At a loss for words...

[EagleFan]

Amazon no longer selling guide for pedophiles | 6abc.com (http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news%2Fnational_world&id=7780127)

I don't even know what to say at this point. That man deserves to be beaten to a bloody lifeless pulp (along with the "publisher" that is defending the book as "free speach"). I don't even know how Amazon can stoop to allowing something like that to be sold on their site to begin with.

[stevew]

I'm interested on Skspr's take on this.

[panerd]

I save my outrage for the Catholic Church who didn't protect a book but a bunch of people who actually went through with the rapes. I hope the backlash against Amazon is huge but I would rather some of the clergy are beat to a bloody lifeless pulp. I really don't think the pedophiles need a book to tell them what to do.

[EagleFan]

I save my outrage for the Catholic Church who didn't protect a book but a bunch of people who actually went through with the rapes. I hope the backlash against Amazon is huge but I would rather some of the clergy are beat to a bloody lifeless pulp. I really don't think the pedophiles need a book to tell them what to do.

My outrage is against the author of the book.

[RedKingGold]

I sense much generalizing will eminate from this thread.

[panerd]

As far as the book goes who would actually order one of these anyways? It sounds like a sting operation to me. Would somebody actually oder something like this to their house or a PO box?

[SirFozzie]

It was an e-book, and 1 of the top 100 sellers on Amazon's ebook list.

Freedom of Speech becomes Freedom to Sell, becomes Freedom to be fucking Idiotic.

[DanGarion]

Completely don't agree with the content, but what about freedom of speech?

[Autumn]

Didn't Amazon get a bunch of flak a while back for censoring something on the site. I think they went back and changed some of their policies, so I wonder if this wasn't a result of that one way or another.

[-apoc-]

I have no problem with this book being sold on amazon. Of course I expect to be in the minority on this. That being said I hate the idea of censorship of any kind no matter how disgusting the subject content is.

[Alan T]

Regarding those quoting right to free speech, here is a small snippet from a wikipedia article regarding the famous "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example from the famouse Supreme court case that helped define how far free speech is taken too far:

Holmes, writing for a unanimous majority, ruled that it was illegal to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war. Holmes wrote:
<dl><dd>The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.</dd></dl> Holmes wrote of falsely shouting fire, because, of course, if there were a fire in a crowded theater, one may rightly indeed shout "Fire!"; one may, depending on the law in operation, even be obliged to. Falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, i.e. shouting "Fire!" when one believes there to be no fire in order to cause panic, was interpreted not to be protected by the First Amendment.
The First Amendment holding in Schenck was later overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). The test in Brandenburg is the current High Court jurisprudence on the ability of government to proscribe speech after that fact. Despite Schenck being limited, the phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" has since come to be known as synonymous with an action that the speaker believes goes beyond the rights guaranteed by free speech, reckless or malicious speech, or an action whose outcomes are blatantly obvious.



Maybe it is just because I am a parent with three daughters, the oldest of which is about to turn 10 that makes me very sensitive to the issue regarding this ebook. I obviously have not read this book and thus am assuming on what the contents of this book would reference. However what I am assuming this book is covering very clearly to me enters the area of:

The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

There are many "evil" things in my mind out there, but pedophilia is pretty high up there in my own personal list of evil deeds, so a book that encourages or assists in the act is just as bad as shouting fire in a crowded theater in my opinion.

I realize that my opinion on this might be far more extreme then what most people would expect from me due to my normal moderateness on most issues, but I honestly live terrified thinking about how to protect my daughters in the world out there over the next 5-10 years, so things like this really bother me.

[Buccaneer]

Completely don't agree with the content, but what about freedom of speech?

What is the source of this "freedom of speech" and what does it say?

[MrBug708]

This was all over facebook

[DanGarion]

What is the source of this "freedom of speech" and what does it say?

I dunno, I'm too lazy to look right now. :p

[RainMaker]

Does Amazon go through and approve every book put through the system? I know that some of the copyright laws actually discourage a site from approving things in advance. So could this have just been a case of some guy putting up a book and it taking some time to be brought to Amazon's attention?

[Ksyrup]

There are many "evil" things in my mind out there, but pedophilia is pretty high up there in my own personal list of evil deeds, so a book that encourages or assists in the act is just as bad as shouting fire in a crowded theater in my opinion.

