Amazon Defends Pedophile Book

[Doug Huffman]

I wonder how many hits a site search of Amazon for "marijuana" wold get.

Originally Posted by JSWolf

But is it legal to publish a guide on how to do something we know is illegal? That is a gray area that the courts would need to decide upon.

The courts have decided in favor of the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law abridging...", and of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporating the BoR against the states.

[Pushka]

Hey, here in South Australia it is not a criminal act to smoke cannabis, nor is it to grow up to five plants for personal use. We just don't like pedophiles here, probably because we have had some horrendous paedophile crimes committed about 25 years ago. Google 'Von Einem'

I think Australia is largely doing well when it comes to censorship. It is a tough battle to weigh up the rights of citizens with the protection of vulnerable people. This book is about sexual activity with children, who are not in a situation of consent. That makes it a no brainer for me to say it should be banned. Just as terrorist related publications should be banned. On the other hand I do not have any issues with suicide instructional books. Nor books about drug use But they too are banned in Australia. I guess that is the price to pay.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by Pushka

We just don't like pedophiles here, probably because we have had some horrendous paedophile crimes committed about 25 years ago.

The problem isn't remotely limited to pedophiles-- along with the slashdot entries, see:

http://www.google.com/cse?cx=partner...ngboing.net%2F

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...AAAKoEBU_QvoR-

[Piper_]

Originally Posted by crich70

I've read over some of the postings on this topic and two things occur to me. First there is the fact that our modern sense of outrage at the topic is only a little over 100 yrs old. Prior to the late 1880's there weren't any laws against adult/child sex. Mind I do think that it's good we have the laws, but til comparatively recently (if you think about it) such actions weren't legally (at least) a crime. Secondly, I'm reminded of a story I read once (I think it was in Stephen King's Dance Macabre) where he spoke of a case of someone wanting a book banned from the high school library. The woman's son had checked it out to read for a book report as I recall, and she happened to read some of it. Turned out there was a lot of objectionable language in it (its setting was the steel working industry) and it offended her. So she set out to get it removed from the stacks. Before her son had checked it out no one else had as yet done so, but by the time the school board got around to making the decision to remove said book about 50 or so other people had checked it out. The more of a spotlight a book that someone wants banned gets the more people pay attention to it and want to know what the big 'fuss' is. I agree this is probably a book that shouldn't be published, but Amazon isn't the only avenue for the author to get it out there either, and someone, somewhere will still search for it out on the web. I mean some people did buy the kindle version I understand, and though it probably has the usual DRM protections on it I'd wager that someone, somewhere will (if they haven't already) break it and upload it as a mobi or a text file or something. The more a thing is forbidden, and the harder it is to aquire, the more some people will want to get it.

Hi, Crich.

I agree with one of your points, but disagree with the relevance of the other.

The point that there were no laws against pedophilia until the 19th century is mostly true, but I always wonder why people use it in their arguments against people voicing their objections to it. Isn't it like responding to an outcry against slavery by pointing out that it was legal until the late 19th century?


On your other point, though,

The more of a spotlight a book that someone wants banned gets the more people pay attention to it and want to know what the big 'fuss' is.

Yes. I agree with the spotlight problem. Had I come across the book on Amazon, I wouldn't have drawn attention to it in the public.


But in this case, by the time most people heard about it, it was already all over the news, thanks to some twitterers that lead to an AP story, then the media blasting it all over the web an TV news.

At that point, it was already in the spotlight, and the public was presented with a challenge to take a stand.

I am glad the stand they chose showed the depth and breadth of American intolerance of books that advocate pedophilia - and yes, this one gives tips on how to do it, e.g., go buy finger cots to use as condoms for little boys.

By taking that stand instead of treating this book on the same level as other "just offensive" books (which they accept due to other variables this one lacks), they sent an important message to pedophiles - some who are trying to convince themselves that it's not really THAT bad, and others who are doing all they can to normalize and desensitize their abuse of children, and would love to use Amazon as a platform to go crazy with pushing their agenda.

[Pushka]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

The problem isn't remotely limited to pedophiles-- along with the slashdot entries, see:

http://www.google.com/cse?cx=partner...ngboing.net%2F

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...AAAKoEBU_QvoR-

Of course it is way bigger than just pedophiles, but if such books get swept up in the process then I am up for the sacrifice.

[Piper_]

Originally Posted by tammycravit

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.

Hmmm... what about a book that explains The Best Ways to Strip DRM?

[Worldwalker]

Don't forget the nascent "Great Firewall of Australia": in order to protect those children whose parents do not supervise them in accordance with the will of the majority, all people's access to the Internet will be restricted and monitored. But it doesn't matter that adults have to deal with hidden and secret restrictions at a national level, apparently, because it's "for the children".

With regard to the earlier question of how the police can protect the sicko at the heart of this, but not protect children, it's simple: You can watch him. But how do you watch every single kid whose parent, step-parent, uncle, or family friend is doing things in silence and demanding the silence of the child? You can watch Chester the Molester if he lives down the street, but not if the kids call him Grandpa.

