Amazon Defends Pedophile Book - Page 24

crich70 · 11-12-2010, 10:44 PM

Actually I would think that it could be argued that Amazon isn't physically selling the book on Australian soil if you think about it. The book was put up for sale in cyberspace which technically has no national boundaries applied to it as it doesn't exist within the material world. The end user however does so he/she would be responsible for the media crossing over into the national boarders of Australia. The book itself would still be immaterial in nature (being a kindle file) but it would be stored in a physical location (the hard drive of the computer it was downloaded to or the memory of the Kindle device). The net is everywhere and yet no where, but the hard drive of a single computer, or the memory of a Kindle device has a physical existance. That's how it works with Geographical restrictions as well isn't it? A person can see a book they want to buy and things look good for downloading it, but then the internet gateway (or something) picks up the info. that the end user's computer or Kindle is in a part of the world where book X can't currently be sold.

Quote:

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.

crich70 · 11-12-2010, 11:17 PM

Actually I was just trying to point out that what we consider a crime now wasn't necessarily considered a crime in the past. I wasn't trying to be an advocate in this books favor, just to point out that there is a history of books dealing with similar topics that were written well over a century ago. Of course the notion of a ''how to' book on the subject is a new wrinkle, one that I agree we could do without. I don't think it would have redeeming qualities even as a reference guide for someone writing a book/screenplay or tv script for a show like Law & Order since they don't get graphic about the offense. Usually the 'crimes' on such programs occur off camera in fact so that avenue is out for defending such. Anyway such things as pedophilia and slavery as you pointed out weren't always considered criminal. It was just business as usual back then. People's perceptions changed over time. It's only been 90 years since the 19th amendment which gave women the right to vote was passed for example. Prior to that most people (well the men anyway) didn't see that there was a problem. The concept of a childhood itself is fairly new if you think about it. For thousands of years once you reached an age of being able to understand and could walk you were ready to work just like the adults. So, no, I don't support the book in question, and was just pointing out that our perceptions of pedophilia being wrong are only a few generations old. From my perspective in fact they are only about 3-4 generations old. My paternal grandparents were born between 1896-1900 so such laws protecting children had just been put into effect shortly before their births. In the end though books don't cause people to molest kids I don't think any more than having firearms for sale makes people go out and shoot someone else. Guns don't shoot people, other people shoot people and likewise books don't make someone molest a child. They make that decision on their own.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Piper_

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,
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.

recluse · 11-12-2010, 11:32 PM

thrawn_aj,

Yes, my use of "the Will of the People" is "for real". The numbers are on my side.
And Liberty doesn't die. It evolves. Things change. The Law must change. Reality sucks, don't it?

And I used "if it preys on the young of humans" because the discussion is about child molestors. Try to stay on point.

Pushka · 11-12-2010, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crich70

Actually I would think that it could be argued that Amazon isn't physically selling the book on Australian soil.

But using that logic means that geographical restrictions for ebooks doesn't exist either, because Amazon is selling all ebooks from their store in the US. So all books should be available everywhere in the world. But we know that isn't the case, Amazon considers that it is selling specifically to a particular country.

SameOldStory · 11-12-2010, 11:41 PM

The Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers is an organization of professionals whose business is the treatment of, as they say, "Sexual Abusers". But rather than self abusers, it's clear that they are paid to take care of sexual predators.

"Studies that have tracked sex offenders over longer follow-up periods have found that pedophiles who molest boys, and rapists of adult women, were the types of offenders most likely to recidivate at rates of 52% and 39% respectively."

"It is also important to recognize that official recidivism statistics are always lower than actual reoffense rates, because some sex offenders commit many sex crimes that go unreported and undetected. It is estimated that less than 10% of all sex crimes result in a criminal conviction."

"Although we cannot predict with certainty that any particular offender will act in a specific way, we can estimate, with moderate accuracy, whether or not an offender belongs to a high- or low-risk group."