It's been a loooong time since my Con Law days, but as I recall, "clear and present danger" has got to be something immediate - yelling fire in a crowded theater can obviously cause an immediate panic and trampling. A book's contents are typically considered to be benign in this respect, because there is no immediacy of action. Which is why books like this or how to build a bomb or how to plan a murder, etc., are protected.

Now, if this guy had a group of pedophiles and he was inciting them to go find some children to rape, then that would likely not be protected. But even that has its gray areas and would require a fact-specific analysis.

As far as Amazon, they have every right to sell the book, and as a private company, they have every right to not sell the book (the "freedom of speech" argument is illusory since it doesn't force them to offer it). And their customers can react to their decision accordingly. That's the American way, right?

When I first heard about this last week, I think, the article I read said there is another very similar book that is also for sale, and apparently is still on the site despite this one being taken down.

[Autumn]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/emma-rubysachs/amazon-censors-gay-books_b_186153.html

This is the story I was thinking about. Amazon caught a lot of flak for this, and I don't remember what policy changes, if any, they instituted. But I would guess that they decided to be much more hands-off. And are now going to wish they hadn't.

Frankly, the book may be disgusting but I would rather have Amazon selling horrific books than making decisions about what they are going to make available. We can all agree on pedophilia, but there are plenty of other things (see above issue) that we won't agree on. A system like Amazon's is a powerful tool for the world in that people can share information that might be repressed in much of the world. This sort of controversy is the flip side of that. I think that openness and freedom of information helps more than it harms in the long run.

Let me say if this was a small local bookstore I'd be fine with them not stocking something like this. It's the size and reach of Amazon, and their addition of self publishing, which puts them in a new category.

[RainMaker]

I understand the slippery slope argument of censoring books from your store, but come on. There should be some common sense here too. If you have a how-to-guide to fucking kids, I think we can excuse the slippery slope for a minute and pull it off the shelves.

[Sun Tzu]

Wait wait...someone ruled that you can't distribute anti-draft propaganda during war-time? You're kidding right?

PS: I'm 100% for free speech throughout the world. If a guy wants to write a book on how to rape albino gorillas, great...good for him. It doesn't affect my life in any way, so why should I care?

[JPhillips]

Amazon is a private company and they can sell whatever they like. It's an ebook, so it's not like it couldn't be put in another format and sold elsewhere or by the author. The guy has every right to write it and Amazon has every right to sell it or not sell it. Customers and the general public can then take that decision into account when choosing who to buy from.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

So for those who feel that he has the right to sell a book that is presumably a how-to guide on being a child molester, would it also be ok to sell a book about torturing and murdering the author of a book on being a child molester using his real address and many details one might be able to use, such as how to pick the exact model locks?

[JPhillips]

No, because you're using his real address. If you want to write a how-to on killing any author of such books, I'd be fine with that.

[Passacaglia]

I dunno, I'm too lazy to look right now. :p

"Well, I guess that's my cue to leave!" -- James Madison

[Toddzilla]

not selling a book + "at a loss for words" = worst pun EVER

[Autumn]

I'm guessing nobody really saw the book at Amazon ... it was an e-book right? They have a self-publishing system and I'm sure you just sign some disclaimer saying you meet all their guidelines. I wonder how many new books they get in a day? I'm too lazy to look, but has Amazon commented on this at all?

I think this argument is almost 20th century. Going forward with decentralized publication there is going to be less and less central control or editing over what is available. I mean what's the difference between this e-book and 100 web sites there are probably out there detailing the same information? Yes, Amazon could make the decision not to publish this, but in reality in the 21st century keeping things from being published is no longer going to be an option. That's amazing news for people in China who can learn what's really going on in the world, or someone in a Third World country who has better access to information. The flip side is a lack of privacy and a lack of control for the rest of us. We're not going to stop crimes in the 21st century by limiting information.

[Lathum]

PS: I'm 100% for free speech throughout the world. If a guy wants to write a book on how to rape albino gorillas, great...good for him. It doesn't affect my life in any way, so why should I care?

Until it is your albino gorilla that gets raped...

