Amazon Defends Pedophile Book

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

...OMG, you said my name in the same paragraph you said Bush. I feel dirty; I must be cleansed.

OMG! You poor thing. Even I'm disgusted... Ppppttttuuuuiiieeee!!!

[JLeighs]

Originally Posted by eric11210

Yes, but the same people who wish to ban this book also wish to make it a crime to have these thoughts.

I'm one of those people who think that this book shouldn't see the light of day, for various reasons. However, I do not believe that having thoughts should constitute crime, for the very reasons you stated in your other post (people do struggle with this --they aren't all just wholeheartedly indulging in these thoughts/feelings).

Also, of interest is the fact that in Britain (from what I understand having read about it on some photography forums where a photographer complained about being hassled for taking pictures at a ski resort -- not only were the children mixed with adults, but they were so bundled up that you couldn't make out anything at all), simply having photos of children (fully clothed children doing normal childhood things) is a crime if you also happen to profess to be a paedophile. Thought police indeed.

Oh, my. That's carrying it a bit too far.

[Pushka]

Originally Posted by penartur

So, actually, you just like Lolita's writing style and don't like writing style of the book in topic?

No, I havent read Lolita. It is a work of fiction. This book is a manual. That is not a difference in style but a difference in intent. Intent is an element in many many crimes.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Pushka

No, I havent read Lolita. It is a work of fiction. This book is a manual. That is not a difference in style but a difference in intent. Intent is an element in many many crimes.

Not really, just a difference in form. Many learn things from fiction and many are entertained by non-fiction. That's why I said earlier that fiction is perhaps even more insidious. Reading fiction people have already agreed to the contract - the willing suspension of disbelief. Fiction/nonfiction really is a red herring and intent has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

[doreenjoy]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Not really, just a difference in form. Many learn things from fiction and many are entertained by non-fiction. That's why I said earlier that fiction is perhaps even more insidious. Reading fiction people have already agreed to the contract - the willing suspension of disbelief. Fiction/nonfiction really is a red herring and intent has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

I agree, and I'll add that a work of fiction certainly inspired Timothy McVeigh to take action.

Folks might want to read Lolita before they post about it. IMO Nabokov does an outstanding job of making readers symptahize with a pedophile.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by kennyc

And those arrests are made based on the ACTIONS of the person arrested. They actually make an attempt to commit a crime. Just like the guy in Seattle that was entrapped and "intended" to blow up a van at the Christmas celebration.

Off Topic, but it was Portland not Seattle, but us west coasters all look the same..

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Off Topic, but it was Portland not Seattle, but us west coasters all look the same..

Eek! My bad.... I knew that too as my son lived there for the last 4 years...

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by AGB

Secondly, Godwin's "law" is more of a rule, that states that whenever Hitler is mentioned in the debate, the debate is lost.

Actually, Godwin's Law states that as the length of any discussion increases, the probability of someone mentioning Hitler or Nazis approaches one.

Various corollaries people have attached to it (the debate is lost, the person doing the mentioning loses, yadda, yadda) are far more debatable. More importantly, they're not Godwin's law.

And, while such a mention is not relevant 99% of the time it's brought up, it is relevant in this case. We're talking about government control of speech and of thoughts, and mention of a government (though, I should point out, not by name, and from a person whose speeches were intended to refer to all totalitarian governments) which is well-known for that control, and for the brutal consequences stemming from that kind of self-protection, is entirely relevant. We like to think that those people were some kind of fiends; they weren't human; it couldn't happen here. But it's not true. They were people, just like us, and it could happen here. The only thing stopping any form of totalitarianism is the refusal of the citizens to be controlled in that fashion, and all too often, by the time the citizens have realized what's going on, it's too late.

Like the metaphorical boiled frog, it doesn't seem to be a bad thing when it starts. The Nazis didn't say they were going to institute a ruthless totalitarian state and drag their country into a doomed war. They said they were going to get benefits for war veterans. They said they were going to prevent Communists from seizing cities by force (yes, that had happened in Germany). They said they were going to take care of women and children. They said they were going to make life easier for the middle class. And they did all of that. If you look at the rise of the NSDAP, there is very little of significance they proposed that people would not gladly embrace today. People were not only willing but eager to trade essential liberty for a little temporary security. Do you know what took up most of the Gestapo's time? Sorting out the reports from people denouncing their neighbors. People are no different today. The only thing that stands between freedom and totalitarianism is vigilance -- our vigilance. Our unwillingness to succumb to the temptations of a silken slavery. Our saying "No, you cannot take that right."

