Amazon Defends Pedophile Book

[tammycravit]

Originally Posted by SameOldStory

Freedom of speech. Interesting. You can't stand up in a theater and shout FIRE. Someone could get hurt. A person can, however, write a book on the safest way (for the pedophile) to have sexual relations with a child.

Surely. Just as there's nothing preventing someone from writing a book entitled "The Best Ways to Stand Up and Shout 'Fire' in a Theater". Likewise, it's against the law in the United States to make high explosives without a license. (18 USC 842). However, writing and publishing a book that explains the best way to make high explosives would not be illegal.

Writing or talking about a prohibited act is qualitatively different from doing the prohibited act. And, the law does not generally place culpability for the prohibited act on the shoulders of the person who wrote about it.

Originally Posted by SameOldStory

I may be wrong but I think he's supposed to have warned against penetration. Some legal distinction? Would penetration of a child be considered (legally) hurting someone, whereas doing the other things he advocates "not" hurt the child?

No, but the penalty may be lesser, depending on the circumstances. For example, in California (whose Penal Code I know fairly well in my work as a paralegal) a 25-year-old man who penetrated a 12-year-old child would face up to life in prison, whereas the same 25-year-old who committed a "lewd and lascivious act" upon that same child — which usually means sexual touching or the like without penetration — would probably not face more than
eight years in prison.

Originally Posted by SameOldStory

So. Is the freedom to drink, like free speech, always right?

No, of course not. But in the United States, viewpoint-based restrictions on freedom of speech (that is, restrictions on the speech because of its content) are almost always impermissible as a matter of law. Though it's true that the Constitution protects us chiefly from infringement by the government, the same reasons why viewpoint-based governmental intrusion into free speech are viewed with great caution should caution us in the private realm to exercise great care in calling for viewpoint-based restrictions on speech.

[Pushka]

In Australia, giving someone instructions about how to commit a criminal act, is a criminal act also. You merely have to instruct someone, you don't have to actually do it. This is particularly in reference to violent crimes, and abuse against children. If amazon sold this book into Australia then Amazon may have committed an illegal act here.

These laws are aimed at preventing crimes. Isn't that a better thing than prosecuting after the fact? The first amendment is kind of irrelevant these days of global commerce. Doesn't apply anywhere except in the US.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Pushka

In Australia, giving someone instructions about how to commit a criminal act, is a criminal act also. You merely have to instruct someone, you don't have to actually do it. This is particularly in reference to violent crimes, and abuse against children. If amazon sold this book into Australia then Amazon may have committed an illegal act here.

I'd love to see the statute which states this.

Certainly in U.S. law there is "accessory" to a crime etc. but it is very specific in what it covers and I'm pretty sure books and books sellers would not be considered Accessories any more than the seller of the car used to run someone down.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I'd love to see the statute which states this.

Australia is turning into an Orwellian police state-- it ranks up there with China in it's censorship. Go over to Slashdot and search for "Australia censorship" (without the quotation marks) and you'll find many articles about it.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

Australia is turning into an Orwellian police state-- it ranks up there with China in it's censorship. Go over to Slashdot and search for "Australia censorship" (without the quotation marks) and you'll find many articles about it.

Thanks.

[nohmi2]

kennyc. The fact that you forced Pookeysgirl to apologise for a natural reaction to a crime that was committed against her (without one word of sympathy), symptomatic of what is wrong with the world today. It's against the rules to wish someone dead? What if a man is sodomised to the extent that he required extensive surgery to merely function again? He isn't allowed to say "I wish the b*****d would die.* Where is your much vaunted Freedom of Speech then?

You do appear to be very selective about who has the right to speak out, and who has not, and to fall back on the threat of what one is allowed or not allowed to voice on MR, without calling out the *cops* cowardly.

What would be your reaction to a sexual crime perpertrated against yourself?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by nohmi2

kennyc. The fact that you forced Pookeysgirl to apologise..

I did no such thing. I pointed out the forum rule that was pointed out by moderators on another thread a few days ago.

Pointing that out was not directed at her specifically in any case others have said the same sorts of things in this thread which is why I mentioned it.