[Lathum]

dola- KSyrup summed up my thoughts on it. I don't really see how anyones freedom of speech is being limited. Amazon is choosing to not sell the product, which is well within their right.

[Alan T]

We're not going to stop crimes in the 21st century by limiting information.

Quick research on the subject seems to indicate that pedophilia is something that no cure has been found for, so instead it is commonly treated like an addiction. Ie: the way it is treated is by limiting the exposure to the temptations that cause the addict from craving it.

Sounds like a person who is struggling with smoking or drinking or drug or other addictions, but in this case it is not just that person who's life might be destroyed by the addiction, but instead young kids.


So preventing things like this e-book is similar to preventing someone from driving drunk. You have a requirement to try to remove the items in society that provide 0, absolutely zero value and 100 percent harm that would be done to other innocent people.

[DanGarion]

dola- KSyrup summed up my thoughts on it. I don't really see how anyones freedom of speech is being limited. Amazon is choosing to not sell the product, which is well within their right.

I'm not worried about Amazon selling or not selling the product. I'm more worried about those that think a product like this shouldn't be allowed period.

Just because I don't agree with something doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed, regardless of it being in bad taste.

[JPhillips]

Quick research on the subject seems to indicate that pedophilia is something that no cure has been found for, so instead it is commonly treated like an addiction. Ie: the way it is treated is by limiting the exposure to the temptations that cause the addict from craving it.

Sounds like a person who is struggling with smoking or drinking or drug or other addictions, but in this case it is not just that person who's life might be destroyed by the addiction, but instead young kids.


So preventing things like this e-book is similar to preventing someone from driving drunk. You have a requirement to try to remove the items in society that provide 0, absolutely zero value and 100 percent harm that would be done to other innocent people.

Who gets to decide what has zero value?

[Rizon]

Akbar thinks it's a trap.

[Alan T]

Who gets to decide what has zero value?


What value do you feel this book has?

[JPhillips]

Haven't read it, just as I suspect you haven't. I have a great suspicion, though, of people who claim to know what has zero value to society.

[EagleFan]

I am shocked that so many peoplpe are trying to defend this waste of flesh author. There comes a time when commen sense needs to win out but I guess that is not in the equation for many...

Fine, then defend my freedom of speech for saying that this author needs to be bludgeoned to death!

[EagleFan]

Haven't read it, just as I suspect you haven't. I have a great suspicion, though, of people who claim to know what has zero value to society.

I have great suspicion of people that would defend someone like this author.

[EagleFan]

I understand the slippery slope argument of censoring books from your store, but come on. There should be some common sense here too. If you have a how-to-guide to fucking kids, I think we can excuse the slippery slope for a minute and pull it off the shelves.

+1

[JPhillips]

How am I defending the author? I'm just saying that the government has no right to censor such work and private companies have a right to choose to sell it or not sell it.

[Alan T]

Haven't read it, just as I suspect you haven't. I have a great suspicion, though, of people who claim to know what has zero value to society.


I'm not sure why you are choosing to attack me personally. What did I say about you or to you to warrant that?

I don't understand why you are taking my distaste for this book so personally.

[Rizon]

I thought government censorship didn't apply to writings about how to commit a federal crime? I thought it was similar to holding a sign that says "there is a cop around the corner".

[Lathum]

Haven't read it, just as I suspect you haven't. I have a great suspicion, though, of people who claim to know what has zero value to society.

So what exactly is the value of this book?

[JPhillips]

I'm not sure why you are choosing to attack me personally. What did I say about you or to you to warrant that?

I don't understand why you are taking my distaste for this book so personally.

I don't mean to attack you. I do have a concern for censoring books based on zero value to society. Who gets to determine that and even if we determine their is zero value, why should that matter?

I guess I see this in a similar vein to banning violent video games because of the threat of real acts of violence.

[JPhillips]

So what exactly is the value of this book?

So what exactly is the proof that there is no value?

Given that none of us has read it, we could play this game all day.

[Passacaglia]

So what exactly is the value of this book?

We don't know anymore, they took it off the market.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I am shocked that so many peoplpe are trying to defend this waste of flesh author.

Who is defending the author of the book? Or are you just eager to get your outrage on?

[Alan T]

I don't mean to attack you. I do have a concern for censoring books based on zero value to society. Who gets to determine that and even if we determine their is zero value, why should that matter?

