:

DO NOT MIX the nitric acid and the glycerin! Explosion may occur!

or equivalent.

Not being sarcastic or anything, but this level of chemistry is just too simple to try to "ban" it. practicaly any high-calorie fuel source and any oxidant is explosive.

[supernova]

27. If you were paying attention in HS chemistry

you get the general principal of "explosive." So it's not like the information isn't around, no matter how much an authoritarian goverment may try to limit access to said info.

[LuminousX]

7. They can get my Loompanic Publication from my dead cold hand

[Nihil]

33. ... that'll be the one that is ...

... about thirty yards away from your dead cold body then ...

(Damn, should've read ALL the way through the instructions before starting ...)

[DinahMoeHum]

35. . . .or Paladin Press. . .

n/t

:evilfrown:

[ProfessorGAC]

10. Books Have Nothing To Do With It

The knowledge already exists. Books are merely repositories of existing knowledge. Banning the book doesn't make the knowledge, skills and abilities go away. It wouldn't prevent a single explosive device from being built. If someone wants to build one badly enough, they'll figure it out, or they'll find someone who knows and will just tell them.

Lastly, since these kinds of things are available in textbooks on nitration chemistry, demolition engineering, and ordinance application, it would require even banning textbooks. I'm pretty uncomfortable with that idea.
The Professor

[goobergunch]

12. * Goobergunch sets mode: +b Censorship!*@* (n/t)

17. When I was a kid

in the Sixties, my father who was a conscientious objector in World War II (that's hard core pacifism, believe me) had a copy of the original Anarchist's Cookbook.
He always believed in freedom of information, whatever the information.

No Banned Books!

[BradCKY]

18. Nope

Never have. Then in High School I read Farenheit 451 which was more than enough to make me ponder the dangers of letting that door open.

[IronLionZion]

19. No matter how many books you ban

the wrong people can still get that information through the Internet and other sources.

Telling people how to do something is free speech. Telling people to commit violence is not. I don't have any links handy but they have prosecuted hate leaders for this in the past. They jailed a Nazi leader in Portland Oregon for telling people to kill minorities.

[supernova]

22. Military surplus stores used to sell this info

info on all types of ammo and different technologies.

I don't know if they still do, it's been many years since I was in a surplus store.

For me it's a free speech issue, so no ban. It's part of the price you pay for living in an open society that all information is available, even information that can teach you to be destructive. But 99% of the people who read that material won't do anything with it.

Besides, if you ban it, it immediately becomes more valuable than gold.

[buddhamama]

25. wouldn't basic knowledge

of chemistry,etc., be enough to create a bomb?


I voted NO.
it is a free speech issue
but i don't believe banning said books would be effective anyway.

[leesa]

26. No I would rather support banning a government that promotes

indiscriminate offensive bombing around the world. THAT is what is giving the green light to terrorism everywhere, not a book.

[Bucky]

28. The book in and of itself does no harm. We may need such books if...

Say the Bush administration decides that we can't have the 2004 elections. It's October 30th and there has been a HUGE ebola attack on all of America--multiple cannisters left quietly spraying in well trafficked corners of airports, train stations, campaign rallies, and sporting events. Millions of people are infected. Tens of thousands have are dying already and hundreds of thousands more are expected to perish before it all gets contained. The country's going nuts with containing the pandemic just days before the election...

The Bush administration determines that we can't have an election under these circumstances--it's just too chaotic. People could die just from going to vote. Among the people afflicted are John Kerry and his running mate, Olympia Dukakis. Bush makes an announcement that due to the emergency he's declaring martial law and is asking the states to suspend the election until the moment of crisis passes.

Now, under these circumstances, would you like to have a copy of a book that tells you how to make a bomb?

[Solon]

29. Ban College Chemistry books?

I don't think so. Anyone with decent deductive reasoning can use hundreds of formulas in such books to build a bomb.

[rman]

30. wouldn't solve the problem; you can't ban knowledge

before people start making bombs and use them, they need two things: knowledge to make bombs, and motivation to use them.
even if you could ban the knowledge then it'd be just a matter of time before someone reinvents that wheel.

people als "know" how to kill one another without bombs, yet relatively few people actually do so, because most people are not motivated to do so.

"information that can directly be used to kill and maim people"

how about driving over someone with a car?

how about using an axe to chop off someone's head?

that kind of "information" is trivial, effectively can not be banned, a ban would not solve the problem.

so the criterium of "information that can directly be used to kill and maim people" is pretty much useless.

Why is all the focus on the knowledge and none on the motivation?

[Solon]

32. Suppressing the knowledge is possible

If the motivation is created. Think about this, a 30.06 would do nothing to prevent the government from ultimately entering your home, however a book could blow up a tank. Knowledge is power, and the government, specifically the Bush Administration, fears that power.

[Nihil]

36. No, never

Books describing weapons, how to create them and how to use them are
not a problem, regardless of how much or little harm any device can do.

Books ordering/advising/encouraging people to cause harm to another
(neutral) person are the problem.

That applies across the board: from high explosive through shotguns to
an English Longbow or a craft knife.

A book that suggests how to shoot a rifle accurately over a distance
is not a problem. One that suggests someone that shooting "person X"
in the left ear is a problem.

A book that describes how to mix household chemicals into a volatile
explosive is not a problem (ok, as long as it includes safety info) as
this might be useful for removing tree-stumps, wasp nests, whatever.
A book that suggests using explosive surrounded by nuts and bolts for
maximum damage when triggered in a shopping mall is a problem as it
cannot have a non-harmful use.

All of the "problem" cases are already covered by existing laws.

Laws should be simple, not complicated.

Nihil