Amazon Defends Pedophile Book

[penartur]

Originally Posted by Pushka

Apologies upfront but this post is so so don't read further unless you are interested in lexicon.

pushka is the name of my cat, given to her by my hubby as a messy version of the words 'pussycat'.

I'd never guess it!

So I guess the fluffy furry Russian word is very correct.

However, it is just a coincidence.
Actually, there is no such meaning of that word in the dictionaries, but it could be formed by some common words-forming laws. There is a word "puh" (pronounced "pookh"), meaning "fluff" (not "fur"!); and "Pushka" might be seen as a shortened form of feminine gender adjective "fluffy" (similar shortened form for masculine gender would be "Pushik" i guess).
And another coincidence, your cat is a female

[penartur]

Originally Posted by doreenjoy

I see we're back onto religion. This isn't the religious discussion forum...

Maybe i believe in a Flying Pedo Monsterbear.

[LaurieGator]

Originally Posted by nguirado

I actually just asked my wife and she said that she wouldn't change it. She elaborated, but I'm trying to be brief. The only women who I've ever heard clamor for this change do so for political reasons. Again, I won't elaborate for now. I never ever hear women complain about this law otherwise. I'm willing to bet an Amazon ebook that more women don't want to see other women topless than men don't. I know that even if it were legal, very few women would take advantage.

Two words: Breast Feeding.

Guess what these silly things are designed for? Yup, feeding babies. Every other mammal does it so why are humans shamed when they choose to do it? People get kicked off of airplanes for breast feeding their infants.

Yes, we women should be able to show our breasts. Breast feeding is natural. It is the fundamentalist religious folks who won't let us do this in public!

[nguirado]

Almost all states have an exception for breast feeding, even onservative ones.

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by Pushka

pushka is the name of my cat, given to her by my hubby as a messy version of the words 'pussycat'. So I guess the fluffy furry Russian word is very correct.

That's started me wondering where the word "pussy" actually came from. Etymology Online isn't much help, at least with the cat sense of the word. But it seems like too much of a coincidence that the Russian word for one of the major attributes of cats is so close to one of the terms used for cats. Hmm ... what other languages have cognates to "pussy"? "Puss" has references to both Romance and Germanic languages.

[LaurieGator]

Originally Posted by nguirado

Almost all states have an exception for breast feeding, even onservative ones.

That is untrue. 44 of 50 states have laws that allow women to breastfeed in public. Only 28 states exempt breast feeding from sexual indecency laws. So in 22 states you can get charged with sexual indecency for breast feeding.

[wvcherrybomb]

<child molesters>

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by wvcherrybomb

<child molesters>

Oh good, I didn't miss tonight's edition of Smiley Theater.

[frquixote]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Wrong. Please provide the link to the published law that says this.

From law.com: "While pedophilia is not in of itself a federal crime in the United States, if this psychiatric disorder causes a person to commit such crimes as child abuse or the acquisition of child pornography, then a pedophile may be subject to arrest and punishment by U.S. federal authorities. As such, the legal language concerning pedophilia related crimes can be located in Title 18 of the United States Code (U.S.C.), the comprehensive and officially accepted collection of U.S. federal statutes. 18 U.S.C. 2251-2260 involve the creation and possession of child pornography, and related sexual abuse of minors, as represents a frequent manifestation of pedophilia. In this section Sections 2253 and 2254 allow forfeiture, respectively under criminal and civil law, of pedophile related pornography. 2259 requires compensation to the subjects of pedophile pornography. 18 U.S.C. §§2241-2248 pertain to the punishment of pedophile offenders, according to whether they use violent force and their victim’s age."

If the book describes the behaviors that are considered child abuse with the intent of titillating the reader, it meets the federal definition of child pornography and both the author and Amazon should be prosecuted.

[boxcorner]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Check with boxcorner before you say that.

Slinks away....

Feel free to slink away if you want to.
We're in different time-zones.

Originally Posted by doreenjoy

I see we're back onto religion. This isn't the religious discussion forum...

Originally Posted by kennyc

Accusations of religious bigotry are a reference to religion. So, are you saying that someone can reference a religion, but not discuss it? If so, then kindly define the rules for referencing religion.

Some of the people who have commented on this topic seem to have based their views on moral codes derived from a set of religious values. Whether we like it or not, in most societies, many attitudes and laws concerning paedophilia are derived from religious codes. So, I think it would be naive to presume that you could discuss a subject such as paedophilia, in a thread like this, and it not involve some references to religion - either implicitly or explicitly.

Originally Posted by LaurieGator

Two words: Breast Feeding ...

I think it's one word, breastfeeding, otherwise I agree completely with your comments.

