What the employees wanted is getting too close to a society of censorship, instead of free speech. Nobody is forcing anyone to read/buy it.
That's how I feel anyway
Yes-- and its noteworthy that employees of a company that publishes books is against the publication of this book.
But we should force someone to publish it?
wow. that's perfect.I want to know how the book will be held together without a spine.
He did not commit a crime when he said that. It was abhorrent thing to say but not illegal.Did or did not T***** commit a literal crime when he said "good people on both sides'"?
I don't care if you respect my opinion.I will respect your opinion if you can demonstrate that your opinion can be changed when confronted with truth.
Pence wants businesses free to refuse to serve gay people. There's a lot better case for a business refusing to serve him. He's not censored - he can post on the internet. Should they have any standards for who they publish?
Craig seems to be on the right track here.I'm on the side of Simon & Shuster's position on publishing the book.
Then you think it is ok for people like that to express their views under the pretense of free expression? Like all those Nazis and Lost Causers who came to Charlottesville?He did not commit a crime when he said that
Yes it is ok for Trump to express that view.Then you think it is ok for people like that to express their views under the pretense of free expression? Like all those Nazis and Lost Causers who came to Charlottesville?
It will never be on the lawbooks outside despotic countries. The US Constitution allows that type of speech.He did commit a crime but it was one that is not yet on the lawbooks.
I would be surprised as well, but it could happen. The Publisher will want something juicy in there and Pence might hold a grudge after Trump's mob tried to kill him.I'll be very surprised if Pense says anything that betrays his loyalty to trump.
.
I'm curious as to how people feel about this. Simon & Schuster has pushed back against employees who want Pence's book deal cancelled. I'm with the publisher on this one.
Link
LOL. More proof that it is the left who want to cancel, not the right. Thanks for your opinion. Nothing should be canceled.I'm curious as to how people feel about this. Simon & Schuster has pushed back against employees who want Pence's book deal cancelled. I'm with the publisher on this one.
Link
What about the monuments and statues to slavers, to "Christian" conquerers, to imperialists? Do The People have the right to eliminate symbols of hatred from among them? And if they do have this right why can't we extend it a bit further?Yes it is ok for Trump to express that view.
I'm curious as to how people feel about this. Simon & Schuster has pushed back against employees who want Pence's book deal cancelled. I'm with the publisher on this one.
Link
Did or did not T***** commit a literal crime when he said "good people on both sides'"?
It was a crime that occurred at the level of belief and in his thought. It just is not yet a literal crime yet and one for which people can be prosecuted and sentenced. A crime-in-embryo is how we might think of it.While Trump's comment was idiotic and most likely racist in nature, what is the ACTUAL CRIME (state the statute) that Trump committed by saying that. You will find there are not too many people here that absolutely hate Trump or Trump supporters as I do, but he didn't commit a crime when saying that.
Publishers care about one thing: selling books. That's always been the way it is.I'm curious as to how people feel about this. Simon & Schuster has pushed back against employees who want Pence's book deal cancelled. I'm with the publisher on this one.
Link
What about the monuments and statues to slavers, to "Christian" conquerers, to imperialists? Do The People have the right to eliminate symbols of hatred from among them? And if they do have this right why can't we extend it a bit further?
Bit by bit, I am willing to take it somewhat slow. But we have to know what the objective is. And we have to be bold and determining in getting what we know is right.
It was a crime that occurred at the level of belief and in his thought. It just is not yet a literal crime yet and one for which people can be prosecuted and sentenced. A crime-in-embryo is how we might think of it.
But change is upon us. A slow train of social justice and the attainment of equity in our land.
Good. Very good. This is my understanding as well. The crowd has a right to tear them out of society and memory. It might tecnically be *illegal* but it is right as rain.Books are meant to express views. Statues are meant to glorify. Different things.
Don't try and confuse me. I spelled it out quite clearly.Are you saying that people should be free to express their views, AND should be free from ever having them condemned by others?
No. We have books on every one from George III to Benedict Arnold and Genghis Khan. Almost all schoolchildren learn about them. They are certainly not torn out of society and memory. But do you want statues of them to make sure we don't forget?Good. Very good. This is my understanding as well. The crowd has a right to tear them out of society and memory. It might tecnically be *illegal* but it is right as rain.
And if this is true it MUST be extended to publishing as well, because that can also be 'glorifying'.
And if this is true it MUST be extended to publishing as well, because that can also be 'glorifying'.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?