Amazon Defends Pedophile Book

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by wvcherrybomb

He was arrested under the law. And I would like to see the LAW change to put automatic death penalties on all of them. Just my opinion and I stand by it.

So arrest equals conviction, then?

Some countries do things that way. Zimbabwe, for instance. I suppose it saves all the bother of these "trial" things, which sometimes don't come out the way the authorities want. Thankfully the US hasn't gotten there yet.

There's another law you're not taking into consideration: the Law of Unintended Consequences. If you want death for everyone arrested for child abuse (even people like Gerald Amirault, I assume?) ... naturally, people are going to try not to be arrested. If, as you say, it's not possible for someone inclined that way not to molest children (though the numbers seem to show otherwise), then they can't stop the molesting; therefore, they have to stop the arresting. Dead children tell no tales. If someone molests a child, they would never, ever run the risk that the child may talk. That child would disappear, and maybe some bones would turn up in a burn barrel somewhere, or, for the smart ones, nothing would ever turn up at all. What would they have to lose? You couldn't kill them twice. If the penalty for child molestation is the same as the penalty for murder, there's no reason for them not to progress to murder ... which is, by the way, on the low end of the spectrum, solution-wise. So now, instead of a child molester who might be caught and stopped, you have a murderer. How many children will he kill before he is stopped? How many is too many?

Despite what the Internet Tough Guys believe, it's never that simple. And it's never that easy.

[Stitchawl]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

Speech is not action, and action is not speech.

If you truly believe that, try shouting "Bomb" in an airport. Tell the police who are taking you away that you are just speaking, not acting. You will have several years in which to convince them.

If there is evidence that this individual has molested a child, then arrest him.

It appears that there is evidence that he was distributing child pornography. That's why he was arrested. He wasn't arrested for writing about it or for molesting a child.

If not ... ordering his book from a place where it is illegal to own is should be considered entrapment.

Not hardly. Ignorance of your local laws is no excuse.

I am now going to commit a crime.
By reading what follows, you too may be committing a crime.
Communism is bad. Tibet deserves self-determination. China should be free. Democracy is everyone's right. And what's wrong with Falun Gong, anyway?
Crime complete.

You're correct. If you were in China you might be arrested for saying that. Aung Suu Kyi was arrested for doing the very same thing in Burma.
But it's doubtful that the US would extradite you for it. They might, however, if you were distributing child pornography. Especially if it were being distributed within the US borders.

And... just to keep things accurate... if you had used a traceable name and address, and were later to visit China, you could be arrested. THAT has happened to people denigrating the Monarchy of Thailand, then subsequently visiting the Kingdom. No freedom of speech about that subject for the Thais.

But the issue with this fellow isn't about Free Speech. It's about distributing child pornography. That's what he was arrested for. It will be up to the courts to decide his guilt or innocence.


Stitchawl

[Stitchawl]

Originally Posted by wvcherrybomb View Post
He was arrested under the law. And I would like to see the LAW change to put automatic death penalties on all of them. Just my opinion and I stand by it.

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

So arrest equals conviction, then?

Wow! That's quite a leap! She says 'change the law' and you say she's saying arrest equals conviction?

I guess my reading skills just aren't up to snuff, cuz I don't see where she is saying what you are saying she's saying...


Stitchawl

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by Stitchawl

Ignorance of your local laws is no excuse.

Under his local laws, the book was legal.

Authorities in a place the book was not legal broke their own local laws to order a copy, so that they could call for his arrest in a totally different jurisdiction, for an act which was not a crime in that jurisdiction.

As for China ... you'll note that "Worldwalker" doesn't connect to my real identity (sure, it's possible to make that connection, but it's not trivial). That's one reason why I keep it that way. I might need to go there some day, and I'd like to be able to come home. I don't agree with their definition of "responsible" free speech.

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by Stitchawl

Wow! That's quite a leap! She says 'change the law' and you say she's saying arrest equals conviction?

I guess my reading skills just aren't up to snuff, cuz I don't see where she is saying what you are saying she's saying...

Okay, I'll spell it out for you:

Cherry said that the guy was arrested -- not convicted, but arrested -- under the law, and that the law -- which would mean the one under which he was arrested, not some other law -- should be changed so that he could be put to death. Therefore it's the arrest that should equal death, not some subsequent possible conviction which hasn't happened yet.