I guess I see this in a similar vein to banning violent video games because of the threat of real acts of violence.


Like I mentioned in my first post, this is an unusual cause for me to champion, so perhaps I'm just not doing a good job of it. I don't personally liken this to video games at all though, since there is no clear cut proof that playing video game ----> committing a crime. Plus there is some value founded that is positive to society in the form of entertainment for people playing it.

I don't see the two things as an apple to apple comparison in my opinion.

I just feel in this case common sense clearly tells us that a book like this is no good at all, and can only cause harm to others. I don't have the answers that you are asking on how to determine on a case by case basis what does and does not have value, but I feel there is something broken somewhere if we don't have a way to define laws that can protect innocent people's right to free speech while still protecting innocent kids at the same time.

[Autumn]

I don't think anyone is claiming that Amazon doesn't have the right to "censor" the book by not selling it. Of course they do. And if they had I predict there would have been no outcry.

AlanT, I can see your "temptation" angle, though I'm not sure I'd want to take that very far. But given as you say the zero value this book supposedly holds to the rest of the world, that's a reasonable argument. It doesn't stretch much farther than that though.

And again, I'm sure the same information is available 100 places on the Web. If a company has a quick simple way to remove this content, as Amazon does here, sure. But we're not going to be willing to implement the measures necessary to remove all similar content from the public sphere, so it's not really a solution.

[JPhillips]

Like I mentioned in my first post, this is an unusual cause for me to champion, so perhaps I'm just not doing a good job of it. I don't personally liken this to video games at all though, since there is no clear cut proof that playing video game ----> committing a crime. Plus there is some value founded that is positive to society in the form of entertainment for people playing it.

But I could say the same thing about this book. There is also no proof that reading a book ----> committing a crime. Certainly not everyone who purchased the book is going to commit a crime, so for some it was just entertainment. It may be entertainment I find repulsive, but I don't get to determine what is or isn't worthwhile entertainment.

Again, I don't mind Amazon refusing to sell it and if I owned a distribution company I wouldn't sell it. However, there's a big difference IMO between a private business refusing to distribute and a government banning the publication.

[JediKooter]

First of all: WTF?

Second, is the content actually what the title of the book says? Yes, in the linked article there were some snipits from the book, but, is it possible it could be satire?

Third, I don't think this is a 1st amendment issue. It's more of a private company having the right to chose what they want and don't want to sell. The author of the book does not appear to be hindered by any government officials from trying to sell the book.

Fourth, sounds like Amazon needs a better vetting process for what it sells.

Either way, you have the 'right' to write whatever you want, no matter how disgusting it is. Just don't be upset if you are shunned and ridiculed by society though or aren't as popular as you think are.

[Alan T]

But I could say the same thing about this book. There is also no proof that reading a book ----> committing a crime. Certainly not everyone who purchased the book is going to commit a crime, so for some it was just entertainment. It may be entertainment I find repulsive, but I don't get to determine what is or isn't worthwhile entertainment.

Again, I don't mind Amazon refusing to sell it and if I owned a distribution company I wouldn't sell it. However, there's a big difference IMO between a private business refusing to distribute and a government banning the publication.


I have a really hard time understanding what entertainment someone would get from this book unless they as well also suffered from a form of mental illness similar to pedophilia. In that case I would be concerned their reading of this book would lead to the same result as a pediophiliac reading this book. That goes back to my earlier post which was my take or understanding of how people who have a problem with pedophilia are treated since there isn't a cure for it. That treatment is the avoidance of temptation such as this book or child pornography, or hanging around a school, etc.

A parallel example of the differences I am describing here is: giving someone a video game "Red Dead Redemption" is very unlikely to lead someone to going out and riding a horse around with a shotgun. While leaving a beer next to an alcoholic would likely result in them drinking the beer.

[JPhillips]

But, while it may make you an asshole, it's not illegal to leave a beer next to an alcoholic. That's where I'd put this author, an asshole, but doing something that should be legal.

[Autumn]

Right, Alan, if it could be demonstrated that it was danger to the public to expose pedophiles to this material, then you could argue it was similar to drunk driving. We as a society curtail somebody's right to alcoholic entertainment when it comes to getting behind the wheel, because now it's fucking with us.

