Amazon Defends Pedophile Book

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

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..

Please see the excellent point made in an earlier post:

Originally Posted by Piper_

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.

This is where a book like this has the potential to be extremely damaging, not in inciting the act, but in further harming the victim.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by recluse

...

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

The exact words of many who defend The Patriot Act.

[jhempel24]

Holy Crap!! You know, I'm on the side of freedom of speech.....being able to say what you want and not get arrested because you think the government are a bunch of morons, or so and so said this about her who said this about blah blah blah....

But c'mon people, this book advocates the harm of children in a NON-FICTION way and you want to DEFEND IT under the moniker of "oh its free speech" so that makes it okay??? Free speech or no, it's NOT OKAY!!!

How about I find some phone numbers, call you up and say I'm going to rape your wife and child every day, and call every day...but not do anything...would it be okay because I'm under the guise of "free speech"? NO it wouldn't be okay! This book is nothing but a threat to society and instigation to those that are inclined to like little kids.

In my opinion there are something that need to be censored for our own good. This is one of them. I don't care about the "who gets to decide" etc, it doesn't matter. It's a sad sad day when people in this country can stoop so low as to advocate the sale of such material.

[44Dave]

Originally Posted by jhempel24

In my opinion there are something that need to be censored for our own good. This is one of them. I don't care about the "who gets to decide" etc, it doesn't matter.

This is the threat to our society. I refuse to give up my rights to appease you.

[Mare of Earth]

It is just as dangerous as the Anarchist's Handbook. Not saying that it isn't.
I would find a book on the hunting of pet animals to be just as reprehensible.
However - to a psychologist trying to understand how anyone could ever think this is acceptable, or how to treat a victim of this - it could be a valuable resource.

Freedom of speech is the right to say or write anything.

We do not possess Freedom of Action. We are not free to do whatever we want.

Even more off topic: This would be an interesting argument to take against states that have verbal assault laws..... *ponders*

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by jhempel24

Holy Crap!! You know, I'm on the side of freedom of speech.....being able to say what you want and not get arrested because you think the government are a bunch of morons, or so and so said this about her who said this about blah blah blah....

But c'mon people, this book advocates the harm of children in a NON-FICTION way and you want to DEFEND IT under the moniker of "oh its free speech" so that makes it okay??? Free speech or no, it's NOT OKAY!!!

How about I find some phone numbers, call you up and say I'm going to rape your wife and child every day, and call every day...but not do anything...would it be okay because I'm under the guise of "free speech"? NO it wouldn't be okay! This book is nothing but a threat to society and instigation to those that are inclined to like little kids.

In my opinion there are something that need to be censored for our own good. This is one of them. I don't care about the "who gets to decide" etc, it doesn't matter. It's a sad sad day when people in this country can stoop so low as to advocate the sale of such material.

no one. not one single person has advocated the sale of this book. what you are hearing is saying that Amazon caved to public criticism and pulled the book and now a debate as to freedom of speech ensues

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by Catlady

This is where a book like this has the potential to be extremely damaging, not in inciting the act, but in further harming the victim.

Where do we draw the line in "further harming the victim", though? For example, I'm going to pick on brecklundin a bit here: his avatar is the cover of one of John Normal's "Gor" novels. If you've never read them, the basic premise of the books is that sexual slavery is the natural condition of women (and occasionally the females of other species), and no matter how much they resist, they will be happier (and make badly-written speeches on the subject, apparently) when suitably raped and subjugated. And he's written book after book detailing this. I know several women who, after having been raped, find the "Gor" novels utterly horrifying -- in one case, shaking if the books are even mentioned. I should mention, by the way, that they lived in a country where rape, especially the stranger rape so lovingly detailed and endlessly justified by Norman, is quite illegal. So ... are those books "further harming the victim"?

Again, we're dealing with one of those lines. Who is a victim? What constitutes further harming them? And who decides?

By the way, if you want a good feel for the writing of the Gor novels without actually having to read one, I strongly recommend the parody "Houseplants of Gor". Or, for that matter, if you have read them. Aside from getting John Norman's literary voice dead-on (yes, he is that stilted) it's a side-splittingly funny parody.

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by jhempel24

In my opinion there are something that need to be censored for our own good.