Imagine going for heart surgery and being told that they have a moderate hope that you'll survive the surgery.

"What percentage of convicted sex offenders undergo treatment?"
"According to the Safer Society Survey (McGrath, Cumming, & Burchard, 2003) there are 1,549 sex offender treatment programs in the U.S."

"on average, about 70 adult sex offenders are treated each year in each outpatient program." (NOTE - We're not talking about those in the prison system.)

So what do we have? 1,549 sex offender treatment programs TIMES 70 adult sex offenders are treated each year in each outpatient program.

1,549 X 70 = 108,430 adult offenders in treatment in (outpatient programs) the US. That is not including juveniles or those treated in prison.

And remember that quote above?
"It is also important to recognize that official recidivism statistics are always lower than actual reoffense rates, because some sex offenders commit many sex crimes that go unreported and undetected. It is estimated that less than 10% of all sex crimes result in a criminal conviction."

More numbers, sorry.
"One study found that the average number of victims for non-incestuous pedophiles who molest girls is 20; for pedophiles who prefer boys, over 100."

That's only the highlights. Most of what I quoted only concerns children. Now you have a little better info to talk about whether or not special laws are needed. Anyone want to start a YES/NO poll?

Read that web page from The Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers

JeremyR · 11-12-2010, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crich70

Actually I was just trying to point out that what we consider a crime now wasn't necessarily considered a crime in the past.

Indeed. It's funny we look at Victorian times as being prudish. But drugs were legal. Prostitution was legal. I don't think there were any gun laws at all.

And some of the books written then, when reprinted in modern times, were considered obscene (since most the erotica from then pretty much fails every line of that list that Australia bans) and the publishing house prosecuted.

Pushka · 11-12-2010, 11:51 PM

And women weren't allowed to vote, own property and had to stop working when they married. Slavery was considered ok back then. Indigenous people in Australia weren't even counted in the census until a few years ago. Things change, so must laws. We might have tough porn laws but as I don't read the junk I really don't care.

dacattt · 11-13-2010, 12:11 AM

Just to note, CNN has been covering this on Anderson Cooper 360, the tack they're taking is not censoring what is read, but violation of obscenity laws. That's an easier tact, slightly. Yes, obscenity is a moving target, but law has defined that target better.

And then pointed out, the kids "nature" DVDs on their site, too. Amazon is going to be busy. They can be nailed under obscenity laws.

Kumabjorn · 11-13-2010, 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Piper_

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?

It isn't an argument. Laws are by their very nature reactive. In the mid 19th century lawmakers were focused on problems deemed more important, women's suffrage, child labor, establishing functional democracies (outside US).

That doesn't imply that it wasn't a problem before, nor that it wasn't even considered a problem. Someone knowledgeable about judicial history can probably explain it better, but most likely what happened was that citizens dealt with these matters outside the law, hence lawmakers came to the conclusion that laws were required in this field and thus implemented them. Thus, a reaction to the lawlessness in dealing with solutions to a problem.

thrawn_aj · 11-13-2010, 03:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by recluse

thrawn_aj,

Yes, my use of "the Will of the People" is "for real". The numbers are on my side.
And Liberty doesn't die. It evolves. Things change. The Law must change. Reality sucks, don't it?

Reality sucks? It's not my fault that you only read 1 post out of 10. That's the only conclusion I can draw if you really think my dismay was borne out of a desire to protect or advocate for child molesters. Worldwalker was right - the zealotry has reached the point of "if you're not with us, you're against us". That is the picture I saw emerge clearly in your post - the almost rhythmic chant that you keep repeating as a call to arms.

The dismay was at the sheer fanaticism I perceived (perhaps wrongly - and if so, my apologies) in your diatribe (and the subsequent applause). A crime must be dealt with harshly and summarily - there are no two ways about that. What I find sad is the emergence of movements that always try to use these crimes (and massage and even fuel the resulting outrage) as stepping stones to a more authoritarian society.