This forum btw is a private site that has rules determined by the owners. Just as Amazon can decide what to sell the rules here can determine what is allowed to be posted and it may be (and in fact is) more restrictive than speaking in public in the U.S.A.

[nohmi2]

Originally Posted by kennyc

It is against forum rules to post calling for the killing of someone.

see my link above for information on the author and how he is having to be protected by the police.

Originally Posted by Pookeysgirl

I apologize, I didn't realize it was against the rules. I was upset. Won't happen again.

Originally Posted by kennyc

And that brings up another thing.....why is there a sex offender registry and no burglar registry?

Hmmm....

Originally Posted by tiniree

Right! And do you think that the recently reported thousands of "registered sex offenders" that the courts have "lost track of"
are "depriving themselves"? Nope!

They have moved, changed their names and are most likely committing the same crimes over again.

Originally Posted by kennyc

I did no such thing. I pointed out the forum rule that was pointed out by moderators on another thread a few days ago.

Semantics.

[recluse]

Didn't you know, Nohmi2?

You run with the Pack.
Or you get run over.

Opposition is not tolerated.
Denial in word, thought and deed.

[Pushka]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I'd love to see the statute which states this.

Certainly in U.S. law there is "accessory" to a crime etc. but it is very specific in what it covers and I'm pretty sure books and books sellers would not be considered Accessories any more than the seller of the car used to run someone down.

These types of publications are banned in Australia (copied from the Attorney Generals Discussion paper on including terrorist activites:

Publications that:
(a)​describe, depict, express or otherwise deal with matters of sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent phenomena in such a way that they offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that they should not be classified; or
(b)​describe or depict in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult, a person who is, or appears to be, a child under 18 (whether the person is engaged in sexual activity or not); or
(c)​promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime or violence; or
(d) advocate terrorist acts

[TGS]

Originally Posted by nohmi2

Semantics.

Far be it from me to watch kennyc's back, but the response to Pookeysgirl that you missed out was:

Originally Posted by kennyc

Not a problem, just wanted to point it out. There was a thread about spammers that got closed a few days ago for this reason.

which puts a different slant on the exchange from the one that was perhaps conveyed by your account.

[LDBoblo]

I've been asked before to write a book about how to murder people in improvised ways. I didn't want to write a book, but there have been plenty of folks out there who have written such books, and there's quite a strong market for them. Too bad I didn't capitalize on it when I had the opportunity. And I don't even condone murder!

[Pushka]

And still more the The Attorney General's banned list

*
CRIME OR VIOLENCE​
*
*
Detailed instruction or promotion in matters of crime or violence.​
The promotion or provision of instruction in paedophile activity.
Descriptions or depictions of child sexual abuse or any other exploitative or offensive descriptions or depictions involving a person who is, or appears to be, a child under 18 years.
Gratuitous, exploitative or offensive depictions of:
(i)​violence with a very high degree of impact or which are excessively frequent, prolonged or detailed;*
(ii)​cruelty or real violence which are very detailed or which have a high impact;
(iii)​sexual violence.
*
SEX
Depictions of practices such as bestiality.
Gratuitous, exploitative or offensive depictions of:
*
(i) sexual activity accompanied by fetishes or practices which are offensive or abhorrent;​
(ii) incest fantasies or other fantasies which are offensive or abhorrent.
*

[TGS]

Originally Posted by recluse

Didn't you know, Nohmi2?

You run with the Pack.
Or you get run over.

Opposition is not tolerated.
Denial in word, thought and deed.

What do you mean, opposition is not tolerated? I disagree with most of what you write on here but I wouldn't dream of trying to stop you writing it. If someone disagrees with you it doesn't necessarily follow that they want to run over you, or stop you from expressing your view. But equally, you have a responsibility to engage with the substance of the issues in question rather than adopting the victim role when views different from your own are expressed.

[nohmi2]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

Australia is turning into an Orwellian police state-- it ranks up there with China in it's censorship. Go over to Slashdot and search for "Australia censorship" (without the quotation marks) and you'll find many articles about it.

It would appear that we are doing somethingright.!

MODS. If this is permissable, I would like to make a point from a magazine that I suscribe to.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/15/i...countries.html

Cheers