And in a lot of other people's opinion, there aren't.

Also, you may not care who gets to decide, but for a whole lot of people, that is extremely important. You clearly disagree with me, so how would you like it if I got to decide what you can and can't read? How about Mr. Ahmadinejad? He's got some pretty firm ideas on what "his" people need to be "protected" from -- for their own good, of course. Are you a follower of a religion? Then what if a devout member of an opposing religion -- or a schismatic of your own -- was making those decisions?

Oh, it very, very much matters who gets to decide. You should be thankful on a daily basis that there are people it does matter to (or, of course, you could always move to Iran, and not have to worry).

[Dulin's Books]

Originally Posted by jhempel24

How about I find some phone numbers, call you up and say I'm going to rape your wife and child every day, and call every day...but not do anything...would it be okay because I'm under the guise of "free speech"? ...... It's a sad sad day when people in this country can stoop so low as to advocate the sale of such material.

Of course not the phoning would be harassment. If the "author" of this book had called people over and over and read from it that would be harassment as well.

mind you I don't think I have seen anyone advocating the sale of this book. no one is cheerleading it "go pedo book!"

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by 44Dave

This is the threat to our society. I refuse to give up my rights to appease you.

I'd give you karma, but I'm out for today.

[Mare of Earth]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

By the way, if you want a good feel for the writing of the Gor novels without actually having to read one, I strongly recommend the parody "Houseplants of Gor". Or, for that matter, if you have read them. Aside from getting John Norman's literary voice dead-on (yes, he is that stilted) it's a side-splittingly funny parody.

*snickers* Good example!
Another similar series is Sharon Green's Warrior series. The female lead is pretty much treated that way for the first several books. The ending is romanticized, but it is very very very similar.
This seems to have been an immensely popular sci-fi theme for a while.

[recluse]

Originally Posted by kennyc

The exact
words of many who defend The Patriot Act.

The exact response of one of the people whose defense of every fringe group and subhuman monsters rights make laws like that necessary.

[PhishStyx]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

D&D has everything to do with it. Look at the efforts to ban it in the 80s. The claims were that it made kids depressed , antisocial, suicidal, devil worshiping weirdos. The truth of course is that most kids who played it were FINE. But a small percentage who already had some personality disorders were affected negatively by playing the game.

Uhm. No. I hope that I understand what you're saying is that none of the characteristics of D&D players turned out to be true, but in fact even that "small percentage" was only a single person in reality.

He was an emotionally disturbed person who was paranoid of his mother discovering that he was gay. At some point, he had played D&D and had bought a couple of the books, and that ends his connection to D&D. The "Mazes & Monsters" tv movie later made was only loosely tied to his story.

From that, several organizations were spawned and religious leaders took up the banner as a method of publicly excoriating people who were deemed different and unsuitable for their flock to have contact with.

[44Dave]

Originally Posted by recluse

The exact response of one of the people whose defense of every fringe group and subhuman monsters rights make laws like that necessary.

The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.

[abookreader]

Quote:
Originally Posted by jhempel24 View Post
In my opinion there are something that need to be censored for our own good. This is one of them. I don't care about the "who gets to decide" etc, it doesn't matter.

You know. This is the problem.

I have an Uncle who firmly believes the King James Bible is a total perversion of the true word of God and its very existence is a threat to all of our souls.
He frequently goes to every bookstore within driving distance, buys them all up, and takes them home to burn them. People in his Church donate money to the cause.

My problem is not in this book. It is clearly a despicable product and thankfully our system worked as it should and Amazon received a clear message that their Customers would vote with their dollars if Amazon didn't pull the book. That is not censorship. That is a marketplace economy. It worked. Yay!!!

My problem is with where this leads. Next we have people saying that books that were legally purchased should be erased by Amazon from digital libraries. Then we have people saying that sometimes censorship is good and that the only people who fear it are those doing something wrong.

And at these points I will clearly put my foot down and say enough. Nobody has the right to censor what I read. Nobody has the right to censor what I legally own. Nobody has the right to declare sometimes censorship is "for my own good." I make those decisions for myself, thank you very much.

At least not where I live. And if you live in a country where that is not true, I wish it were different from you.