Amazon Defends Pedophile Book

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Stitchawl

...

Why do people need to change what is said just to fit their own soap boxes?


Stitchawl

I suggest you take this pill yourself.

[mjhudston]

Originally Posted by kennyc

And I've stated it, I'm standing up for it, you are attempting spin and accuse and speculate.

It's time to get real. You clearly don't understand the difference in committing a crime and the freedom to speak about it.

I couldn't agree more Kennyc.

[JLeighs]

Originally Posted by penartur

My English is terrible (as you can see from my post),

Your english is just fine.

but anybody can say "could have", cannot they?
I could have raped children... or could have not.

If someone asked me if I have ever raped/sexually assaulted children, my first response would be a resounding "no!". I certainly wouldn't say "could have". I'm not saying that his answer is evidence of child molestation, but it's rather an odd response for an innocent person to make when asked such a question.

[eric11210]

Originally Posted by Stitchawl

What part of my statement; "I DO see people demanding the arrest of an alleged child molester who has been charged with distribution of child pornography" is convicting him of anything. There is the word 'alleged' and the word 'charged,' but no words saying anything about convicting him.




That is absolutely correct. And if you can find somewhere in any of my posts where I've said otherwise, I'll apologize to your right here when you do. I have only said that court orders were drawn up, or that he has been arrested. In fact, in several of my posts I've stated that it is now up to the courts to judge him guilty or innocent. Please read before posting.

Why do people need to change what is said just to fit their own soap boxes?


Stitchawl

First, you neglected to include the first part of your post:

Well said, except for the fact that he was NOT arrested for writing something. He was arrested for distributing child pornography.

I guess it's just more fun to run amok shouting "Right have been violated" eh?

You did not say here he was accused of something. You said he did something and was arrested for it. I contend that what he wrote probably does not fit a legal definition of child pornography (it may fit a legal definition of obscenity, though that is a very sticky thing that the courts will need to decide on).

You do indeed later go on to remind us that he is an "alleged child molester," though there doesn't seem to be any evidence to support that in what has been officially reported.

Someone who has sexual desires for children is not necessarily a child molester. I will not deny he has desires for children and I even imagine he probably has fantasies involving children just as I do about men or most straight men do about women. However, if he chooses not to act on his fantasies, then while I may not like the guy and may not want him around my children, I also would respect his right to be left alone.

All I've said (and I'll say it again, though you never said it prior to your response quoted above) is that he has not been convicted of anything and in fact it seems to my (admittedly limited) knowledge that he has a very good case to make for slander and violation of his civil rights against this sheriff who requested the arrest warrant.

Once again, I may not like what he has to say, but I respect his right to say it.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by JLeighs

Your english is just fine.



If someone asked me if I have ever raped/sexually assaulted children, my first response would be a resounding "no!". I certainly wouldn't say "could have". I'm not saying that his answer is evidence of child molestation, but it's rather an odd response for an innocent person to make when asked such a question.

I agree, it's a rather strange response, but as has been discussed, this guy is clearly a taco or two short of a combo plate.

[Care]

I really didn't want to read this thread, let alone post in it. This whole thing does not have an easy answer. There is a whole lot of wrong going on, with the government and the author.

As a mother, I do not want this kind of book out there. I am sorry, but when it comes down to the safety of your own children and some sicko having his rights, I choose my children's safety. I am not saying I am right or that it is right to arrest this man the way he was. I also understand what many of you are saying about freedom of speech and where would it end. I don't think that cases like this will lead to the U.S. having a dictatorship, I believe the snowballing effect of something like that will come down to horrific acts like 9/11 and power hungry politicians. Besides, if I were to come across some huge government information not available to the public, and I decided to write about it, do you think they would let me? I am sure my writings would not see the light of day for very long.

If I were not a mother, perhaps I may decide this man has his right to say or write about whatever he wants. Sometimes you get to the point where you would willingly give up certain privileges or rights (or pretty much damn near anything) to keep your child safe. But I can't help think that words like this "The child's pleasure and happiness come first. The child should never be asked to do anything that would be stressful to it," are can and would lead to criminal acts. So if the child 'appears' to be comfortable with your hand touching them in abusive ways, it is ok?

