Amazon Defends Pedophile Book

[abookreader]

I'm not saying that book is erotica.

But I do own books where some groups people in the United States would morally object to the contents. Some of them feel just as strongly about the contents of certain books I own as you feel about the pedophilia. And as I said before --- there are books on Amazon (much better written books) that deal with the exact same subject matter. In fictionalized and non-fiction form. Are we going to start a witch hunt?

If Amazon pulls this book from their buyers Kindles because it contains morally objectionable material - where are you going to put that line? Are we going going to encourage certain factions in the United States (and we all know they exist) to start up campaigns encouraging Amazon to start deleting Kindle libraries of books they hate?

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

It's not yet over. It won't be over until the book is no longer showing up in a search. Sure, it's not for sale, but it shows up in a search.



It might be just enough to push someone over the edge. A lot of people walk a fine line and it may not take much to cross that line. And this book says it's trying to help the pedophile get a liter (author's word) sentence.

the title is still there and shows up in a search sure, but you cannot buy it. it might have to do with software issues that it needs to have a virtual presence cconnected to the item. they have made it impossible to purchase it, no one else will be able to get their kindles on it.

I unfortunately know one pedophile all to well and have spent a great deal of time talking to therapists because of that knowledge. pedophiles have very little self control which is why many of them choose chemical castration after incarceration as they know they cannot control their impulses. if they are going to act on their impulses, they will act. a book is NOT going to push them over the edge

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

The Poor Man's James Bond my friend Andy bought that book when we were in high school. We spent a lot of time after that making little grenades out of co2 cartridges, experimenting with potassium and water, making rockets that exploded on impact and Andy even made some crude napalm that really burned for a long time.

should they sell that? or Anarchist's cookbook ?

I will defend the rights of innocent children not to be harmed by sexual predators. Those other books while I disagree with them are not in the same category. I disagree with the content, but I will not advocate for them to be removed.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

the title is still there and shows up in a search sure, but you cannot buy it. it might have to do with software issues that it needs to have a virtual presence connected to the item. they have made it impossible to purchase it, no one else will be able to get their kindles on it.

I unfortunately know one pedophile all to well and have spent a great deal of time talking to therapists because of that knowledge. pedophiles have very little self control which is why many of them choose chemical castration after incarceration as they know they cannot control their impulses. if they are going to act on their impulses, they will act. a book is NOT going to push them over the edge

It may be a software issue. But then why can't Amazon at the least go in and change the entry so that when it is searched for it won't come up?

There is no way to know what it is that pushes someone to molest a child. Yes it is a sickness. But how do we know the book may not be able to tip someone to cross that line? We don't. Nobody can know.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

It may be a software issue. But then why can't Amazon at the least go in and change the entry so that when it is searched for it won't come up?

There is no way to know what it is that pushes someone to molest a child. Yes it is a sickness. But how do we know the book may not be able to tip someone to cross that line? We don't. Nobody can know.

I'm not Amazon, I don't know.

I do have first hand knowledge of pedophilia and pedophiles, probably a bit more than you do, and know what makes them tick. you are buying trouble and throwing up false scenarios

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

Jon, Amazon has pulled the book. get off the soapbox. you're disturbed by it, most of us ARE disturbed by it. it's disgusting, frightening, beyond reproach, but it is not our place to dictate what people can say

It is our place, however, to freely approve or disapprove of what people say, and to express our beliefs through our pocketbooks. It is our place to be outraged by the outrageous.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by abookreader

I'm not saying that book is erotica.

But I do own books where some groups people in the United States would morally object to the contents. Some of them feel just as strongly about the contents of certain books I own as you feel about the pedophilia. And as I said before --- there are books on Amazon (much better written books) that deal with the exact same subject matter. In fictionalized and non-fiction form. Are we going to start a witch hunt?

If Amazon pulls this book from their buyers Kindles because it contains morally objectionable material - where are you going to put that line? Are we going going to encourage certain factions in the United States (and we all know they exist) to start up campaigns encouraging Amazon to start deleting Kindle libraries of books they hate?

You did use the term erotica. Maybe that was just a poor choice of words.

I know it's getting even a slipperier slope to remove it from Kindles/accounts. But If it's no longer going to be sold because of the content, then it should be removed. If it's not to be sold for any other reason, then let it be.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

Jon, Amazon has pulled the book. get off the soapbox. you're disturbed by it, most of us ARE disturbed by it. it's disgusting, frightening, beyond reproach, but it is not our place to dictate what people can say

We cannot yell FIRE! in a movie theater. Why? It's free speech. But we can sell a how-to-guide on how to molest kids? How is that right?

[Catlady]

Just an FYI. The Smoking Gun interviewed the author yesterday, at which point he claimed to have sold exactly one copy of the book. Here's the link.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Just an FYI. The Smoking Gun interviewed the author yesterday, at which point he claimed to have sold exactly one copy of the book. Here's the link.

Maybe only one copy was sold at the time of the interview. But the book eventually sold enough to make it to the #96th top Kindle book.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

We cannot yell FIRE! in a movie theater. Why? It's free speech. But we can sell a how-to-guide on how to molest kids? How is that right?

Take it up with your Congressman; not Amazon.

[Dulin's Books]

D&D has everything to do with it. Look at the efforts to ban it in the 80s. The claims were that it made kids depressed , antisocial, suicidal, devil worshiping weirdos. The truth of course is that most kids who played it were FINE. But a small percentage who already had some personality disorders were affected negatively by playing the game.

