Another question about Amazon.com and the 1st Amendment?
I truly appreciate the responses I received on my original post, "Does any one else have issues with Amazon.com hiding behind the 1st Amendment?" but I want to follow up.
I wanted to see how other people felt on this issue of Amazon.com selling materials on how to raise & train fighting dogs. I just want to clarify that no where in my original post did I say Amazon.com did not have the RIGHT to sell these materials. My intent is/was awareness of the fact they are selling this type of material.
Based on responses I received I have an additional question (and I truly pose this in an effort to understand, not to incite); as an analogy, why is it illegal to own/possess a bong if one is not actively using it and the police find it? If the act of smoking pot is illegal, and the police consider a bong as “paraphernalia”, then why isn’t the same for a book outlining the details of how to commit an illegal activity? FYI - I never claimed to be a saint and broke this law in my college day
Answers:
Speech is specifically protected by the federal Constitution against any state legislation that tries to prohibit it. A bong is not. I'm not saying it's fair or that it makes sense, but the government feels free to restrict anything for any reason so long as it doesn't contradict the letter of the Constitution, therefore mere information (such as that contained in the pages of a book telling you how to commit a crime) is not considered paraphernalia (i.e. the equipment or materials directly used in the commission or concealment of a crime).
hmmmmmmmmm
I kind of agree
fantasizing about or reading about something is NOT the same as doing it
Your question is thought provoking. It confuses me also as to why the possesion of certain materials is illegal and then other things is not when both COULD be used in an illegal activity.
It is my own view that just having an inanimate object of any kind should never be the basis of a prosecution. If there is evidence that the object WAS used to commit an illegal activity, then prosecution is warranted.
i wasnt involved in your first question . i agree with u . sorry i cant ,dont know of an answer, but i agree with u
personally, i'm not particularly surprised. amazon has made it clear that they'll sell things so long as they're legal and make money.
the analogy to the bong can be made more specific for understanding:
a bong that has not been used is not illegal. if there's no resin in it, you're all set.
a bong that has been used is paraphernalia.
to bring the analogy around--
a book on dogs and fighting is not illegal.
however, after it's been found that you've been using the dogs to fight? they can use the book as evidence.
The "how to" book is illegal in certain circumstances, like a book on how to destroy national security codes. It seems as though it is the content of the information which is banned (and only in exceptional circumstances) and it does not matter on which media it is presented (or spoken, for that matter).
Thus the how-to book on dogfighting is not banned because the speech on how-to dogfight is not banned.
FYI, the bong is not illegal by itself, absent a connection to pot. They are sold legally as tobacco pipes. It is in the context of a pot bust that the bong becomes drug paraphernalia.
Possession of media depicting anything profane is entirely subjective.
Even tracking the data of who buys any form of unscrupulus media for reasons of arguing intent are implying that the prerogative of use or interpretation is absolute, and it is not.
Different strokes for different folks.
You bring up a good point. It all boils down to the fact that the supreme court has ruled that the 1st amendment doesn't protect certain types of materials, regardless of intent. Once certain material is published, it is very difficult to keep people with bad intent from using it, and the court recognized the fact that the only way to keep people from using it would be to stop it from being published. So they carved out an exception to the first amendment.
The Answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers:
I wanted to see how other people felt on this issue of Amazon.com selling materials on how to raise & train fighting dogs. I just want to clarify that no where in my original post did I say Amazon.com did not have the RIGHT to sell these materials. My intent is/was awareness of the fact they are selling this type of material.
Based on responses I received I have an additional question (and I truly pose this in an effort to understand, not to incite); as an analogy, why is it illegal to own/possess a bong if one is not actively using it and the police find it? If the act of smoking pot is illegal, and the police consider a bong as “paraphernalia”, then why isn’t the same for a book outlining the details of how to commit an illegal activity? FYI - I never claimed to be a saint and broke this law in my college day
Answers:
Speech is specifically protected by the federal Constitution against any state legislation that tries to prohibit it. A bong is not. I'm not saying it's fair or that it makes sense, but the government feels free to restrict anything for any reason so long as it doesn't contradict the letter of the Constitution, therefore mere information (such as that contained in the pages of a book telling you how to commit a crime) is not considered paraphernalia (i.e. the equipment or materials directly used in the commission or concealment of a crime).
hmmmmmmmmm
I kind of agree
fantasizing about or reading about something is NOT the same as doing it
Your question is thought provoking. It confuses me also as to why the possesion of certain materials is illegal and then other things is not when both COULD be used in an illegal activity.
It is my own view that just having an inanimate object of any kind should never be the basis of a prosecution. If there is evidence that the object WAS used to commit an illegal activity, then prosecution is warranted.
i wasnt involved in your first question . i agree with u . sorry i cant ,dont know of an answer, but i agree with u
personally, i'm not particularly surprised. amazon has made it clear that they'll sell things so long as they're legal and make money.
the analogy to the bong can be made more specific for understanding:
a bong that has not been used is not illegal. if there's no resin in it, you're all set.
a bong that has been used is paraphernalia.
to bring the analogy around--
a book on dogs and fighting is not illegal.
however, after it's been found that you've been using the dogs to fight? they can use the book as evidence.
The "how to" book is illegal in certain circumstances, like a book on how to destroy national security codes. It seems as though it is the content of the information which is banned (and only in exceptional circumstances) and it does not matter on which media it is presented (or spoken, for that matter).
Thus the how-to book on dogfighting is not banned because the speech on how-to dogfight is not banned.
FYI, the bong is not illegal by itself, absent a connection to pot. They are sold legally as tobacco pipes. It is in the context of a pot bust that the bong becomes drug paraphernalia.
Possession of media depicting anything profane is entirely subjective.
Even tracking the data of who buys any form of unscrupulus media for reasons of arguing intent are implying that the prerogative of use or interpretation is absolute, and it is not.
Different strokes for different folks.
You bring up a good point. It all boils down to the fact that the supreme court has ruled that the 1st amendment doesn't protect certain types of materials, regardless of intent. Once certain material is published, it is very difficult to keep people with bad intent from using it, and the court recognized the fact that the only way to keep people from using it would be to stop it from being published. So they carved out an exception to the first amendment.
The Answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers:
- Is it possible for me to be a lawyer?
- When did the abortion became legal in California?
- Can police arrest you if a sniffer dog sences drugs on you and you refuse a body serch?
- Are libel, slander and defamation, offences (or in other words crimes)?
- What Age Can You Legally Move Out Of Your House Without Your Parent's Approval In Canada ??
- "Act of GOD"??
- Federal Bureau of Prisons?
- How come in court?
- What are the qualities of a good neighbor? How is being a good friend related to being a good neighbor? Is the