http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/01/911-coloring-book-decried_n_945327.html

A book created "in memory of 9/11"; perhaps the most disturbing thing I have ever seen published. I don't mind other people's opinions of any sort of event that occurs, and as someone living in Texas and therefore having the idea of God shoved down my throat, I've unironically learned to be tolerant to ideas that are absolutely polar to mine.

But really, Missouri? This is literal propaganda shown to children. Building up to an ending depiction of an American soldier pointing a gun at Osama Bin Laden and his wife, this sort of thing inspires a ridiculous fear of Islam, and dramatizes in a horrible manner the historical events.

Has the Bible taught Americans that they can re-write history to better suit their wants?

_________________________________________

I have no words.

_________________________________________

Freedoms shouldn't be infringed upon just because people are offended. Children don't just magically get coloring books out of thin air. It's up to parents to regulate what their children come into contact with.

That's like liberals who argue about people openly carrying weapons. Wahhh it makes me worrieddd. Does that mean I can't walk my dog anymore because you're scared of dogs?

Or liberal laws that try to prohibit guns completely. Criminals by their very definition don't follow the ****ing law. Taking away gun rights means that ONLY criminals will have and use them.

It's the same with this coloring book. The more you water down people's rights the easier it is to take them away completely. As Americans you should be very scared of **** like this happening.

_________________________________________

Yeah okay, let's ignore the real problem at hand and change it to an issue of freedoms being infringed on. This is why we have some people in charge of our government that believe in creationism.

_________________________________________

This coloring book should be considered an insult to Americans AND Muslims and basically any human being. And this Wayne Bell person is a complete idiot, and flat out lied in the phone interview, haha. It's pretty obvious that yes they do have an agenda but then again, don't buy this for children.

They have the right to publish whatever they want though. Controversy always wins big dollars. But it doesn't change the fact that everyone involved in/defending the actual contents of the book like that are just lying through their teeth.

_________________________________________

I looked at the example picture and almost laughed. Then closely looked at the scene in general of a girl trying to protect Bin Laden from an impending bullet. Then it just looked sad in general.

Like, is this some sort of joke? It sure as hell looks like it. It's horse **** I say.

Seriously, why not just rename this book into "Racism ABC."

_________________________________________

Like they said, this isn't a book for kids.
It's just a novelty item being sold on the "strength" of its controversial nature.

_________________________________________

@Gaku: That's what I thought, but then I watched that video and the author of it claimed firmly it is to educate kids about the troubling topic of 9/11 'properly.' He also claimed 'in no way is this book saying anything about the muslim faith.' Yet it is mentioned several times in said book about how Muslims are bad pretty much.

_________________________________________

Sinsie wrote:

Yeah okay, let's ignore the real problem at hand and change it to an issue of freedoms being infringed on. This is why we have some people in charge of our government that believe in creationism.

I pointed out the real problem.

Parents need to regulate what their children interact with. We don't need to water down the rights of US citizens so people don't get butthurt.


_________________________________________

I have to agree with that. I mean, if a parent starts feeding their kid information that's jacked up, then it's the parent's doing, not really the media at hand. I just think that the guy that made this book deserves to be shoved down a slide of razorblades into a vat of lemon juice for daring to state that this is intended to be fed to the minds of impressionable children, and intending to poison our youth with such terrible filth.

_________________________________________

reply to Dean:

This is definitely true but then where do we draw the line between parental responsibility and state/federal reinforcement of a law? People are charged with child neglect and there was a recent law put in place if I remember correctly that not reporting a "missing person" under 18 can lead to charges, even if they "know" where the person is but just aren't supervising them. Freedom of the Press is cool and all but this was created in a medium primarily used for children, who are not of age for multiple rights that we can even consider unalienable.

If this WERE directed to adults, I think I would mind much less, but the medium and method of distribution goes very much against that and I feel that is merely a cover to make it seem less bad.

Personally I'm less aghast as to it actually being published and more that someone would actually have these views and want to spread them, especially towards children. You might remember I don't really want to think myself as either liberal or conservative, but this only puts the entire idea of 9/11 in a way that it seems like the immensely costly and draining war has been good for us, and even has undertones almost implying that it has been our God-given right to retaliate so forcefully. "American pride" isn't bad or anything but "We're better because we are American" is just silly, and that's what it's enforcing.