Again, I am not actually saying that it is right. I understand that my wanting to protect my children does not give me (or anyone else) the right to change the laws or bend them. It is how I feel though, and protective instinct can be a powerful thing. I think most people are just hoping they can find some real good evidence on this man. Because lets face it, generally you write what you know. It is not evidence by a long shot, but I can't help having this sick feel that this man knows first hand about molesting children. Hopefully there will be something for the officials to find so they can put him away the right way.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Stitchawl

First you say this. And when I ask you which jurisdictions permit it, you reply with the following;

The two contradict each other. Perhaps you need to choose one or the other and stand with it.

Stitchawl

Child porn and child sexual abuse are not necessarily the same thing. Besides, he wasn't arrested for sexual abuse. He was arrested for violating Florida's obscenity laws, which is a lesser crime.

I stand by my remarks.

[Worldwalker]

I have to wonder ... what should we do about Lolita? The book, I mean. It describes a relationship which cannot be called anything other than child molestation.

And then there's The Anarchist's Cookbook. Assuming you avoid the (one assumes untested) recipes which will kill you, that explains, in detail, how to commit illegal acts.

As for shouting "fire" in a theater: It's perfectly, totally, 100% legal for me to write a book describing, in detail, the best ways to do it. It's committing the act (deliberately causing a panic leading to deaths), not talking about the act (speech) that's illegal.

Child pornography is something that bypasses our brains and goes straight to our viscera. It's probably hardwired into our species that we should want to kill anyone who harms our young. I can't easily talk about it rationally either -- I get the same visceral reaction. The problem comes in when we allow those definitions to expand, and to be attached to the reactions we already have.

For example, photos of a child being molested are clearly bad, because they're proof that the act has occurred. That is the reason why they're bad. However, people have taken another use of those photos -- real or potential molesters can fantasize about them -- and made that the bad thing instead. So they've decided that drawings are the same as photos, since someone could fantasize about either (even though the person making such a drawing might never have been within ten feet of a chld). If drawings are bad, for the same reason -- as we're seeing in this case -- writing is bad. Even though it's no more proof that any actual act has occurred (did Vladimir Nabokov rape little girls?) than a drawing, a written description might be exciting to a child molester. And non-sexual photos of children are bad: catalogs, magazines, in England it's illegal to take pictures in public parks that involve children other than your own (and people have been arrested for taking pictures of their own children) because a pedophile might fantasize about those children playing on the swings. So we started with "having proof that you committed a crime is a crime" and have (thanks to the fear engendered by the people who know going straight to our viscera is a way for them to go straight to power) changed that to "having anything that someone might use to fantasize about committing a crime is a crime."

That's the logic being used against teenagers who are arrested, jailed, and treated as sex offenders for life (which is basically a sentence of outlawry) for sending their lovers pictures of their own genitalia. They're "distributing child pornography." Yet the victims are themselves. You can punch yourself in the face and it isn't considered assault. We don't arrest the victim for the crime. The logic, in these cases, is that child molesters might use the photos to fantasize about molesting children. We've gone from arresting people for having proof that they committed a real act to arresting (and outlawing) people for things which might enable another person, who might not even exist, to commit a thoughtcrime.

Murder is a worse crime than child molestation. You can live after being molested; you can't live after being killed. It's the irremediable crime. Yet it isn't a crime to fantasize about murder (if it was, most of us would be in jail, especially those who have dealt with Dell). It isn't a crime to write about murder (there are not only books but whole series in bookstores). It isn't a crime to visually depict murder (Dexter, anyone?). It's only a crime to commit murder. And that is as it should be.

Care, in your worries about your kids, do you ever worry that one of them might "sext" a picture to a boyfriend or girlfriend, or that boyfriend or girlfriend might send such a photo to them? A child as young as 12 can be sentenced to life-long punishment for a moment's stupidity -- and an act that would have been legal were they of age -- for committing a "crime" against themself. That could happen to your kids. Do you worry that they could be arrested, tried, and imprisoned for decades in a "he said, she said" case where there is not only no physical evidence supporting conviction, but all existing evidence disproves the accusations? That has happened, too. Those are real threats. Those are things that have really happened. Those are things that came out of the blue, and keeping your kids away from creepy Uncle Chester wouldn't stop them.

