Amazon Defends Pedophile Book

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by Piper_

There are two "stories" he gives that read like pedophile erotica.

Personally, that's not what I object most to.

The most dangerous element is the convincing of other pedophiles, and even putting doubts in people's minds, that it is a matter of love and pleasuring the child, and does no real damage.

The author, as many do, likes to distinguish between loving "pedosexuality," which he says is good, and molestation, which he considers bad, like rape.

The problem is that, while force is terrible and has its own repercussions, it lacks the element of self-guilt.

The whole nice, loving, "you love me, I love you, and I'm just making you feel good - doesn't it feel good?" approach does a horrendous mind job on the victim for whom it does feel good, as the guilt and confusion never goes away for so many.

eegads did you actually read it!?

some years ago I found myself quite by accident on a "man-boy love" list email list (since I am neither man, boy, or frequent transgender, gay or bi groups, it really was quite accidental). at first I had no idea what it was, as I recall the name of the group just went by MBL and mostly it was a meandering journal kind of deal maintained by the list author about his new apartment. my eyes were finally opened as it were, when he went into lengthy detail about the wooing of a 16 year old. I contacted the police and unsubscribed from the list

[rogue_red]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I didn't know that, but I suspect there were a lot of sales to reporters who were writing about the controversy. If you check Google, you'll see stories worldwide on this.

Anyway, my main reason for posting the link was that it provided some background on the author, who is a former mental patient.

I so knew that! I spoke to him on Amazon's forum and he is clearly delusional. The way he was talking about 4 year olds being so mature and clued up and how he doesn't believe that sexual abuse, consenting or otherwise, is really that harmful. He's a nutter.

[Mare of Earth]

This is a very volatile topic with everyone for many different reasons.

I agree that the author has the right to publish his book. I also agree that the FBI should probably be investigating and hopefully incarcerating his sorry self for having possible experience with his topic.

This, ultimately, serves as yet another object lesson as to why a rating system for written media would be a good thing. When people first started with the idea, I was against it. However, with the opening of the realms of written media through the internet, I find that I really would like a warning that the book I am looking at contains disturbing content, or is mostly verbal p0rn thinly veiled by what the author likes to believe is "plot".

Rating something, or warning about something's content, yet it still being published and available to all, would not be censorship - it would just be common sense in today's world.

*gets off soapbox*

[chilady1]

I guess for some folks, if it has never happened to them or know of a child this has happened to, the empathy doesn't exist. They say it is offensive or they understand, but in actuality, they don't. Although some of us are able to move forward with our lives and not fall into a victim trap, it is always present.

I support a person's right to read what they want, but in the grand scheme of things each and everyone of you know that this book NEVER should have been available on Amazon. It sickens me to read some of the comments on this board.

[ProfCrash]

For the record, you can buy Mein Kampf from Amazon and probably many other bookstores in the US. There are some countries where new copies cannot be printed and sold, Germany, but used copies can be sold and you can legally own a copy.

There are books published that tell people how to make bombs, drugs, and on many other illegal activities. The act of writing the book is not illegal. The content is not illegal. Doing what is described in the book is illegal.

I would also point out that in this internet era this information is out there for folks even if it is not sold as a book on Amazon.

Amazon has every right to make a business decision not to sell certain types of books. This is one book I have no problem with Amazon chosing not to sell. I have no problem with people calling, emailing, and posting that they think Amazon should not sell this book because of the material.

I would have a problem if someone said that writing such a book is illegal. Yes, the content material is awful. Yes the act described is abhorant. But freedom of speech is just that, freedom of speech. People dressed in white sheets with pointy hats are allowed to walk down the streets advocating racists beliefs. They piss me off and promote something I find to be abhorant but they get to do it because freedom of speech is something guarenteed in the Constitution. This twit gets to write his book. We get to use the power of the free market and our voices to tell Amazon we don't want them to sell his book.

In the end the voices of the many were louder then the one twits voice. The combination of free speech and the threat to withhold money won the day. The system worked.

[rogue_red]

Originally Posted by Mare of Earth

This is a very volatile topic with everyone for many different reasons.

I agree that the author has the right to publish his book. I also agree that the FBI should probably be investigating and hopefully incarcerating his sorry self for having possible experience with his topic.

This, ultimately, serves as yet another object lesson as to why a rating system for written media would be a good thing. When people first started with the idea, I was against it. However, with the opening of the realms of written media through the internet, I find that I really would like a warning that the book I am looking at contains disturbing content, or is mostly verbal p0rn thinly veiled by what the author likes to believe is "plot".

Rating something, or warning about something's content, yet it still being published and available to all, would not be censorship - it would just be common sense in today's world.