Outrage over a crime once is natural, twice is personal, again and again and again smacks of some kind of propaganda.

Also, what law? What must change? What numbers? And if the numbers are "with you", what more needs to be done - obviously it (whatever 'it' is) just needs to be put up as a ballot measure or referendum and it will pass, right? Perhaps if you will deign to explain exactly what you are advocating for instead of just chanting slogans, one might be able to understand it better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by recluse

And I used "if it preys on the young of humans" because the discussion is about child molestors. Try to stay on point.

This part I agree with. My mistake and my apologies. That was sheer meandering on my part (a pet peeve, but that's hardly a good excuse).

TGS · 11-13-2010, 04:45 AM

The thing about pædophiles, nazis, terrorists and vegetarians is precisely that they are human. If they were not human we would not be so appalled at their behaviour. Characterizing them as inhuman or sub-human lets them off the moral hook and lets us off the hook of working out a reasoned response to them and to the behaviour they engage in.

recluse · 11-13-2010, 04:52 AM

I am perfectly willing to explain my position.
I admit I am overly sensitized about this issue and apologize for any misunderstanding that may have caused.
My comment about "The Will of the People" was originally in response to another poster using it. I simply meant that most of us agree that child molestors are evil.
My point has been that if child molestors and their advocates are comfortable enough in today's society to actually try to publish a guide to their perversion, then something has obviously gone wrong.
I strongly feel that such a work should not be allowed to exist because it has no redeeming moral, historical or artistic value. That it indicates a clear disregard for the law and the rights of children to live without fear.
When I made that statement, I was basically told that it would lead to a domino effect, one that would apparently end in mass book burnings, the end of Freedom of Speech and the collapse of Liberty.
I honestly don't see the connection.
All I am trying to say is that it is obvious that more needs to be done to contain and eradicate this evil. Period.
I have no ulterior motive beyond that.
I never believed you were supporting child molestors.
I thought you believed I trying to dismantle Freedom of Speech as a whole.
I hope I have been able to explain my position and cleared the air.
I accept your apology without reservation.
Just so you know, the applause was from a victim who was told she can't post wanting a molestor killed. I was supporting her right as a victim to say it.
If you need further clarification, just let me know.

kennyc · 11-13-2010, 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SameOldStory

The Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers is an organization of professionals whose business is the treatment of, as they say, "Sexual Abusers". But rather than self abusers, it's clear that they are paid to take care of sexual predators.
....

Thanks SOS for some real numbers! I'm outta karma giving at the moment but will catch up with you later.

Worldwalker · 11-13-2010, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TGS

The thing about pædophiles, nazis, terrorists and vegetarians is precisely that they are human. If they were not human we would not be so appalled at their behaviour. Characterizing them as inhuman or sub-human lets them off the moral hook and lets us off the hook of working out a reasoned response to them and to the behaviour they engage in.

TGS, thank you times 100 for saying that.

It's something I keep trying to get across when some movie or book comes out and people say "oh, we shouldn't humanize (some dictator)", generally Hitler. It's so much easier if we can pretend that people whose actions we find abhorrent aren't really people at all. Then we just have to watch for the non-people, because we know we're safe from the people doing those things.

Except, of course, we don't. And we're not. Monsters wear human skins because they are human. It can happen here, and they can be one of us, and the self-delusion of believing otherwise is one of the most dangerous delusions there is.

That's why you have parents terrified of letting their children go outside for fear they might be molested by a stranger, but ignoring the threat posed by a family member or trusted friend. Child molesters are those bad people on TV, right? They can't be Uncle Chester. Only non-humans do that.

But they can be. And they are. And they do.

