Here's where we get into a pickle though. What you're essentially saying is that we we should give the government the right to restrict speech, as long as it's "objectionable".
I never used the word government one time. I talked about society, aka, "we the people". I know it's an old and often forgotton concept.
I am not asking the government for anything. It's sad, at best, that at least some in our society don't have a problem with books and behavior like this. Those who oppose this kind of stuff can voice their opposition with their check book.
Government can't fix a society. Only God can do that!!
I think I made myself clear about the difference between an topical book and a "how to" break the law and child abuse book.
"In the end, we accept a compromise - we have certain things that are illegal, however discussions ABOUT topics, even illegal ones, are not subject to government interference. Afterall, once they have their foot in the door, it's a short step from:"
Quote
There is really no legitimate excuse for printing "how to" child abuse books that explain how to break the law and destroy a childs life.
to
Quote
There is really no legitimate excuse for printing subversive material criticizing the president and undermining our national unity.
You are comparing apples to oranges. From previous conversations with you, I know you are all about "moderation" and compromise. As in our previous disscussion about moderation, I stand firm that there is no compromise on what's right and what's wrong. If you can't tell the difference between right and wrong, then get with God and He will help you figure it out. Right and wrong is not an opinion. Truth is definitive not subjective. Remember our, "middle of the road", chat? Society is being run down from being in the middle of the road.
In the immortal words of Forrest Gump, "That's all I have to say about that."