*gets off soapbox*

YES YES YES

That was one of my main issues with the book. It's not that I want censorship of books but all media needs to be handled in a responsible manner. For some people, suggestive literature is akin to leaving a loaded gun for an eight year old to play with. Some people are very suggestable or looking to justify their urges and books like this are dangerous to those folk. Now I do realise that having a rating on media isn't going to stop someone from buying the book but at least it gives parents the power to protect their kids while on the internet and its a way for people who would rather not read objectional material to avoid it.
(crummy spelling - sorry )

[Penforhire]

I'm not surprised the topic is polarizing. I think we all agree the subject matter of the book is reprehensible, abhorrent, and a bunch of other ugly terms. On the other hand, how can some of you suggest "the book made me do it" logic?

If someone abused my son after reading this book I would blame the abuser. The path to blaming a book is far too slippery a slope. I refuse to censor content in this way. I fully agree this was not government censorship, merely private, by Amazon. I am disappointed they caved.

Plenty of readers can complain they still sell, say, the Bible or Koran. What, you think religious beliefs are not potentially more dangerous than pedophila? Way to ignore history then.

I think Amazon should establish an "over-18" or similar section that requires parental consent to view. I am not against restricting public access to books based on age. That (unrestricted public access) is something a parent will not otherwise have control or choice over. They could put all sorts of polarizing books into that section (e.g. Nazi literature).

Sure, Amazon is a private company. But being nearly a monopoly, certainly headed that way, it bears more of a responsibility to behave in the best interest of the public (look at how dot-gov interferes with Microsoft). Book burning is NEVER in the pubic interest, only in some of your personal interests.

[recluse]

The existence of child molestors is a crime against nature and humanity.
The defense of the existence of the ebook or any material that promotes, aids or excites child molestors is a crime against morality and common sense.

People who fear censorship are people who are doing something wrong.

[rogue_red]

Originally Posted by chilady1

I guess for some folks, if it has never happened to them or know of a child this has happened to, the empathy doesn't exist. They say it is offensive or they understand, but in actuality, they don't. Although some of us are able to move forward with our lives and not fall into a victim trap, it is always present.

I support a person's right to read what they want, but in the grand scheme of things each and everyone of you know that this book NEVER should have been available on Amazon. It sickens me to read some of the comments on this board.

Be glad you didn't see the stuff the author wrote on the amazon forums before it got deleted. This whole thing has been such a shocking thing. Maybe I was naive before. I'm still stunned that Amazon chose to publish and advertise it.

[Mare of Earth]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

I think Amazon should establish an "over-18" or similar section that requires parental consent to view. I am not against restricting public access to books based on age. That (unrestricted public access) is something a parent will not otherwise have control or choice over. They could put all sorts of polarizing books into that section (e.g. Nazi literature).

Sure, Amazon is a private company. But being nearly a monopoly, certainly headed that way, it bears more of a responsibility to behave in the best interest of the public (look at how dot-gov interferes with Microsoft). Book burning is NEVER in the pubic interest, only in some of your personal interests.

Exactly. You wouldn't sell a Hustler magazine to a 4 year old. You would sell one to someone of legal age to be developmentally able to responsibly read/view the content in an adult manner.

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by recluse

People who fear censorship are people who are doing something wrong.

I've never had so much as a traffic ticket. I've been cleared by several work-related background checks. I've never gone for a security clearance, but I'd probably pass. I don't even own the Anarchist's Cookbook!

And I fear censorship far more than I fear any of the evils from which it purports to protect me.

[Mare of Earth]

Originally Posted by recluse

People who fear censorship are people who are doing something wrong.

No. People who fear censorship are students of history, who realize that making thought patterns forbidden is the first sign that your children will be slaves.

[abookreader]

Originally Posted by recluse

People who fear censorship are people who are doing something wrong.

Like what? Owning books?

[ProfCrash]

Originally Posted by recluse

People who fear censorship are people who are doing something wrong.

Tell that to the folks who opposed Communism in the USSR or Hitler in Nazi Germany. Or try and have a chat with someone in North Korea or China. The list of countries were people fear censorship because if they said what they felt they would end up beaten, jailed, or dead is pretty long.

I fear censorship because the day that the government can start censoring my speech is the day that I stop being able to safely complain that the government can censor my speech.

I fear that day.

[44Dave]

Originally Posted by recluse

The existence of child molestors is a crime against nature and humanity.
The defense of the existence of the ebook or any material that promotes, aids or excites child molestors is a crime against morality and common sense.

People who fear censorship are people who are doing something wrong.

You must be from the Government.