Amazon Defends Pedophile Book

[eric11210]

Originally Posted by jhempel24

And do you think you would find porn on Amazon?

Sorry to burst your bubble, but yes. Warning to those offended by such material: don't click that link.

[jhempel24]

Thats awesome lol.

But I think that CAN be considered art. And it doesn't advocate violence towards children in a non-fiction manner. Www

Now where'd I pit my credit card?

[penartur]

Originally Posted by eric11210

The argument against ordinary pornography fails based on the second part of the test. The community standards cannot be applied because it can be demonstrated that a number of people in the community partake of pornography. It was decided in a Supreme Court case on the subject.

So, what is the difference with the book in subject?

[Penforhire]

Yeah, that was a very dangerous rationale. A number of people in the community, evidently, partake of pedophilia too.

[jezebel]

Unfortunately, all the publicity the boycott brought gave so many more sales than this book would have got without it.

[TGS]

At 470 posts in, perhaps this question should have been asked earlier, but I'll ask it now: what sort of a thing is pedophilia? Is it a sexual preference or a sexual orientation? Is there some kind of moral difference between someone who self-identifies as a pedophile but chooses not to act on their preferences and someone who does act and is the concept of a celibate pedophile meaningful, (as the concept of a celibate heterosexual or a celibate homosexual is). There was a lot of talk about sex with babies earlier in the thread, so is the real problem people who want to, or actually do, have sex with very young children. There are quite wide differences in the age of consent, and some jurisdictions do not have a fixed age but determine ability to give consent to be a function of sexual maturity, whilst others seem to have no lower age limit. So, behaviour could be considered pedophilia in some places but not in others - so is the morality of pedophilia variable with the context? Given the distinction that has already been made between writing about pedophilia and having sex with children, what is it, specifically, that is being condemned?

[Russell Brooks]

I'm glad that Amazon finally got their heads out their asses. I think that it's despicable that they'd allow that trash into their store to begin with.

[eric11210]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

Yeah, that was a very dangerous rationale. A number of people in the community, evidently, partake of pedophilia too.

Which is why that rationale was not used in a case regarding child pornography:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._Ferber

[penartur]

Originally Posted by eric11210

Which is why that rationale was not used in a case regarding child pornography:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._Ferber

So, there is a constitution in USA, and thousands of precedents which allow the government or the person to violate the basic principles of constitution?
"There is a global and unrestricted freedom of speech. Then comes the Miller Test, so that freedom of speech doesn't applies to some 'disturbing' materials. Then comes first precedent which allows pornography (along with pedobooks) to pass the Miller Test. Then comes second precedent which disallows pedobooks to pass the Miller Test as pornography does".
Hey, what is the point in "Constitution" then?

[eric11210]

The point is that it keeps getting adapted to the needs of the modern world. Compare that to many other countries that seem to simply make up laws as they go along and often end up trampling the rights of a great many people in the process. Or, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, the American constitution is the worst document of law ever written, except for any other. I'd rather live with the various decisions of the Supreme Court and the strictures of the constitution, even when I don't always agree with it (I really didn't like for example the Supreme Court's decision in Gore v Bush) than live with an ad hoc system where things get made up whenever. It's one of the things that bothers me about my current residence, Israel. We don't have a constitution and I believe it creates many problems in this country. Though I continue to hope for change.

Eric

[Pushka]

Originally Posted by kennyc

If only!!!

yep, on that point we are in total agreement.

thanks to everyone who has contributed. I am starting to understand the issues surrounding this book from the US perspective. I appreciate that the First Amendment gives people the right to voice their opinion about issues, and particularly, unjust laws. I see how that fits into the creation of your Republic.

But I am still coming to terms with the concept that this can be used to allow the publication of instructional material to perpetuate an act that harms others. It isnt an unjust law, nor is it one that was developed by a particular political persuasion.

[Pushka]

Originally Posted by eric11210

Sorry to burst your bubble, but yes. Warning to those offended by such material: don't click that link.

You see, I have no problems whatsoever with any of the material in that link. (I am female btw). The women were adults and were not forced into posing. I wouldn't buy them but have no issues with others having access.

Not sure that it is a good thing for younger people to have such direct access though.

Oh great, having clicked on that Amazon link, my 'based on your recent searches' link, my amazon page is full of smut mags.

[happy_terd]

You people amaze me.

We compromise on our rights and give up our freedoms for protection every day. Just think about that whole TSA pat down bullcrap.

It is funny that we are willing to give up our freedoms to get to our vacations quicker and we are not willing to give up our freedoms to stop a how-to book for child molesters.
-------------

My opinion is if I met this guy in a dark alley I would apply his own methods on him...as stated step by step in his book. He just wouldnt have a choice is all.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by Pushka

You see, I have no problems whatsoever with any of the material in that link....

Ah, but you (or I, for that matter) having, or not having, problems with it, is NOT the point.

I can't think of a single book which should be banned. None.

On the other hand, it always fascinates me that in some societies (particularly those having the misfortune to be afflicted by the Abrahamic religions), sex and sexual representation can often drive some into hysterics.

Yet the same people who go apoplectic if their child catches a glimpse of Janet Jackson's breast on TV, are fine with the most gruesome biblical representations, or shrug when their teenager is glued to the TV watching torture and mutilations in SAW IV.

There has been a tremendous outcry against this book, even though there is no evidence that any child has been harmed because of it.

Yet, there is nary a peep against the widespread genital mutilation of children (otherwise known as circumcision). Even the practice of metzitzah b'peh (oral suction) is shrugged off, because hey, who can argue with God...?

[Pushka]

Originally Posted by Sonist

Ah, but you (or I, for that matter) having, or not having, problems with it, is NOT the point.

Yeah, I know it isnt what I think - my point is that in the creation of those mags, no individual was coerced into doing anything. This book though, instructs pedophiles how to interfere with children. its very intent, if people follow what it says to do, WILL harm children. It isnt what I think, it is actually what happens.

Originally Posted by Sonist

On the other hand, it always fascinates me that in some societies (particularly those having the misfortune to be afflicted by the Abrahamic religions), sex and sexual representation can often drive some into hysterics.

Yet the same people who go apoplectic if their child catches a glimpse of Janet Jackson's breast on TV, are fine with the most gruesome biblical representations, or shrug when their teenager is glued to the TV watching torture and mutilations in SAW IV.

There has been a tremendous outcry against this book, even though there is no evidence that any child has been harmed because of it.

Yet, there is nary a peep against the widespread genital mutilation of children (otherwise known as circumcision). Even the practice of metzitzah b'peh (oral suction) is shrugged off, because hey, who can argue with God...?

Aint no argument from me on these points. Weird things are allowed to happen in the name of religion; however, from your previous comments about not banning any books, and taking on this "First Amendment" stance, then it is fine for religious books to be written about it, and telling people how to do it!