_________________________________________

Shane wrote:

reply to Dean:

This is definitely true but then where do we draw the line between parental responsibility and state/federal reinforcement of a law? People are charged with child neglect and there was a recent law put in place if I remember correctly that not reporting a "missing person" under 18 can lead to charges, even if they "know" where the person is but just aren't supervising them. Freedom of the Press is cool and all but this was created in a medium primarily used for children, who are not of age for multiple rights that we can even consider unalienable.

If this WERE directed to adults, I think I would mind much less, but the medium and method of distribution goes very much against that and I feel that is merely a cover to make it seem less bad.

Personally I'm less aghast as to it actually being published and more that someone would actually have these views and want to spread them, especially towards children. You might remember I don't really want to think myself as either liberal or conservative, but this only puts the entire idea of 9/11 in a way that it seems like the immensely costly and draining war has been good for us, and even has undertones almost implying that it has been our God-given right to retaliate so forcefully. "American pride" isn't bad or anything but "We're better because we are American" is just silly, and that's what it's enforcing.

Most of this is irrelevant since like I said, it's the responsibility of parents/legal guardians.

Suggesting this not be allowed is about as ridiculous as people wanting to prevent a mosque being built near ground zero.

Offensive? To some people, damn right.

Illegal/unconstitutional? Not in the least.

but then where do we draw the line between parental responsibility and state/federal reinforcement of a law?

Put an age requirement on the item.

Is double anal penetration hentai pornography offensive to some people? Yes. Could it be argued that it's targeted towards younger people since it's illustrated? Yes.

Same thing as far as I'm concerned.

A lot of people allow young children on the internet. I guarantee a bull**** coloring book with some political incorrectness doesn't compared to half the **** these kids have access to.


_________________________________________

reply to Dean:

That's the thing, there is no age limit on it.

I'm not saying it's unconstitutional nor should it be, I just think it's wrong that it's being targeted towards children.

_________________________________________

Age requirement...

on a children's coloring book...

about murdering a political enemy and his wife selflessly trying to save his life...

I motion that we end the argument part and just agree that this book overall is stupid and it serves as a reminder that these people prove our society as a whole needs to continue to progress further on.

_________________________________________

Shane wrote:

reply to Dean:

That's the thing, there is no age limit on it.

I'm not saying it's unconstitutional nor should it be, I just think it's wrong that it's being targeted towards children.

No ****, that's why I said if it's that big of a problem maybe it should have one put on it.

I think even age requirements are dumb because the bottom line is the legal guardian is responsible for **** like that. Why do you need the government to stick their nose into every aspect of your ****ing life?

Know what I'd do if I didn't like the coloring book and my child wanted it? SAY NO.

****

_________________________________________

Dean wrote:

Shane wrote:

reply to Dean:

That's the thing, there is no age limit on it.

I'm not saying it's unconstitutional nor should it be, I just think it's wrong that it's being targeted towards children.

No ****, that's why I said if it's that big of a problem maybe it should have one put on it.

I think even age requirements are dumb because the bottom line is the legal guardian is responsible for **** like that. Why do you need the government to stick their nose into every aspect of your ****ing life?

Know what I'd do if I didn't like the coloring book and my child wanted it? SAY NO.

****

Age "requirements" serve nothing more as a guideline for parents that aren't quite as informed as others. Otherwise, if you see the title of something and it's misleading, parents could unknowingly buy it and/or give it to a child before realizing the actual contents. So-called "requirements" would be virtually identical to ESRB ratings for video games.

So by your logic if they're dumb, would you want them non-existent? Then we have a whirlwind of chaos where publishers of books or software would make books like "Sunny Rays of Sunny Sunshine" and the contents could be anything from rainbows and farts to promoting stereotypes and prejudice towards people/races/etc to whatever the hell.

****

_________________________________________

Hazedreamfreysaraboy wrote:

Dean wrote:

Shane wrote:

reply to Dean:

That's the thing, there is no age limit on it.

