Amazon Defends Pedophile Book

[Bittybye]

You know I don't have a problem with a lot of things, what you do is you own business, but this, this is sick. The fact that someone would write this is appalling.

What the lawyer on Fox said is right, this might give a predator who isn't smart enough to think of these things, ideas.

From what they said there is no pictures or anything so it's technically (maybe, not a lawyer) illegal, but anything that tells gives you ways of victimizing children should be.

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by Bittybye

What the lawyer on Fox said is right, this might give a predator who isn't smart enough to think of these things, ideas.

I'm sorry, but that's a very naive position. Pedophiles don't need "ideas". They were around before the Internet. They were around before books. They can figure it out for themselves. They're very good (bad?) at figuring it out for themselves. I doubt if there exists any pedophile who isn't smart enough to figure out how to go about it. They know how.

[Pushka]

Originally Posted by Bittybye

You know I don't have a problem with a lot of things, what you do is you own business, but this, this is sick. The fact that someone would write this is appalling.

What the lawyer on Fox said is right, this might give a predator who isn't smart enough to think of these things, ideas.

From what they said there is no pictures or anything so it's technically (maybe, not a lawyer) illegal, but anything that tells gives you ways of victimizing children should be.

Well, the author has admiited as a teenager he had sex with children and even though not in pictures, if the descriptions and information provided is more detailed than what could be known from general knowledge, then it isnt a great leap to infer that children have already been abused in the process.

Recluse, I agree. This bit:
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.

I would also add, "if it preys on the vulnerable humans" (to include elderly, mentally incapacited etc etc)

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

I'm sorry, but that's a very naive position. Pedophiles don't need "ideas". They were around before the Internet. They were around before books. They can figure it out for themselves. They're very good (bad?) at figuring it out for themselves. I doubt if there exists any pedophile who isn't smart enough to figure out how to go about it. They know how.

But you see, if we dont call a stop at some stage, then that is as good as allowing it to happen. Of course they know how, but why for god's sake, do we have to legitimise those behaviours by putting them into a book for public sale.

[Piper_]

Originally Posted by 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.

Well said.

And if people had not responded to all the media buzz the way they did, the pedophiles would have been even more emboldened.

If you follow crime boards, you see so many horrors committed by repeat offenders who had no business around kids, it's an atrocity. Our system is broken.

This is a little off topic, but one of my other pet peeves about sex crime laws is that it lumps in things like statutory rape between teens with actual pedophilia and rape. Some states are worse than others; a few at least have Romeo and Juliet clauses.

That failure to distinguish just dilutes the usefulness of the registry, and worse, subjects kids to being tagged forever with the same scarlet letter as the rapists and pedos.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by Piper_

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.

That quote was aimed at one of the little off-topic drifts in the conversation-- specifically Australia's attempt at wide-ranging mandatory government censorship of the internet in Australia. The person I was replying to thinks it is okay to have wide-ranging mandatory government censorship of the internet as long as it stops a few narrow categories he (or she) doesn't like. So, my reply is-- if that's the government you want, then you deserve to get it.

[Pushka]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

That quote was aimed at one of the little off-topic drifts in the conversation-- specifically Australia's attempt at wide-ranging mandatory government censorship of the internet in Australia. The person I was replying to thinks it is okay to have wide-ranging mandatory government censorship of the internet as long as it stops a few narrow categories he (or she) doesn't like. So, my reply is-- if that's the government you want, then you deserve to get it.

Not off topic at all. Amazon sells books into Australia, ergo, Australian laws come into play.

The Government doesnt currently censor the internet btw, it is just a plan, and like all plans made by the current Government, it aint going to happen! And really, if you need to exagerate the extent of the Government's planned restrictions on the Internet, and relate it to how Australia deals with Censorship matters with regard to pedophilic activity, violent crimes and acts of terrorism, well, I dunno, I'm not convinced.

[Piper_]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

That quote was aimed at one of the little off-topic drifts in the conversation-- specifically Australia's attempt at wide-ranging mandatory government censorship of the internet in Australia. The person I was replying to thinks it is okay to have wide-ranging mandatory government censorship of the internet as long as it stops a few narrow categories he (or she) doesn't like. So, my reply is-- if that's the government you want, then you deserve to get it.

I noticed. I included her quote above your response.

I understand where she's coming from, and maybe Australian government is more amenable to listening to its people... I don't know. If they're happy, that's good.

But for here, I want our government to stay out of it. They're too far removed, and we're all just way too heterogeneous in our values.