I think that only works though if you can argue that the book has 0 value to the rest of society. If this was How To Molest Children: The Novel I don't think your argument could work, because now it's in a category with the rest of media and literature, much of which could be said to tempt pedophiles while still being useful to the rest of us.

And again, you could remove it from Amazon but they can just host a Web site, or rewrite it as a satire or a novel. We're going to have to find a better way to combat pedophilia if we want to make a real difference.

[panerd]

I have to side with JPhillips here as none of us has read the book. So we are in outrage and wanting to censor something we haven't read. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I stick by what I posted earlier in the thread that it certainly isn't in Amazon's best interest to sell this book and I can't imagine who would want to read it but along the lines of the Anarchist’s Cookbook and even some of the recent books on Atheism who decides where the line is drawn?

[JediKooter]

and even some of the recent books on Atheism who decides where the line is drawn?

Huh??????

[markprior22]

Wait wait...someone ruled that you can't distribute anti-draft propaganda during war-time? You're kidding right?

PS: I'm 100% for free speech throughout the world. If a guy wants to write a book on how to rape albino gorillas, great...good for him. It doesn't affect my life in any way, so why should I care?

I think you should care because our society used to have morals that most people tried to uphold even if they weren't written laws. Over the past 25 yrs or so, we have people whose main purpose seems to be to see how far they can push the envelope or what slimy "rights" they can sue for. People that bury their head in the sand because "it doesn't affect me" add to the problem

[Sun Tzu]

Did someone really just say that whether books on atheism should be banned is debatable?

[stevew]

I'd have no problem with writings advocating how to have less harmful sexual relations with a child classified under the umbrella of kiddie porn. But right now the book isn't illegal. We should save our outrage for PA QBs that wear a #7 jersey and Dave Meggett.

[Sun Tzu]

I think you should care because our society used to have morals that most people tried to uphold even if they weren't written laws. Over the past 25 yrs or so, we have people whose main purpose seems to be to see how far they can push the envelope or what slimy "rights" they can sue for. People that bury their head in the sand because "it doesn't affect me" add to the problem

Oh ok...so people pushing the envelope on their "rights" is a relatively new thing? I had no idea.

[JediKooter]

Did someone really just say that whether books on atheism should be banned is debatable?

That's what it sounded like, but, in interest of being fair, I wouldn't mind some clarification and hopefully that the atheist books in question have been read by that person to actually have an informed opinion instead of anecdotal, 3rd hand info. I will gather a guess of two names that will come up: Dawkins and Hitchens.

[Passacaglia]

Oh ok...so people pushing the envelope on their "rights" is a relatively new thing? I had no idea.

I blame Live Aid.

[JediKooter]

stevew wins!

[Mustang]

Did someone really just say that whether books on atheism should be banned is debatable?

The only person that said anything about atheism was panerd and I think he was trying to say the anarchists cookbook and some books on atheism were banned so who ultimately decides the ban.

At least that is what I got from it...

[markprior22]

Oh ok...so people pushing the envelope on their "rights" is a relatively new thing? I had no idea.

Yep, that's clearly all that's going on here. Here's what I'm saying in a nutshell.

I'm all for being able to write any damn book a person wants. Stores can make a choice on whether or not to sell the book (in these days of ebooks, that is a little trickier). However, it wasn't that long ago that a great majority of people would be more interested in "that guy is sick and anyone who wants to read or sell that book should be ashamed." Now the debate is over the guy's rights. That's just where we are as a society and, in my opinion, that is sad. You, of course have a right to your own opinion, etc and that is cool. I'm just not a PC type of guy.

[JonInMiddleGA]

However, it wasn't that long ago that a great majority of people would be more interested in "that guy is sick and anyone who wants to read or sell that book should be ashamed." Now the debate is over the guy's rights. That's just where we are as a society and, in my opinion, that is sad. You, of course have a right to your own opinion, etc and that is cool. I'm just not a PC type of guy.

FTR, markprior22 and I are not the same person, but I'll gladly endorse the quote above.

[MrBug708]

Amazon is apparently the answer to the question "Who'll think of the children?"