Liu Xiaobo has a mother. No doubt she worries about him. Considering the son she raised, I doubt that she wants a world with less freedom in it. It was that very lack of freedom, a lack of freedom no doubt justified to "protect" children -- protect them from social instability, protect them from defamation of their government, protect them from counter-revolutionary thought -- that has led to his arrest. He had all the protection a totalitarian society could provide; he decided he'd rather have, and advocate for, freedom.

Protecting children is a good thing. But "protecting" them from freedom is not protection; it's better-disguised slavery. A fluffy, pampered dog in a diamond-studded collar is undoubtedly safe and protected, but it's not free. The most well-fed, secure, and protected slave is not free. China has protection; it doesn't have freedom. For example, parents naturally want to be sure their children do not get terrible diseases, but in their efforts to protect them indiscriminately from all germs, they are instead raising children who not only have no defenses against diseases, but whose immune systems turn on their own bodies; the children who don't make mudpies because it's "too dirty" instead die of allergic reactions to common foods. Children "protected" from the devastating effects of losing a game or failing a test never learn to cope with failure, and when they meet it in the real world, as they inevitably will, they are devastated. Protection can be taken too far. And when it comes to taking away the rights of real people because of imagined and potential scenarios, that's taking it too far.

I feel dirty for speaking up on behalf of the writing of someone I would, viscerally, prefer to strangle (thoughtcrime! thoughtcrime!). But freedom isn't an easy or comfortable thing. It wouldn't need any defense if it was. It's all dirty and sticky, and for every noble Tiananmen Square protester, there are ten people you really wish never existed in the first place. But most "good" people stay within their (and society's) comfort zones, and never do anything that puts freedom to a test. To protect the rights of the Gerald Amiraults of the world, we have to defend the rights of the Philip Greaves. Because in the end, those rights are yours and mine.

[kennyc]

Bravo Worldwalker!

This is probably the most rational and on-target post in 40 pages!

[CWatkinsNash]

Speaking directly to the arrest, if the book did not contain images involving children, it's not child pornography in Florida. Hence, the obscenity charge. If the obscenity charge is judged based on Florida's track record for enforcing that particular law, it may not stick. Even some mainstream romance novels violate FL's obscenity law, and online retailers and others violate the law on a daily basis. I lived there for over a year, and I guarantee I received material that is "obscene" by their definition, even though the books I received were fairly tame.

Link:Applicable Florida statutes

[queentess]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

As for shouting "fire" in a theater: It's perfectly, totally, 100% legal for me to write a book describing, in detail, the best ways to do it. It's committing the act (deliberately causing a panic leading to deaths), not talking about the act (speech) that's illegal.

Child pornography is something that bypasses our brains and goes straight to our viscera. It's probably hardwired into our species that we should want to kill anyone who harms our young. I can't easily talk about it rationally either -- I get the same visceral reaction. The problem comes in when we allow those definitions to expand, and to be attached to the reactions we already have.

This entire post (I've removed most of it from the quote due to the length) sums up my feelings exactly on the matter. I've nothing more to add.

[mjhudston]

I wish I could have put it as eloquently as worldwalker, he/she ahs made the point I was trying to get across.

[eric11210]

I'll echo what has been said. Beautifully put Worldwalker.

[JSWolf]

A manual on how to abuse children should never be published and anyone who tries should be locked up for life. And let the other prisoners know about the pedophile. Then if s/he is killed then all the better.

[Pushka]

Originally Posted by mjhudston

What really frightens me about this whole episode is the "lynch mob" mentality that is rearing it's ugly head, not just here, but in the news and the actions of the state as well.

There seems to be a mentality of let's get him in prison for any reason because we don't like what he has written. That what they do in Iran and North Korea, not what should be done in a Democracy.

I disagree. People just want books that describe in detail how to commit a crime on a child to not be publically available. I dont particularly want this person hung drawn and quartered; in fact, I am kind of pleased this issue was raised so that it can now set in motion a process to stop this kind of thing ever being sold again, before hopefully any children have been harmed.

To me, having a book like this available for distribution almost legitimises this heinous crime.