If something else was meant, it should be stated accordingly; I'm only going by what was posted.

[tubemonkey]

The moral of this tale is to never write something controversial and then mail/sell/distribute said writing yourself. You run the risk of violating some draconian law somewhere and a possible setup in order to remove you from society.

[Stitchawl]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

Under his local laws, the book was legal.

Authorities in a place the book was not legal broke their own local laws to order a copy, so that they could call for his arrest in a totally different jurisdiction, for an act which was not a crime in that jurisdiction.

In what jurisdiction is distribution of child pornography NOT a crime?
Certainly none exist in the US.


Stitchawl

[Stitchawl]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

Okay, I'll spell it out for you:

Cherry said that the guy was arrested -- not convicted, but arrested -- under the law, and that the law -- which would mean the one under which he was arrested, not some other law -- should be changed so that he could be put to death. Therefore it's the arrest that should equal death, not some subsequent possible conviction which hasn't happened yet.

If something else was meant, it should be stated accordingly; I'm only going by what was posted.

I guess I'm going to buy myself a copy of 'Hooked on Phonics,' because I still don't see any connection of what you are saying and what she said. But, as I actually don't care, I probably won't.

Stitchawl

[tubemonkey]

From a Wash Post article:

Judd said he was incensed when he heard about the book and that no one had arrested Greaves for selling it. The book, Judd said, included first-person descriptions of sexual encounters, purportedly written from a child's point of view.

"What's wrong with a society that has gotten to the point that we can't arrest child pornographers and child molesters who write a book about how to rape a child?" said Judd, who keeps a Bible on his desk and is known throughout Florida as a crusader against child predators.

This sheriff would've made a good Minister of Morality in the Bush Administration. People like him disgust me and pose a real menace to our liberty.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

The moral of this tale is to never write something controversial and then mail/sell/distribute said writing yourself. You run the risk of violating some draconian law somewhere and a possible setup in order to remove you from society.

Which may explain why Amazon removed the material from their inventory. Their legal dept may have been worried such material was possibly illegal to distribute to certain jurisdictions.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Fbone

Which may explain why Amazon removed the material from their inventory. Their legal dept may have been worried such material was possibly illegal to distribute to certain jurisdictions.

Yup. This country has no shortage of busybodies intent on telling others how to conduct their lives.

[Stitchawl]

Originally Posted by Fbone

Which may explain why Amazon removed the material from their inventory. Their legal dept may have been worried such material was possibly illegal to distribute to certain jurisdictions.

Certain jurisdictions?
I'll repeat my question; in what jurisdiction is distribution of child pornography NOT a crime?

Of course, it has yet to be proven that what he wrote actually was child pornography, so he is only accused of this crime, rather than guilty of it. However, if I remember the author's description of his book in Amazon, he stated that he wrote the book 'to help those who were arrested for child sexual abuse get a reduced sentence, and to make repeated abuse less traumatic for the children being abused.' Almost qualifies for sainthood.


Stitchawl

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Stitchawl

Certain jurisdictions?
I'll repeat my question; in what jurisdiction is distribution of child pornography NOT a crime?

Pornography is in the eye of the beholder, so certain jurisdictions is most appropriate. Some parts of the US are more backwards than others and cling to some rather draconian laws based upon that area's idea of morality.

[penartur]

Originally Posted by JLeighs

From a previous post of mine:

Asked if he had engaged in sexual acts with children as an adult, Greaves first answered “could have,” before stating flatly that he had not engaged in such illegal conduct. Source

My English is terrible (as you can see from my post), but anybody can say "could have", cannot they?
I could have raped children... or could have not.

[penartur]

Originally Posted by Stitchawl

Can we please not loose sight of the fact that this guy is pure sleaze?

You aren't defending someone's right to speak against a government.
You aren't defending someone's right to speak against a race or religion.
You aren't defending someone's right to speak an ideology.
These are all permitted in some other societies and some other cultures.

We're defending someone's right to speak about anything. And if there will be a tool to condemn someone based only on their speech, that tool may be used not only on pedophiles but on a political opposition as well.

You ARE defending someone's right to abuse children.

Not right to abuse children, but right to talk about children abuse.