[Lathum]

I have to side with JPhillips here as none of us has read the book. So we are in outrage and wanting to censor something we haven't read.

Has anyone in this thread suggested the book be censored?

[JPhillips]

Yep, that's clearly all that's going on here. Here's what I'm saying in a nutshell.

I'm all for being able to write any damn book a person wants. Stores can make a choice on whether or not to sell the book (in these days of ebooks, that is a little trickier). However, it wasn't that long ago that a great majority of people would be more interested in "that guy is sick and anyone who wants to read or sell that book should be ashamed." Now the debate is over the guy's rights. That's just where we are as a society and, in my opinion, that is sad. You, of course have a right to your own opinion, etc and that is cool. I'm just not a PC type of guy.

Wait, so now PC means standing up for the right of people to say things that are deemed objectionable?

[JPhillips]

Perhaps I misinterpreted, but I certainly found this:

You have a requirement to try to remove the items in society that provide 0, absolutely zero value and 100 percent harm that would be done to other innocent people.

to be an argument for censorship.

[Alan T]

Wait, so now PC means standing up for the right of people to say things that are deemed objectionable?


I wasn't the one who made the PC quote, but I think I can understand what he is saying here. I personally am feeling frustrated with this discussion where it can go from me expressing my disgust about this pedophilia instructional manual and my fear for my daughters and have people turn it around and equate it to me wanting to ban video games.

One of the reasons I usually stay out of these type of debates is the same groups of people seem to bunker down on their individual sides of the issue and argue more about slippery slopes and how amazon not selling this book would be the same thing as telling kids they can't play video games.

I just don't understand why people can't just call a spade a spade and say this is a disgusting book that has no place in society. I honestly don't think anyone will be able to provide a single valid good reason why this book should even exist other than the only reason being to not allow their opposing side an inch into their doorway to restricting other things.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

However, it wasn't that long ago that a great majority of people would be more interested in "that guy is sick and anyone who wants to read or sell that book should be ashamed." Now the debate is over the guy's rights.

I dunno, but at least my take on it is that the first part is assumed. I'm not sure anyone thinks otherwise, so what's the point in arguing about it? So we can all slap each other on the back for not liking pedophiles?

The more interesting question would be should he be allowed to write this in the first place.

[JPhillips]

I wasn't the one who made the PC quote, but I think I can understand what he is saying here. I personally am feeling frustrated with this discussion where it can go from me expressing my disgust about this pedophilia instructional manual and my fear for my daughters and have people turn it around and equate it to me wanting to ban video games.

One of the reasons I usually stay out of these type of debates is the same groups of people seem to bunker down on their individual sides of the issue and argue more about slippery slopes and how amazon not selling this book would be the same thing as telling kids they can't play video games.

I just don't understand why people can't just call a spade a spade and say this is a disgusting book that has no place in society. I honestly don't think anyone will be able to provide a single valid good reason why this book should even exist other than the only reason being to not allow their opposing side an inch into their doorway to restricting other things.

No, I've said multiple times that Amazon, as a private company, can do whatever they want and that the general public has a right to express disgust with the author and any distributors.

It's the shouldn't exist part that I disagree with. Again, who gets to decide what books can and can't exist?

[JediKooter]

The problem with making 'knee jerk' reactions is we end up with stupid laws that make a teenager who moons someone a permanent member of a sex offenders list. There's nothing wrong with taking a step or two back and try and look at the whole picture.

Does this author have the right to write the book that he did? Yes, he does. Do we have the right to show our disgust and ridicule and shame this person? Hell yea we do. Does a private company have the right to sell what it does and does not want? Yes it does. Seems pretty simple to me.

[Ksyrup]

I have a really hard time understanding what entertainment someone would get from this book unless they as well also suffered from a form of mental illness similar to pedophilia. In that case I would be concerned their reading of this book would lead to the same result as a pediophiliac reading this book. That goes back to my earlier post which was my take or understanding of how people who have a problem with pedophilia are treated since there isn't a cure for it. That treatment is the avoidance of temptation such as this book or child pornography, or hanging around a school, etc.