I'm not saying it's unconstitutional nor should it be, I just think it's wrong that it's being targeted towards children.

No ****, that's why I said if it's that big of a problem maybe it should have one put on it.

I think even age requirements are dumb because the bottom line is the legal guardian is responsible for **** like that. Why do you need the government to stick their nose into every aspect of your ****ing life?

Know what I'd do if I didn't like the coloring book and my child wanted it? SAY NO.

****

Age "requirements" serve nothing more as a guideline for parents that aren't quite as informed as others. Otherwise, if you see the title of something and it's misleading, parents could unknowingly buy it and/or give it to a child before realizing the actual contents. So-called "requirements" would be virtually identical to ESRB ratings for video games.

So by your logic if they're dumb, would you want them non-existent? Then we have a whirlwind of chaos where publishers of books or software would make books like "Sunny Rays of Sunny Sunshine" and the contents could be anything from rainbows and farts to promoting stereotypes and prejudice towards people/races/etc to whatever the hell.

****

There are already objects of the type you just described in more than one type of media outlet. This is not a recent development.

Whether the product has guidelines or not it's still the legal guardian's responsibility. If the guardian chooses to be lazy and only judge the book by its cover then it's their fault. They are also more than capable of inquiring about the product before purchasing the product.

If the product is highly offensive then people can boycott the product and make others aware of why it's being boycotted.

There are infinitely more appropriate routes to take than infringing on our constitutional rights.

If I want to write, publish, and sell a book called Happy Bunny goes to Paradise and have the contents be about how to maintain slaves for cotton farming it's my right.

Buyer beware.

_________________________________________

Which publishing house and what's the release date? I want a signed 1st edition of this excellent handbook.

_________________________________________

Dean wrote:

Hazedreamfreysaraboy wrote:

Dean wrote:

Shane wrote:

reply to Dean:

That's the thing, there is no age limit on it.

I'm not saying it's unconstitutional nor should it be, I just think it's wrong that it's being targeted towards children.

No ****, that's why I said if it's that big of a problem maybe it should have one put on it.

I think even age requirements are dumb because the bottom line is the legal guardian is responsible for **** like that. Why do you need the government to stick their nose into every aspect of your ****ing life?

Know what I'd do if I didn't like the coloring book and my child wanted it? SAY NO.

****

Age "requirements" serve nothing more as a guideline for parents that aren't quite as informed as others. Otherwise, if you see the title of something and it's misleading, parents could unknowingly buy it and/or give it to a child before realizing the actual contents. So-called "requirements" would be virtually identical to ESRB ratings for video games.

So by your logic if they're dumb, would you want them non-existent? Then we have a whirlwind of chaos where publishers of books or software would make books like "Sunny Rays of Sunny Sunshine" and the contents could be anything from rainbows and farts to promoting stereotypes and prejudice towards people/races/etc to whatever the hell.

****

There are already objects of the type you just described in more than one type of media outlet. This is not a recent development.

Whether the product has guidelines or not it's still the legal guardian's responsibility. If the guardian chooses to be lazy and only judge the book by its cover then it's their fault. They are also more than capable of inquiring about the product before purchasing the product.

If the product is highly offensive then people can boycott the product and make others aware of why it's being boycotted.

There are infinitely more appropriate routes to take than infringing on our constitutional rights.

If I want to write, publish, and sell a book called Happy Bunny goes to Paradise and have the contents be about how to maintain slaves for cotton farming it's my right.

Buyer beware.

I was merely pointing out that you saying that guidelines are dumb would leave parents possibly even being more unable to choose appropriate media to give to their children. I never said this was a new thing, and I definitely agree it's up to the parents to do some research, but if it plainly says it can be suggestive for children at least that sets off a red flag.

_________________________________________

I didn't convey my point clearly then. Guidelines are fine, restrictions are not.

Even guidelines are a grey area for me though because it raises the question of whether or not the author of the material must label the material as being mature in nature or whether that responsibility rest on the shoulders of the seller or whether the government should be able to force either party to label the material as being mature.

It's really easy to sacrifice your rights for bull**** 'feel good' laws.

Keep in mind it's a lot easier to lose rights than it is to get them back.



_________________________________________