Amazon Defends Pedophile Book

[SameOldStory]

I just stopped in the see why this thread was still going.

I was just wondering. Those supporting the right of this book to be on sale, well....

Have you contacted Apple to suggest that THEY might want to trumpet free speech and start selling it?

Hello, is there anyone there?

Didn't think so.

[eric11210]

Originally Posted by SameOldStory

I just stopped in the see why this thread was still going.

I was just wondering. Those supporting the right of this book to be on sale, well....

Have you contacted Apple to suggest that THEY might want to trumpet free speech and start selling it?

Hello, is there anyone there?

Didn't think so.

There is a world of difference between saying that someone has a right to write and sell a product which reflects their personal views, however much one might disagree with them and actively promoting their views and trying to get their views published. I fully support the right of the American Nazi Party to publish their literature. That doesn't mean I plan to contact my mother's synagogue and ask if they'd like to sell Mein Kampf when they have a social event.

Frankly, your attitude is really quite obscene and thoroughly insulting. You make it sound like I and others who support the First Amendment also want to actively promote this garbage. I don't. I was raped as a child. It has caused me to have massive gaps in my memories of childhood and to have many, many phobias and personal problems as an adult. Believe me, I'd love it if these people would disappear and never be heard from again, but I also would absolutely hate it if the First Amendment was trampled on. That's the surest way to destroy the United States once and for all.

Before you spout off more nonsense, take the time to learn about why our country works the way it does and why the founding fathers felt it was so important to enshrine the rights of everyone, no matter how heinous most people may find their opinions, to express their views freely.

[SameOldStory]

What I would say about your argument would get me thrown off MR.

"I was just wondering. Those supporting the right of this book to be on sale, well...."

What the hell makes you think that I said YOU OR ANYBODY here was promoting the book.

I'm making fun of those with Apple products that are supporting his right to publish such a book where Steve Jobs would fire any Apple employee for permitting it to be on the Apple site.

I've seen more BS on this thread than all of MR.

[eric11210]

The problem with written expression instead of oral expression is the lack of inflection. Your words imply that you are suggesting that those who support the right to publish this book should be actively seeking to get Apple to carry it on iBooks. Your words:

Have you contacted Apple to suggest that THEY might want to trumpet free speech and start selling it?

Hello, is there anyone there?

Didn't think so.

imply as much. And while I now understand the smiley face to imply that you intended it as a joke about Apple, upon first reading, the smiley face implies, taken with the rest of the text that you are laughing at those who support the First Amendment, as if we are stupid for supporting the rights of someone who is admittedly not the sort of person most people would want to support. Again, as I said, inflection is not available when you write something, so it's easier to misinterpret someone's meaning. Given your intentions, I withdraw my complaint.

[SameOldStory]

"smiley face"

I'm afraid that your attempt to understand a rhetorical question is in doubt.

You "interpretation" of what I said leaves me at a loss, and I see no reason to waste my time with you.

[eric11210]

I've attempted to be an adult about this whole thing and yet you seem to insist on repeatedly attempting to be be mildly insulting. Allow me to be blunt. I meant your smiley face as in the man laughing. Whatever it is, that's what I was referring to and that's how I understood it.

And frankly, I didn't say anything before because I was trying to be diplomatic, but it is incredibly crass to be making stupid jokes about something which has caused others tremendous amounts of pain and anguish. Unless you yourself have experienced it, you don't understand what it does to a person to have this happen to them as a child and making infantile jokes in a thread on the subject is simply uncalled for. Don't bother responding. I won't waste any more of your precious time.

[Pushka]

As an Australian I hear 'the first Amendment' being used, a lot. Could someone explain what exactly it means? Does it truly give someone the right to instruct others on how to commit a crime (where I hail from, having sex with a child is considered a crime).

I have just returned from Boston and was in awe of the story of the Freedom Fathers. And I wish we had them in Australia so that we can become a republic. But I founder when I think that freedom of expression means that we sit back and allow others to discuss and instruct openly on the best ways to commit a crime. I can only speak on criminal laws in Australia so I might be off beam for USA.