I struggle with how to deal with stuff like this on a practical basis in our society because it's just too difficult to manage or contain it all with any restrictions - especially these days with the internet - so if you attempt to effectively cut it off from those who might use it to commit crimes, you're going to have to effectively cut it off from everybody. And I don't think that is an acceptable answer, or it becomes too difficult to draw the line and it becomes arbitrary. And on a board where people bitch and moan about such petty things as the arbitrariness of moderating a text sim messageboard, I gotta believe arbitrary standards related to the 1st Amendment would cause a tiny bit more of a stir among the citizens.

As someone who watches very little TV and no movies - I watch a couple of reality shows and sports - I practically live on the Investigation Discovery channel. I enjoy, from a psychological standpoint, shows that document or analyze some of the sickest motherfuckers who have walked this earth. I find the subject fascinating. It's entertaining in that way, but at no point do I get enjoyment from the actual acts some of these people have committed.

This book wouldn't appeal to me, even with that caveat, because it sounds more like a "how to" than the kind of third-person analysis or non-fiction story-telling that I enjoy in this area, but I could see it having some worth for those who seek to understand these sick bastards. And there are those, I'm sure, who would find it entertaining in a perverse sort of way - not unlike (at least in IMO) the millions of people who flock to see Saw movies, where the "entertainment" there seems to be how outrageous and sick can the next batch of murders/tortures get.

[miked]

I just don't understand why people can't just call a spade a spade and say this is a disgusting book that has no place in society. I honestly don't think anyone will be able to provide a single valid good reason why this book should even exist other than the only reason being to not allow their opposing side an inch into their doorway to restricting other things.

I don't think there is a single person on this board who does believe this book has a place in society. However, the original post brought up the first amendment, which is why a lot of the discussion has centered around it.

There hasn't been a point in the history of civilization where somebody wasn't trying to "push the envelope" of something or testing the bounds of what is acceptable in society. Sadly, today's FOFC outrage is an ebook of disgusting proportions. The only difference between now and 600 years ago is that people are writing and distributing guides to this behavior rather than practicing it in secret inside their castle. Not defending the practice on zillionth of an iota, but merely saying this book is not enabling people who are otherwise sane and normal to go out and molest children.

[DanGarion]

What value do you feel this book has?

I feel it probably has as much value as the Sperm Recipe book does. But my opinion isn't the only one that counts.

[DanGarion]

How am I defending the author? I'm just saying that the government has no right to censor such work and private companies have a right to choose to sell it or not sell it.

+1

[Mustang]

I'm just saying that the government has no right to censor such work and private companies have a right to choose to sell it or not sell it.

Throwing it out there just for discussion, but the sale of certain items to commit a crime are illegal or severely restricted (such as slim jims, radar detectors, cough syrup, lock pick devices, etc). Couldn't books that direct you how to commit a crime be lumped under that?

[DanGarion]

I look at this book the same way people used to look at The Anarchist Cookbook.

[Autumn]

Yep, that's clearly all that's going on here. Here's what I'm saying in a nutshell.

I'm all for being able to write any damn book a person wants. Stores can make a choice on whether or not to sell the book (in these days of ebooks, that is a little trickier). However, it wasn't that long ago that a great majority of people would be more interested in "that guy is sick and anyone who wants to read or sell that book should be ashamed." Now the debate is over the guy's rights. That's just where we are as a society and, in my opinion, that is sad. You, of course have a right to your own opinion, etc and that is cool. I'm just not a PC type of guy.

Frankly I don't see anybody discussing the guy's rights. I think we have universal agreement that whoever wrote this is a slimeball and disgusting, and that while he has the right to write whatever he wants, we all agree that he should be more than ashamed.

Frankly every day some slimeball molests somebody, and that's the real outrage, not that one of them wrote a book. The only reason this story is of interest to people is that his book got sold on the biggest book retailer on the Internet. So really the story is about Amazon, not the slimeball. It's therefore not surprising that the discussion has centered around Amazon's behavior. That's not being supportive of him, it's just that there's nothing of interest to say about a piece of shit like that, other than i guess to sit around and call him worse and worse names.

[Ksyrup]

I look at this book the same way people used to look at The Anarchist Cookbook.

You know what's interesting about that book is the author wanted to pull it from the shelves years after he wrote it.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Everyone who's posted in this thread is ridiculous.