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by frquixote

From law.com: "While pedophilia is not in of itself a federal crime in the United States, if this psychiatric disorder causes a person to commit such crimes as child abuse or the acquisition of child pornography, then a pedophile may be subject to arrest and punishment by U.S. federal authorities. As such, the legal language concerning pedophilia related crimes can be located in Title 18 of the United States Code (U.S.C.), the comprehensive and officially accepted collection of U.S. federal statutes. 18 U.S.C. 2251-2260 involve the creation and possession of child pornography, and related sexual abuse of minors, as represents a frequent manifestation of pedophilia. In this section Sections 2253 and 2254 allow forfeiture, respectively under criminal and civil law, of pedophile related pornography. 2259 requires compensation to the subjects of pedophile pornography. 18 U.S.C. §§2241-2248 pertain to the punishment of pedophile offenders, according to whether they use violent force and their victim’s age."

If the book describes the behaviors that are considered child abuse with the intent of titillating the reader, it meets the federal definition of child pornography and both the author and Amazon should be prosecuted.

I cannot find a federal definition for child pornography that refers to anything other than visual depictions. It's my understanding that the definition of child pornography requires that a child be involved in the production of said material, which is why it refers to images and not words. A person can write anything about anyone without the subject being involved.

If you can find a federal code that defines child pornography in any way that would include written words rather than visual depictions of minors being abused, please point me to it because I cannot find it.

Edited to add:

From The US Dept of Justice:

Child pornography is defined by law as the visual depiction of a person under the age of 18 engaged in sexually explicit conduct. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2256(1) and (8). This means that any image of a child engaged in sexually explicit conduct is illegal contraband. Notably, the legal definition of sexually explicit conduct does not require that an image depict a child engaging in sexual activity. See 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2). A picture of a naked child may constitute illegal child pornography if it is sufficiently sexually suggestive. In addition, for purposes of the child pornography statutes, federal law considers a person under the age of 18 to be a child. See 18 U.S.C. § 2256(1). It is irrelevant that the age of consent for sexual activity in a given state might be lower than 18. A visual depiction for purposes of the federal child pornography laws includes a photograph or videotape, including undeveloped film or videotape, as well as data stored electronically which can be converted into a visual image. For example, images of children engaged in sexually explicit conduct stored on a computer disk are considered visual depictions.

A person can write the most vile, unimaginable thing you can think of, but that still doesn't make it child pornography.

[lene1949]

Originally Posted by LaurieGator

Two words: Breast Feeding.

Guess what these silly things are designed for? Yup, feeding babies. Every other mammal does it so why are humans shamed when they choose to do it? People get kicked off of airplanes for breast feeding their infants.

Yes, we women should be able to show our breasts. Breast feeding is natural. It is the fundamentalist religious folks who won't let us do this in public!

I had my children in the '70's in Denmark, and I breastfed them all in public, if needed.. Feeding babies is not sexual.. far from it. I always had on a button down shirt and a special bra... you'd be hard pushed to see anything, as the baby would latch on immediately.

It's the most natural thing in the world.

Edited to add: I would also change the babies' nappies in public, which I also thought was natural (everyone did it), but maybe not these days?

[boxcorner]

Originally Posted by lene1949

I had my children in the '70's in Denmark, and I breastfed them all in public, if needed.. Feeding babies is not sexual.. far from it. I always had on a button down shirt and a special bra... you'd be hard pushed to see anything, as the baby would latch on immediately.

It's the most natural thing in the world.

Edited to add: I would also change the babies' nappies in public, which I also thought was natural (everyone did it), but maybe not these days?

Breastfeeding and changing nappies in public is not a problem in Europe. My wife used to breastfeed our children that way. While waiting at Limoges airport for a plane that had been delayed by snow recently, a woman who was unknown to me and sat on the bench next to me, changed her baby's nappy twice. I remember changing our kids' nappies and was happy that I could carry on reading an e-book on my Sony reader, instead.

[boxcorner]

I found this Wikipedia article quite helpful, as it provides a country-by-country overview.
Not much about US federal law, though.
Laws regarding child pornography

This article seems to confirm that the legal definition is limited to visual depictions, rather than written words:
Child pornography laws in the United States

[Pushka]

Originally Posted by LaurieGator

That is untrue. 44 of 50 states have laws that allow women to breastfeed in public. Only 28 states exempt breast feeding from sexual indecency laws. So in 22 states you can get charged with sexual indecency for breast feeding.

now that very issue gets back to what I said pages ago that the USA appears to have such a paradox when it comes to breasts (I referred to Janet Jackson's costume accident and the furore that caused) and the fact that people defend the publication of a book that instructs people to commit the crime of pedophillia, on the basis of the first amendment. It is illegal to breastfeed a baby in public in a large number of States, yet such a book is legal. Go figure.