[dacattt]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

... The person I was replying to thinks it is okay to have wide-ranging mandatory government censorship of the internet as long as it stops a few narrow categories he (or she) doesn't like. So, my reply is-- if that's the government you want, then you deserve to get it.

But it effects more than one person... and of course we're back to who chooses, and where the line is... and that's the bigger danger.

Just noticed a new link in CNN's latest news... and it's gone up in popularity while I've typed this... http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/12...ghting/?hpt=T2

PETA is taking advantage of folks rage and desire to have Amazon censor based on public opinion.... so, today is the acceptable list of topics to demand Amazon to block Pedophile and Dog fighting? Next week it's Pedophile, Dog Fighting and ????

How long does the list get???

If you searched the list of banned sites that Australia had listed, besides errors, they'd listed political sites, sites of "enemies", etc. The slope is long and icy...

[Bittybye]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

I'm sorry, but that's a very naive position. Pedophiles don't need "ideas". They were around before the Internet. They were around before books. They can figure it out for themselves. They're very good (bad?) at figuring it out for themselves. I doubt if there exists any pedophile who isn't smart enough to figure out how to go about it. They know how.

Actually statically speaking pedophiles are on the lower rungs of the intelligence scale. But you have a point they figure it out. Mostly they use force. While I don't know much about this book other than it's deplorable title, I imagine it would be more detailed.

In any case I think any sane person would agree that it's good to have this book off the (metaphorical) shelves.

[Piper_]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

...
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.
...

Worldwalker, for the record, I wasn't sure if any of your post was directed toward mine or not - I too was answering bits and pieces of a few.

Also, I went back and found a terribly constructed sentence of mine that I have since edited:

I had written, without the italicized words, and the first one was "anti-pedophilia":
"Yet for every complaint about "emotional appeals" from one side, there are emotional appeals in the form of "freedom of speech" from the other side."

Which was and still is a chopped-up, nonsensical word salad. My point was about the appeals - i still can't think of an elegant way to describe who's saying what.

I had gotten a call, got in a hurry to finish, and ...

But for the record, I promise i don't think the only people who are anti-pedophilia are those who wanted Amazon to remove it.

[Bittybye]

Originally Posted by Pushka

Well, the author has admiited as a teenager he had sex with children and even though not in pictures, if the descriptions and information provided is more detailed than what could be known from general knowledge, then it isnt a great leap to infer that children have already been abused in the process.

Wouldn't this be an admission of guilt (again not a lawyer) but it seems to be that that 'confession' would be enough to get him charged and arrested?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by dacattt

..
Just noticed a new link in CNN's latest news... and it's gone up in popularity while I've typed this... http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/12...ghting/?hpt=T2
..

And see here I thought it would be Lolita next up for banning

[dacattt]

Originally Posted by kennyc

And see here I thought it would be Lolita next up for banning

Actually, that discussion got beaten to death when the movie "Secret Lives of Bees" came out

This just illustrates "slippery slope" and "band wagon" combined.

And to continue to, "there lies madness"



But seriously, there is no good final answer to this.

[Piper_]

Yes, calls for removing books are nothing new. But unlike this pedophilia book, those calls fail.

And those failures illustrates why I give most people credit for knowing where to draw the line and why I'm not worried that Lolita, Harry Potter, or Huck Finn, or all the other books people say could be next, are in any danger from this.

[thrawn_aj]

Originally Posted by recluse

The Will of the People has spoken.
Child molestors and their advocates must be wiped out.

The Law must change.

That is the Will of the People.

Is this for real? The "Will of the people"? Really?

Originally Posted by Pookeysgirl

So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause.

Originally Posted by recluse

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.

Why only the young? Why so specific? I'm constantly amazed at the highly specific things that people are disgusted by.

I would go so far as to say that any person who takes an innocent life (regardless of age) is a greater scumbag than a rapist (who doesn't kill). Of course, the comparison is flawed because you can't really compare infinities (of the same order). The slight asymmetry is only because with the non-killer, there is at least a chance that the victim may be able to live out a full life and perhaps even find some measure of happiness somewhere down the road. The dead victim has no such chance. People who think that some things are worse than death are deluded beyond belief.

I find it even more disgusting that some people (not the person I was replying to - at least I hope so) try to rate such crimes relative to each other. Can't we just agree that such criminals are the scum of the earth and leave it at that? The only people who need to rate these things are the people in prison. Even there, they have rankings - which absolutely boggles my mind. Yes, there are "holier-than-thou" nimrods in prison.