Amazon Defends Pedophile Book

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

I believe that this debate will be advanced by clearing up a conceptual confussion that has been implied but not clearly stated thus far. ....

Or maybe it just wasn't clear to you. Certainly this difference of opinion has been stated since the beginning of this thread (post # 8 for example: https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...32&postcount=8 which is about as clear as it can be) and that's what the majority of the disagreement/discussion has been about.

Thank you for restating it though.

[Andrew H.]

Concerning the legality issue, here's a post I made on Amazon's Kindle boards:

Anyone with any knowledge of 1st Amendment law knows that this book is not obscene.

The Miller test (from Miller v. California) exempts obscenity from the protection of the 1st Amendment. But obscenity is basically only hard-core pornography, which this book is not. To be found legally obscene, a work has to meet all three of these tests:

(1) The work must be, taken as a whole, erotically stimulating.
(2) The work must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct.
(3) The work must, taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

This book fails the first test because, (based on the descriptions of it I've seen) while it may have a couple of graphic passages, it must be, *taken as a whole*, erotically stimulating. If this book is a "how-to" manual, then it is not, *taken as a whole* erotically stimulating.

I haven't read explicit passages in the book, so I'll assume that they do meet the 2d test.

It doesn't matter whether the material is "harmful to children," whatever that means. Nor is this child pornography, as child porn only applies to pictures, films, videos, etc. featuring actual children. (Ferber v. NY).

The book also fails to meet the third test, as the book was apparently written to make the argument that sex between adults and underaged children should be permitted. I disagree with this argument, but it *is* a serious political argument - the fact that one doesn't like it doesn't make it nonserious or non-political.

With this in mind, the big question to me is the right of a law enforcement official to extradite and arrest someone for publishing a book that is clearly protected by the 1st Amendment. No matter how immoral people may find the subject matter of the book to be. The power to drag someone across the country and imprison them for something that isn't illegal does, in my mind, justify the Niemoller quote.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Concerning the legality issue, here's a post I made on Amazon's Kindle boards:


With this in mind, the big question to me is the right of a law enforcement official to extradite and arrest someone for publishing a book that is clearly protected by the 1st Amendment. No matter how immoral people may find the subject matter of the book to be. The power to drag someone across the country and imprison them for something that isn't illegal does, in my mind, justify the Niemoller quote.

Which is exactly why I hope he sues the hell outta Florida and that sheriff and others associated with this witch hunt lose their jobs.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

With this in mind, the big question to me is the right of a law enforcement official to extradite and arrest someone for publishing a book that is clearly protected by the 1st Amendment. No matter how immoral people may find the subject matter of the book to be. The power to drag someone across the country and imprison them for something that isn't illegal does, in my mind, justify the Niemoller quote.

Don't forget Mr Greaves' book was reviewed by the Florida State Attorney's Office and by Polk County Judge J. Michael McCarthy, who found probable cause to issue an arrest warrant. The County Sheriff didn't act alone.

Arraignment isn't until Jan 25, 2011 so we won't know until then if and when this goes to trial.

As to whether Mr Greaves' book is protected by the First Amendment, at the moment only a jury can decide. Can you imagine how difficult the jury selection for this case will be, if it comes to this?

Also, I am surprised that the ACLU and other civil liberty groups haven't offered to represent Mr Greaves. Instead he is relying on a public defender.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Fbone

Don't forget Mr Greaves' book was reviewed by the Florida State Attorney's Office and by Polk County Judge J. Michael McCarthy, who found probable cause to issue an arrest warrant. The County Sheriff didn't act alone.

Arraignment isn't until Jan 25, 2011 so we won't know until then if and when this goes to trial.

As to whether Mr Greaves' book is protected by the First Amendment, at the moment only a jury can decide. Can you imagine how difficult the jury selection for this case will be, if it comes to this?

Also, I am surprised that the ACLU and other civil liberty groups haven't offered to represent Mr Greaves. Instead he is relying on a public defender.

Yes, that all does seem a bit strange, public defender, agreed to extradition etc. Maybe he's looking to be a martyr. Plus no bail attempt or no funds available...

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6BL48E20101222

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Fbone

Don't forget Mr Greaves' book was reviewed by the Florida State Attorney's Office and by Polk County Judge J. Michael McCarthy, who found probable cause to issue an arrest warrant. The County Sheriff didn't act alone.

True enough about the judge. The attorney general's role in extradition is only to review the paperwork and forward it to the other state; there is no independent verification of the facts underlying the crime.

