Amazon Defends Pedophile Book

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by AGB

The dangerous reasoning behind that is, just what this is about: You don't want anyone to talk about something you/we don't like.

That pretty much sums it up.

[AGB]

Originally Posted by Stitchawl

Looking back at my posts on this subject, the only personal statements I made came at the very beginning when I said;
"It is up to the courts now to decide if he's guilty or innocent."

Sigh, if I argue that "the only right way to deal with infidels is to string them up", me adding "but let courts decide if they're infidels", doesn't change my argument.

Yet so many people have said that I'm espousing this or that, out to lynch the man, pushing my own agenda, and now you telling me that I don't want anyone to talk about something you/we don't like.

Yes, because that is what you have been arguing.

I think this is called 'projection.'

No, but what you just did is called "intellectual dishonesty".

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by obs20

Personally I think this is the work of a grandstanding sheriff. There's no need for Florida to go to the expense of extraditing the lowlife, booking him, feeding him a processed turkey dinner and putting him up in a jail. Then we have to pay for the cost of a trial. Let some other jurisdiction do it.

No jurisdiction should do it; he hasn't done anything wrong. But as long as you feel he should be prosecuted, better your tax dollars are wasted on it, than mine.

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by Joebill

Writing a how to book on committing such a crime is not free speech. Its Evil. Its Wrong. It should be stopped.

Should Lolita be banned? While I find the subject matter disgusting and repellent and pray to God that no one ever does such a thing to my kids, I do want to know what the legal difference is between writing a book describing murder or rape and one describing the vile things this book does. If one is banned but not the other, does that imply that work that is not banned is okay? Why is it okay (i.e. legal) to graphically show, for example, a group of aliens violently bursting from the belly of a pregnant women (heavily implying that the late term fetus was devoured immediately prior) in a movie (Alien vs. Predator II) but not to write about a child being harmed in a non-lethal manner. The subject matter of both are visceral and disgusting, but why is one legally protected and the other prosecuted, especially given that murder is worse than rape and visual depictions are more powerful and unsettling than verbal ones? I am not defending the subject matter of the book, but I would like to know how you would consistently draw the line without violating established legal procedure and cannons of jurisprudence.

[Pushka]

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

Should Lolita be banned? .

No, that argument is a red herring. Lolita is a novel.

This book is a work of non fiction. It gives facts about how to commit (better) or cover up a crime.

Whether anyone likes or dislikes such books is irrelevant. The issue is that if somone follows the instructions in this book, it will lead to a crime that in its very nature is always harmful to children. You can build a bomb but not set it off. Or you can set it off in an isolated area. So no harm done. You cannot commit paedophilia and not cause permanent damage.

[Penforhire]

But you can read it and not cause any permanent damage either (except to your own sensibilities).

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by Pushka

No, that argument is a red herring. Lolita is a novel.

This book is a work of non fiction. It gives facts about how to commit (better) or cover up a crime.

Whether anyone likes or dislikes such books is irrelevant. The issue is that if somone follows the instructions in this book, it will lead to a crime that in its very nature is always harmful to children. You can build a bomb but not set it off. Or you can set it off in an isolated area. So no harm done. You cannot commit paedophilia and not cause permanent damage.

If the author were to re-write the book as a novel or short story collection would it be legally protected speech then? If I were to write a novel that included very graphic details and specific instructions on how to kill another human being and cover up the evidence, would that be protected. Dan Simmons' Drood comes a bit close to this when it describes how one might dispose of a body in a lime pit. Does the intent of the author matter and how does one legally gauge that? What if one were to write a novel featuring a terrorist sub-plot which describes how to carry out a poison gas attack on a mall? There would be no way to use that knowledge without harming people. Should the book be banned then?

[laughingdragons]

He was arrested in Colorado on monday.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-12-20/j...es?_s=PM:CRIME

"The man behind a controversial book considered a "how-to" guide for pedophiles was arrested in Colorado, officials in Florida said Monday.

"You cannot engage or depict children in a harmful relationship," said Polk County, Florida, Sheriff Grady Judd as he described the Florida obscenity statute that officials used to charge Phillip Greaves with distribution of obscene material depicting minors engaged in harmful conduct.

The self-published author was arrested in Pueblo, Colorado, on a Florida felony warrant after undercover detectives in Polk County purchased and received a copy of the book through the mail. He will have to be extradited to Florida to face charges."

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by Pushka

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

Do you believe that murder is a heinous crime? I think most of us would say that it is.

There are books available -- lots of them -- which tell you how to kill someone.

If we equate talking about how to commit a crime with committing that crime, we've thrown out the entire basis of our justice system, which is that people are charged with the acts that they actually commit, not those that they think about, talk about, or imagine. That's not a step I think it would be good to take.

[Pushka]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

which is that people are charged with the acts that they actually commit, not those that they think about, talk about, or imagine. That's not a step I think it would be good to take.

We have a crime in Australia called conspiracy to commit murder..no murderous act, merely the discussion.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Pushka

We have a crime in Australia called conspiracy to commit murder..no murderous act, merely the discussion.

That only applies to the planning of a specific murder, if you are planning to kill Mr X and discuss concrete steps to do it.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

That only applies to the planning of a specific murder, if you are planning to kill Mr X and discuss concrete steps to do it.

The US has similar laws. A recent example ...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,2566296.story

The blogger said 3 judges must die and provided names and addresses. Jury said such statements are not protected by his First Amendment right to free speech.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Pushka

No, that argument is a red herring. Lolita is a novel.

This book is a work of non fiction. It gives facts about how to commit (better) or cover up a crime.
...

No. Fiction vs non-Fiction is a just as much a red herring and maybe more insidious. If this book were fictionalized would it be any different?

Someone already mentioned Dexter....

[Pushka]

Originally Posted by kennyc

No. Fiction vs non-Fiction is a just as much a red herring and maybe more insidious. If this book were fictionalized would it be any different?

Someone already mentioned Dexter....

Actually, if this was a Fiction then yes, it would be different.

But the book is presented as a manual, a guide, a how-to.

So as far as I am concerned, fiction vs non fiction is not a red herring. And that is consistent with my thoughts that Lolita is ok. I actually have Lolita on my kindle. I would not have an Instructional Guide on the best way to molest a child on my kindle.

[NVash]

I think the point is that Lolita could be considered the very same, except its supposedly a story about a man and a girl. I have to agree, I think its a red herring.

BTW, I know Im late but excellent post Worldwalker.