There are vile, disgusting, evil humans. They look just like the rest of us. Someone can love dogs and yet give the orders for killing millions of people. Someone can be nice to his stepson Joey and to awful things to him when we're not looking. And we ignore that at our peril.

recluse · 11-13-2010, 12:15 PM

You seem to think that because we call child molestors monsters, we aren't aware that they are human and a clear and present danger because of it.
I will admit that there are people who can't see the truth in their own homes, who live in denial that family members could be molestors, but I believe that most people can see the truth. In some cases though, there are other factors in play which lead to that tunnel vision. Your average molestor's ability to deflect suspicion, and the difficulty in accepting that anyone could violate a child's innocence in such a manner make seeing the facts problematic.
Finally, humanizing molestors, believing that they can be treated and returned to society has failed miserably. They don't "get better", they adapt and keep doing what they do.
Molestors are human.
We don't have to treat them as human.
Their actions are so far off the charts, they should be stripped of the excessive protections afforded the guilty.
Humans who act like monsters should be dealt with as monsters.
Penalties to fit the severity of the crimes.

11-13-2010, 04:45 AM	#356
TGS Country Member Posts: 9,058 Karma: 7676767 Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Denmark Device: Liseuse: Irex DR800. PRS 505 in the house, and the missus has an iPad.	The thing about pædophiles, nazis, terrorists and vegetarians is precisely that they are human. If they were not human we would not be so appalled at their behaviour. Characterizing them as inhuman or sub-human lets them off the moral hook and lets us off the hook of working out a reasoned response to them and to the behaviour they engage in. Last edited by TGS; 11-13-2010 at 04:54 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Gnelfs - A Mother Defends her Daughter Against Demons	SidneyW	Self-Promotions by Authors and Publishers	6	01-21-2011 06:42 AM
Version epub du livre « Confessions d’un pédophile, l’impossible filtrage du net »	NicolasR	E-Books	10	03-09-2010 11:10 AM
Government Collectif : Confessions d’un pédophile l’impossible filtrage du web, v.1, 02/2010	NicolasR	ePub Books	1	03-02-2010 03:37 PM
Amazing Amazon New Book	jmb	Reading Recommendations	4	08-17-2009 05:17 PM
Amazon e-book reader	Chrism	Amazon Kindle	24	09-18-2007 10:41 AM

11-12-2010, 11:32 PM	#348
recluse Banned Posts: 3,724 Karma: 535488 Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: the Mortuary Device: Kindle 2	thrawn_aj, Yes, my use of "the Will of the People" is "for real". The numbers are on my side. And Liberty doesn't die. It evolves. Things change. The Law must change. Reality sucks, don't it? And I used "if it preys on the young of humans" because the discussion is about child molestors. Try to stay on point.

11-12-2010, 11:41 PM	#350
SameOldStory My True Self Posts: 3,126 Karma: 66242098 Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Trantor, Galactic Center Device: Galaxy Tab 2 7.0	The Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers is an organization of professionals whose business is the treatment of, as they say, "Sexual Abusers". But rather than self abusers, it's clear that they are paid to take care of sexual predators. "Studies that have tracked sex offenders over longer follow-up periods have found that pedophiles who molest boys, and rapists of adult women, were the types of offenders most likely to recidivate at rates of 52% and 39% respectively." "It is also important to recognize that official recidivism statistics are always lower than actual reoffense rates, because some sex offenders commit many sex crimes that go unreported and undetected. It is estimated that less than 10% of all sex crimes result in a criminal conviction." "Although we cannot predict with certainty that any particular offender will act in a specific way, we can estimate, with moderate accuracy, whether or not an offender belongs to a high- or low-risk group." Imagine going for heart surgery and being told that they have a moderate hope that you'll survive the surgery. "What percentage of convicted sex offenders undergo treatment?" "According to the Safer Society Survey (McGrath, Cumming, & Burchard, 2003) there are 1,549 sex offender treatment programs in the U.S." "on average, about 70 adult sex offenders are treated each year in each outpatient program." (NOTE - We're not talking about those in the prison system.) So what do we have? 1,549 sex offender treatment programs TIMES 70 adult sex offenders are treated each year in each outpatient program. 1,549 X 70 = 108,430 adult offenders in treatment in (outpatient programs) the US. That is not including juveniles or those treated in prison. And remember that quote above? "It is also important to recognize that official recidivism statistics are always lower than actual reoffense rates, because some sex offenders commit many sex crimes that go unreported and undetected. It is estimated that less than 10% of all sex crimes result in a criminal conviction." More numbers, sorry. "One study found that the average number of victims* for non-incestuous pedophiles who molest girls is 20; for pedophiles who prefer boys, over 100."* That's only the highlights. Most of what I quoted only concerns children. Now you have a little better info to talk about whether or not special laws are needed. Anyone want to start a YES/NO poll? Read that web page from The Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers

11-12-2010, 11:51 PM	#352
Pushka Wizard Posts: 1,119 Karma: 1019140 Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Australia Device: kindle, Ipad, Iphone, Nexus and PPW	And women weren't allowed to vote, own property and had to stop working when they married. Slavery was considered ok back then. Indigenous people in Australia weren't even counted in the census until a few years ago. Things change, so must laws. We might have tough porn laws but as I don't read the junk I really don't care.

11-13-2010, 12:11 AM	#353
dacattt Connoisseur Posts: 51 Karma: 3102 Join Date: May 2010 Location: Los Angeles Device: Astak 6 EZ Reader Plus	Just to note, CNN has been covering this on Anderson Cooper 360, the tack they're taking is not censoring what is read, but violation of obscenity laws. That's an easier tact, slightly. Yes, obscenity is a moving target, but law has defined that target better. And then pointed out, the kids "nature" DVDs on their site, too. Amazon is going to be busy. They can be nailed under obscenity laws.

11-13-2010, 04:52 AM	#357
recluse Banned Posts: 3,724 Karma: 535488 Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: the Mortuary Device: Kindle 2	I am perfectly willing to explain my position. I admit I am overly sensitized about this issue and apologize for any misunderstanding that may have caused. My comment about "The Will of the People" was originally in response to another poster using it. I simply meant that most of us agree that child molestors are evil. My point has been that if child molestors and their advocates are comfortable enough in today's society to actually try to publish a guide to their perversion, then something has obviously gone wrong. I strongly feel that such a work should not be allowed to exist because it has no redeeming moral, historical or artistic value. That it indicates a clear disregard for the law and the rights of children to live without fear. When I made that statement, I was basically told that it would lead to a domino effect, one that would apparently end in mass book burnings, the end of Freedom of Speech and the collapse of Liberty. I honestly don't see the connection. All I am trying to say is that it is obvious that more needs to be done to contain and eradicate this evil. Period. I have no ulterior motive beyond that. I never believed you were supporting child molestors. I thought you believed I trying to dismantle Freedom of Speech as a whole. I hope I have been able to explain my position and cleared the air. I accept your apology without reservation. Just so you know, the applause was from a victim who was told she can't post wanting a molestor killed. I was supporting her right as a victim to say it. If you need further clarification, just let me know.

11-13-2010, 12:15 PM	#360
recluse Banned Posts: 3,724 Karma: 535488 Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: the Mortuary Device: Kindle 2	You seem to think that because we call child molestors monsters, we aren't aware that they are human and a clear and present danger because of it. I will admit that there are people who can't see the truth in their own homes, who live in denial that family members could be molestors, but I believe that most people can see the truth. In some cases though, there are other factors in play which lead to that tunnel vision. Your average molestor's ability to deflect suspicion, and the difficulty in accepting that anyone could violate a child's innocence in such a manner make seeing the facts problematic. Finally, humanizing molestors, believing that they can be treated and returned to society has failed miserably. They don't "get better", they adapt and keep doing what they do. Molestors are human. We don't have to treat them as human. Their actions are so far off the charts, they should be stripped of the excessive protections afforded the guilty. Humans who act like monsters should be dealt with as monsters. Penalties to fit the severity of the crimes.