Arraignment isn't until Jan 25, 2011 so we won't know until then if and when this goes to trial.

As to whether Mr Greaves' book is protected by the First Amendment, at the moment only a jury can decide. Can you imagine how difficult the jury selection for this case will be, if it comes to this?

Also, I am surprised that the ACLU and other civil liberty groups haven't offered to represent Mr Greaves. Instead he is relying on a public defender.

It looks like a trial is the next step. The ACLU never does criminal cases. But I would imagine a pro-bono 1st Amendment lawyer will eventually do the case.

[Pushka]

Originally Posted by boxcorner

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

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

My point, which I have made several times at this point, is that the tendency to constantly invoke the Nazis whenever one discusses disturbing political trends betrays a lack of the imaginations and of historical consciousness.

Except that nobody mentioned Nazis.

One poster quoted a man who (eventually) opposed the Nazis, giving a quote from him that postdates WWII and appears, from context, to refer to any and all totalitarian regimes. That wasn't invoking Nazis. That wasn't even mentioning Nazis. It wasn't even remotely like "if you disagree with me, you must be a Nazi." It was a famous quote about censorship, in a thread about censorship, and I can think of no place that quote would be more apropos, nor any quote that would be more apropos to this thread. It encapsulates everything that a lot of people have been saying: outlawing thoughts, ideas, and political positions has a creeping effect, and if we don't oppose it, eventually it creeps right down to us. Reverend Niemoller said it better.

We cannot excise that period from history. We cannot say that, in a discussion of censorship, we will pretend that 12 years of increasingly extreme censorship never existed. We can't make it go away because we don't like those particular censors. If a quote is appropriate to the subject -- and there is no question in most people's minds that quote was -- it should not be suppressed because it referred (among others) to a regime whose name gets thrown around as an insult by random idiots.

How are we supposed to talk about censorship without the words of those of the past who opposed it? It can't be discussed in a vacuum, without reference to those who have endured it. Those people are naturally connected to those who censored them -- it could not be otherwise. If we are to reject all quotes from those who were ever censored, who would we have left?

I reiterate: Nobody "constantly" referred to Nazis. One person posted a famous quote about censorship. If the man quoted had survived any other time period, any other place, any other government, would the quote have been inappropriate in your eyes? If no ... then it was not wrong. And it wasn't.

[doreenjoy]

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore
My point, which I have made several times at this point, is that the tendency to constantly invoke the Nazis whenever one discusses disturbing political trends betrays a lack of the imaginations and of historical consciousness.

I believe you've made your point often enough that most of us understand it.

However, here is the point you may have missed -- The quote was not posted to "invoke the Nazis." The quote was posted to illustrate the slippery slope of censorship.

Originally Posted by Fbone

Also, I am surprised that the ACLU and other civil liberty groups haven't offered to represent Mr Greaves. Instead he is relying on a public defender.

I believe it's because these are criminal charges, not civil.

Many years ago a friend of mine distributed some artwork that was deemed "obscene" (IMO it wasn't, it was a big canvas of disembodied penises) and he was arrested for "distributing prurient materials to minors." The ACLU said they couldn't help because the charges were criminal. (BTW he got off with a hung jury; the DA decided not to re-try the case).

[Fbone]

Thanks for the responses. I was unaware that the ACLU and similar organizations avoid criminal cases. Which I'm sure Polk County was aware of.

[tubemonkey]

I find it amazing that people who generally support these types of prosecutions have no trouble throwing tax dollars at it. Yet, just try to use tax dollars to feed the poor or provide medical care for those who can't afford it and they go ballistic. Talk about a twisted sense of morality.

[boxcorner]

Godwin's law apart, sometimes during these lengthy discussions posters invoke more real law - the First Amendment - and defend Freedom of speech in the United States. These links might prove helpful, for those who live outside the US, in case any aspects of this particular democracy appear rather arcane.

[kennyc]

Good point boxcorner.

[NightGeometry]

Originally Posted by boxcorner

These links might prove helpful, for those who live outside the US, in case any aspects of this particular democracy appear rather arcane.

I'm not from the USA so I'm probably wrong, but I didn't think you were a democracy. I thought you were a federal constitutional republic, with a representative government.



(Completely irrelevant to the discussion, and close to trolling, sorry).

[kennyc]

Republic. Yes a republic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republic

"I pledge allegiance to the flag and the Republic for which it stands..."