Same as this book - its disgusting filth that wont cause most people to agree that pedophilia is okay and to go out and start rounding up little kids. but there probably is some pedo that is on the edge between whats going on in his head and acting it out that will, after reading the book, go out and act.

you're right-Im a parent and you're right i dont want anyone getting ideas about my kids after reading this filth. but i also know that its the person and not the book. i dont want the government stopping the publishing of ideas, even ones i find abhorrent, because then they might decide my ideas need stopped as well.

I agree that there has to be some protection to keep kids from seeing stuff like this. But adults can make their own decisions. IT might even be good for some psychologists/psychiatrists/law makers/ DA's etc etc to read this work so they can better understand the mind of the people they are dealing with.

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

If you aren't outraged by this......if you can't see the difference between something that "offends" and something that is totally unacceptable, you are part of the problem.

Of course I'm outraged by this. I've already gotten yelled at once for what I said about spammers, so I'm not going to even start on what I think should happen to pedophiles; I'd probably get banned for that one. But that isn't the issue.

The issue is what words we think shouldn't be said. What words are too dangerous for other people to read (and it's never "I'm not going to read that"; it's always "nobody else can read that"). I'm a bit of an extremist here: I don't think anyone should be in the position of deciding that there are such words, or what they are.

For example, there is right now in Uganda a bill (I don't think it's a law yet) which makes homosexuality punishable by death. Look at that again: DEATH. If you're gay in Uganda, you can be imprisoned for years right now, and if this bill passes, the government can kill you. They have decided that they are find homosexuality so offensive that it's worthy of execution. As much as I dislike "slippery slope" arguments because they're often not grounded in fact, it is indeed a short step from "you can't talk about it" to "you can't do it". So where do we draw the line? And who draws it?

Let's say that all right-thinking people agree that you can't write books advocating pedophilia. On the face of it, that seems reasonable. We could probably get 99% of the people out there to agree with that (and most of the other 1% would be people like me, not pedophiles). Now, what about gay rights? There are a lot of people who think the way the government of Uganda thinks. Look at the books that are removed from libraries and schools because of those people. They're already deciding what other people should read. Is that where the line should be drawn? What about your favorite conspiracy theorist ... maybe the crazy rainbow lady ... and the books they don't think people should read. Do they get to draw the line?

That's what I have a problem with: giving someone the right to decide, especially based on public opinion, what books I'm allowed to buy or read. Some people say I shouldn't be able to buy books on pedophilia. Well, that's no issue to me, because I've never wanted to, and I'd probably wash my brain out with bleach if the thought ever crossed my mind. But what happens when they say I shouldn't buy books on whatever else they happen to dislike? Those people in Uganda, for instance, would seem to be more outraged by homosexuality than by pedophilia; I'm sure we could point fingers at people in certain religious groups whose actions, at least, show that they feel the same way. Do they get to decide? What about the people who think I shouldn't have access to books about evolution? Or books that disparage their favorite political party? Or books that say their religion (or lack thereof) is a crock?

When we draw the line *here* and say "books about pedophilia are bad, but books about gay rights are good" we open the door to people who want to move that line. People who will move the line to the other side of whatever THEY happen to dislike. And that's not a position I want to be in.

Pedophilia is illegal. We have penalties for people who engage in it. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't make it doesn't make it go away. But saying what books people are allowed to read starts a precedent which may, in the end, lead to something far more dangerous than pedophilia. It leads to China and Uganda and our own past. I am far more terrified by having pressure groups decide what I can read than the occasional sicko who is already violating numerous laws reading a book that tells him it's okay to be sick.

Again: Where do we draw the line? Who do we allow to draw it? If it's okay to pressure Amazon to not sell this book, is it okay for people (sometimes the same people) to pressure their public or school library not to lend a book they dislike? We'd like to think that "Amazon can't sell a book on pedophilia" and "My school district can't own a book on gay rights" are two totally different things ... after all, one's about something illegal and the other's about something legal (except not in Uganda), right? Except ... they're not.

Something else to think about: there are worse things than pedophilia. Murder, for instance. You can never recover from being murdered. Check how many different versions of the Anarchist's Coookbook can be found on Amazon. Aside from the fact that some of the "recipes" will kill you if you try them, that book explains how to murder people. But you can buy it. Should we ban that, too? It's advocating the worst crime there is. Except maybe mass murder. Better ban Mein Kampf too. And there are people who say the Bible is a blueprint for mass murder; the Canaanites came out on the short end of the stick, after all. Should we ban that? Where do we stop?

And that, I think, is the bottom line: Where do we stop? When we say "other people can't read this book because I disagree with what's in it" -- whatever that content may be -- then we're starting a juggernaut rolling that may not go where we want it to. I think that's a very, very bad idea.

[LDBoblo]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

D&D has nothing to do with this issue. So let's please leave out the irrelevant.

You honestly feel that if your child was molested by someone who read the book that you would stand up in a court of law and say to the world, "I feel this book should still be allowed to be sold at Amazon and I will defend it to my last dying breath."

Yes, but it requires no such drama as you are trying to convey. The book is a book. Your personal association of book with crime is not one that I would make, even in a highly emotional state.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Maybe only one copy was sold at the time of the interview. But the book eventually sold enough to make it to the #96th top Kindle book.

I didn't know that, but I suspect there were a lot of sales to reporters who were writing about the controversy. If you check Google, you'll see stories worldwide on this.

Anyway, my main reason for posting the link was that it provided some background on the author, who is a former mental patient.