[kennyc]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_A...s_Constitution

The actual text:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

[Pushka]

Thanks Kenny. Doesn't this work fail the Miller test?
1. Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
2. Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law, and
3. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.[3]

[jhempel24]

Originally Posted by Pushka

Thanks Kenny. Doesn't this work fail the Miller test?
1. Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
2. Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law, and
3. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.[3]

Game, set, Match, you win. I've never heard of the Miller Test, did the reading about it, and agree that this meets all requirements.

[Krystian Galaj]

So this thread is still smoldering...

I haven't read any of the book, but I keep wondering - could anyone who read some of it tell me, if you think that the book would rather encourage your average imagined (or known) pedophile to assault more or less children? I can imagine a self-help book that might cause pedophiles to cope with the way they're made better, so I can't just say all books about the topic should be banned, based only on the title.

[jhempel24]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

So this thread is still smoldering...

I haven't read any of the book, but I keep wondering - could anyone who read some of it tell me, if you think that the book would rather encourage your average imagined (or known) pedophile to assault more or less children? I can imagine a self-help book that might cause pedophiles to cope with the way they're made better, so I can't just say all books about the topic should be banned, based only on the title.

No one said all books on the subject should be banned (or maybe they did), this was a HOW-TO of sorts, not a self-help (unless you count helping yourself to our children).

[eric11210]

The Miller test is very, very difficult to get past when you are trying to ban a book. Don't forget that all three parts of the test must be satisfied in order for a book to be banned and it may well be argued that he was expressing his political opinion that the law as it currently is written is unjust. Again, I don't like what he has to say (To be perfectly honest, I'm basing myself on what I've heard others mention. I have never read the book in question myself, though having been a victim, I do know a little something about how such people attempt to justify themselves). Also, I happen to be an amateur historian and know a little something about how the First Amendment has been interpreted in the past.

Not to mention the fact that in order for the Miller test to even be applied, someone would have to file a grievance against the guy in court and spend the time and money to prove the case to the court, plus defend against potential appeals.

The First Amendment is probably the most cherished part of the United States constitution. It also probably the most reviled part of the constitution as well, depending on which side of a particular issue you happen to fall out on. In essence, it protects the right to express one's opinion on pretty much any subject imaginable.

If this guy's book makes the argument that he is presenting this material because he feels the laws are unjustly written, then I am reasonably certain that the courts would uphold his right to publish because he is expressing a political opinion, albeit one that most people would find at least as reprehensible as the political opinion expressed Adolph Hitler during World War II.

However, the fact that the vast, vast majority of people in the United States believe that the mass murder of six million men, women and children simply on the basis of their religion is positively repugnant does not curtail the right of people who disagree to openly state that Hitler was right to do what he did and to openly advocate for the United States to follow the example of the Nazi party. It only crosses the line into being illegal when someone actively pursues their views and engages in such mass murder or other discriminatory acts against those whom Hitler claimed deserved to be exterminated.

I don't think it's legally any different than the Anarchist Cookbook, which is also legal and which advocates violent overthrow of the government. It's legal because a political opinion is being expressed, albeit a particularly reprehensible one.

[Pushka]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

So this thread is still smoldering...

I haven't read any of the book, but I keep wondering - could anyone who read some of it tell me, if you think that the book would rather encourage your average imagined (or known) pedophile to assault more or less children? I can imagine a self-help book that might cause pedophiles to cope with the way they're made better, so I can't just say all books about the topic should be banned, based only on the title.

A self help book that opens pedophiles to the possibility that what they see as expressing their 'love' actually harms the child, would be a good thing.

[jhempel24]

Originally Posted by eric11210

The First Amendment is probably the most cherished part of the United States constitution. It also probably the most reviled part of the constitution as well, depending on which side of a particular issue you happen to fall out on. In essence, it protects the right to express one's opinion on pretty much any subject imaginable.

Yes, but it still doesn't mean that anyone has to actually carry the book, I don't think he is banned from setting up a website and selling it himself.

Just because you have the ability/right to do something doesn't mean that businesses have to cater to you.