I believe free speech is a part of America that makes it different and special than many other countries. It is something to be proud of and cherished, however not taken advantage of. It seems people are always toeing the line and seeing how far some laws can be pushed. As morally wrong as one may believe these things to be racism, sexism, and hate speech are permitted under free speech. I believe free speech should not be permitted no matter the consequences. I think speech that endangers others, and advocacy of violent political overthrow should not be allowed.
Basically any type of speech that can lead to someone physically hurting themselves should be outlawed. Because I believe, the freedom of speech should have some limits placed on it someone must be put in charge of regulating the limits placed upon people and companies. I think laws should be passed just as a new bill is. Making sure 2/3 of the people vote yes to it and the President has a right to veto it. Therefore, checks and balances can still be put in order. It should be a national decision not a state made decision therefore from state to state everywhere is the same.
If I was a lawyer for the family and wanted the publisher to be responsible for the deaths I would have to find a loophole for speech that may endanger others therefore having the book be illegal. I would bring up the purpose of the book if I was a lawyer. Why would the author write a how to book about being a hit man if she did not want someone to follow her directions? This would then lead to endangering others. If this book was still on the market more and more people could die from the how to instructions to kill someone. This is a clear example of freedom of speech taken too far.
Perhaps the book would be okay if put inside a plot line such as James Bond, however, the sole purpose of the book is to teach others how to kill. Killing is against the law. If I was in the position of the publisher’s lawyer I would have to argue against everything I just mentioned. I would make a comment about how this book is no different from any other movie with violence and detailed murder scenes. I would also make a note that this book is written very simply and is common knowledge to most if one just thinks about it for a bit.
Therefore, the book should be considered freedom of speech. Another point the lawyer for the publisher could make is that the book never directly killed anyone. It is whoever’s decision to actually follow through with what the book says and kill someone literally. Therefore, the actual hit man should have the crime not the publisher of the book. The book is merely a how to manual, which has bare minimum instructions. This book should be considered freedom of speech.