They don't need books to tell them how. They've been doing this as long as there have been people. Sex is, after all, pretty much hard-wired into everything more complicated than an amoeba. Ironically, the one effect a book like this might have is making it easier to convict such a person. If a jury is only hearing Uncle Chester's word against Joey's, which isn't uncommon in this kind of case, and then the prosecutor shows the books they found under Uncle Chester's bed, this being one of them, there's some evidence that isn't one person's word against another. They're more likely to convict when there's something -- like a book on how to be a pedophile -- in front of them.

I'm in a bit of a hurry at the moment, so I can't respond to various posts individually, and there are a couple that I need to. One thing, though, for anyone who misunderstood: my last long-winded post was not a reply to any one person specifically, nor to any one post. It was an attempt at summing up the general feelings I'm seeing on both sides of the discussion, and explaining what my position is.

One thing: I do feel rather irate at the side I'm not on being described as the "anti-pedophilia" side, as if my side were the "pro-pedophilia" side. I think everyone in MobileRead is anti-pedophilia, and if they're not, I'd like to violate a few forum rules in their general direction. The disagreement is not over whether pedophilia is wrong, sick, disgusting, and should be suppressed. It's over what is the best way to do it, whether certain actions will do it or not, and what other effects those actions might have. I think we all need to keep that in mind.

[Piper_]

Originally Posted by SameOldStory

...
* Freedom of speech -
- - You don't have to like what people are saying, but they do have the right to say it (print it, etc). So long as your not saying it about a protected group. At that point you can loose your all your money, if not your liberty too.
...

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.

I may be wrong but I think he's supposed to have warned against penetration.
[Piper's comment: He gives obligatory lip service to that, especially in the beginning, but then talks about how it's not so bad, and gives advice on how to do it - like using finger cots for little boys - to protect them, of course.]


Some will say that all censorship is, ultimately, bad. Slippery slope, and all that stuff. For the most part I tend to agree. The problem comes in when people insist that it's always bad.
...

When people insist on everything being one way or another - black or white - you have great piles of manure piling up at each end of the bell curve.

Exactly.

Slippery slope arguments are so easy, they've become an over-used crutch. But they are not all by themselves adequate to determine the best choices, or we would always need to reject anything that put us on one.

But we don't. We take positions and approve of laws that put us on slippery slopes every single day.

Avoiding slippery slopes is itself a slippery slope!

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by Pushka

Of course it is way bigger than just pedophiles, but if such books get swept up in the process then I am up for the sacrifice.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
--Benjamin Franklin

[FizzyWater]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

One thing: I do feel rather irate at the side I'm not on being described as the "anti-pedophilia" side, as if my side were the "pro-pedophilia" side. I think everyone in MobileRead is anti-pedophilia, and if they're not, I'd like to violate a few forum rules in their general direction. The disagreement is not over whether pedophilia is wrong, sick, disgusting, and should be suppressed. It's over what is the best way to do it, whether certain actions will do it or not, and what other effects those actions might have. I think we all need to keep that in mind.

This is what I've been thinking as I've read through the various posts. The desire to protect the right to sell or publish this book - no matter how reprehensible the subject matter - is not the same as being uncaring about pedophilia.

[recluse]

Originally Posted by TGS

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.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.
I was responding to a particular exchange and did not mean to insult you or the other posters who have been reasonable.
Certain posters do have a track record of doing everything in their power to derail reasoned arguments and being insensitive. It is getting old fast. That was what I meant. The attitude.
Also, defending an offensive individual or posts simply because that individual agrees with you is Pack mentality.
I don't believe I was adopting the role of a victim. Frankly, I can only be victimized if I stop fighting.
That is not going to happen.

[mlewis78]

The title of the thread is just wrong. Amazon has not defended the book. Thread title should be changed.

[Pushka]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
--Benjamin Franklin

Here is my quote: "If providing protection to the vulnerable people in the community means that some of my lberties are curtailed, then the sacrifice is truly worth it"

See, just because someone quotes something, doesn't actually make it right.

[Piper_]

Originally Posted by Pushka

Of course it is way bigger than just pedophiles, but if such books get swept up in the process then I am up for the sacrifice.

*If providing protection to the vulnerable people in the community means that some of my lberties are curtailed, then the sacrifice is truly worth it

Originally Posted by ardeegee

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
--Benjamin Franklin

Indeed. And another example of a slippery slope. It's not as clear as we wish.

People have to define both "Essential Liberty" and "a little Temporary Safety". They don't always agree.

In this case, I think it does apply.

"A little temporary safety" - at best. Unless you censor the internet too (shudder) pedophiles will find whatever encouragement they want, even if it is just talking amongst themselves. Government censoring these books won't stop them.

Essential Liberty - yes. I don't want the government involved in censorship of books. So Liberty from their meddlesome hands in this case is essential, to me. They already meddle in too much.

[recluse]

The very existence of this book, out in the open, indicates exactly how much child molestors fear the Law.

Decent people have to obey the letter of the Law.

Because the penalties don't fit the severity of the crimes.

Something is wrong with this equation.
Got a funny feeling that the Law is what is wrong.

Which side should be afraid?
Which side should have their liberty restricted, if not completely removed?

I am a great believer in human rights.
It's time to redefine "human".
If it preys on the young of humans,
it is not human.