Yes, Reverend Niemoller's words do matter. They mattered when he said them, and they matter today. They matter in this thread. This is exactly what he was talking about. And in a discussion of censorship and of prosecution of people for their words, it is foolish to ignore one of the past century's greatest examples of a regime that prosecuted people for their words.

Can I talk about Communists instead? How about the USSR authorities who locked dissidents in mental hospitals, because anyone who disagreed with the (loving, protective, giving) state had to be crazy? Are they allowed? Because that's another direction this situation can go. Someone talks about pedophilia, so he must be nuts ... so where else do we decide someone must be nuts? If you're religious, someone putting up atheist billboards must be nuts; if you're not religious, someone putting up religious billboards must be nuts. Are Satanists certifiable? I can see people on both sides agreeing with that. Where do we stop? Is all speech, all writing, except a narrowly-defined mainstream to be declared crazy, and its author de-facto imprisoned?

Over on Fark, I'm arguing with a truther. Possibly more than one, possibly just a few sock puppets, it's hard to tell. Personally, I think the guy is a few fries short of a Happy Meal; actually, he's missing the small drink, and there's some question about the toy. Should he be declared insane, or criminal? Should be be silenced? He has, in as many words, accused the US government of deliberately and intentionally murdering thousands of its own citizens. Should he be silenced because his opinions are out of the mainstream?

There is an old story, almost certainly apocryphal, about Sir Winston Churchill and any number of prominent actresses. According to the story, he asked her if she would sleep with him for a million pounds. She said of course. He asked if she would do it for a pound. Her answer was "What kind of woman do you think I am?" He answered, "We've already determined what kind of woman you are; now we're just haggling about the price." The same is true of silencing speech. If we say "you can't write about this subject" then we've agreed that we should not have freedom of speech; the only thing left to debate is where the line should be drawn. And when someone can draw the line where you want it, they can draw the line where they want it.

Where do we stop?

Who do they have to come for before we say "enough"?

I don't want to grant anyone the power to draw that line. That is an essential liberty I will not willingly give up.

[jezebel]

Originally Posted by kennyc

There is an entire thread (several actually) that I've been quite active in. Over in the Politics and Religion subforum.

Wait. What? There's a Politics and Religion subforum here? Where is it? Why am I not there?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by jezebel

Wait. What? There's a Politics and Religion subforum here? Where is it? Why am I not there?

I think it's a secret club. It's not listed on the front page.

[doreenjoy]

Originally Posted by jezebel

Wait. What? There's a Politics and Religion subforum here? Where is it? Why am I not there?

You need to PM a moderator and tell them that you want to participate in the forum.


See:
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=103942

[AGB]

Eh, just to be clear, worldwalker, I disagreed with the bloke trying to ban any reference to Nazis or in this case, ban any references that anyone "came for the Jews".

In other words, I agreed with the example, and I have argued what you just argued, only not in so many words, lol.

[boxcorner]

Originally Posted by recluse

... People who fear censorship are people who are doing something wrong.

Ergo people are guilty until proven innocent?

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

I think it's a secret club. It's not listed on the front page.

Apparently topics such as paedophilia and incest aren't considered to be controversial enough, but politics and religion are.

[Joebill]

If the book had been about how children and their parents can protect themselves from abduction and rape, I would speak out for the book. Even over objections by gvernment officials.

But it isn't, it is how to kidnap and rape children. This book has no other purpose.

This book being shutdown won't stop me from reading books that don't tell how to do such things. The person who wrote this garbage book should be thrown into prison, preferably via catapault.

The book is indefensable.

If someone feels stopping this book destroys their freedom of speech, then by all means, continue to defend it. I am not stopping anyone.

But I'm leaving this conversation as it is making me ill.

[Joebill]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

Actually, Godwin's Law states that as the length of any discussion increases, the probability of someone mentioning Hitler or Nazis approaches one.

Various corollaries people have attached to it (the debate is lost, the person doing the mentioning loses, yadda, yadda) are far more debatable. More importantly, they're not Godwin's law.

I was told, back in 1989, it was comparing other posters,email list people, to Adolf, etc. Otherwise discussions about WW2 would be Godwinized.