[panerd]

That's what it sounded like, but, in interest of being fair, I wouldn't mind some clarification and hopefully that the atheist books in question have been read by that person to actually have an informed opinion instead of anecdotal, 3rd hand info. I will gather a guess of two names that will come up: Dawkins and Hitchens.

I said that is the slippery slope we go down. I am an atheist so I certainly would not want those books banned but there are definitely big groups of people that pull the same shit in their congregations about Dawkins book that you guys are pulling here. And if you think about it the price for "eternal damnation" would be a lot worse than anything that happens here on Earth. :)

[JediKooter]

I said that is the slippery slope we go down. I am an atheist so I certainly would not want those books banned but there are definitely big groups of people that pull the same shit in their congregations about Dawkins book that you guys are pulling here. And if you think about it the price for "eternal damnation" would be a lot worse than anything that happens here on Earth. :)

Cool man. I admit I couldn't quite get what you were getting at, but, I do see what you mean now. Thanks for clarifying. :)

[Sun Tzu]

Everyone who's posted in this thread is ridiculous.

yes...everyone

[RedKingGold]

Everyone who's posted in this thread is ridiculous.

Now I can be ridiculous too.

WHEEEEEE!!!!

[RomaGoth]

Everyone who's posted in this thread is ridiculous.

Does that mean that I am not ridiculous since I didn't post in this thread?


Oh.....right. :(

[markprior22]

I wasn't the one who made the PC quote, but I think I can understand what he is saying here. I personally am feeling frustrated with this discussion where it can go from me expressing my disgust about this pedophilia instructional manual and my fear for my daughters and have people turn it around and equate it to me wanting to ban video games.

One of the reasons I usually stay out of these type of debates is the same groups of people seem to bunker down on their individual sides of the issue and argue more about slippery slopes and how amazon not selling this book would be the same thing as telling kids they can't play video games.

I just don't understand why people can't just call a spade a spade and say this is a disgusting book that has no place in society. I honestly don't think anyone will be able to provide a single valid good reason why this book should even exist other than the only reason being to not allow their opposing side an inch into their doorway to restricting other things.


EXACTLY

[Sun Tzu]

A man in my position can't afford to be made to look ridiculous!

http://www.nycsa.org/blog/uploaded_images/3048538759_7850a0c930-754250.jpg

[DanGarion]

Everyone who's posted in this thread is ridiculous.

Yeah we should be just putting our heads in the sand and ignore it so it goes away.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Yeah we should be just putting our heads in the sand and ignore it so it goes away.
That's not exactly what I'm saying, but it's not far off.

[Suicane75]

I guess I shouldn't bother publishing my book How To Do Sex On A Bowler While He Sleeps.

[Sun Tzu]

I guess I shouldn't bother publishing my book How To Do Sex On A Bowler While He Sleeps.

Can you say "pre-order"

[Buccaneer]

How am I defending the author? I'm just saying that the government has no right to censor such work and private companies have a right to choose to sell it or not sell it.

You have read the First Amendment!

[AlexB]

Until it is your albino gorilla that gets raped...

There doesn't seem to be an immediate link to the celebrity version, but this will do. A criminally underrated comedy show.

time trumpet - rape an ape 2a4ff19 on raymi's Videos - Buzznet (http://raymi.buzznet.com/user/video/173311/)

[Blade6119]

Slippery Slope achieved:

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/12/peta-wants-amazon-to-stop-selling-guides-to-dogfighting/?hpt=T2

"PETA said it sent a letter Friday to Amazon.com President Jeffrey P. Bezos, asking him to to pull products from the site that promote animal cruelty in light of the online retailer's decision this week to stop selling an e-book that offered guidelines to pedophilia."

[Lathum]

Slippery Slope achieved:

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/12/peta-wants-amazon-to-stop-selling-guides-to-dogfighting/?hpt=T2

"PETA said it sent a letter Friday to Amazon.com President Jeffrey P. Bezos, asking him to to pull products from the site that promote animal cruelty in light of the online retailer's decision this week to stop selling an e-book that offered guidelines to pedophilia."

meh

typical PETA publicity stunt

[kcchief19]

I'm still not sure why people are ticked at Amazon. It's an e-book, so the guy could have easily submitted it electronically and no one as Amazon knew it was there. Once they were aware, they pulled it down. System works.

What I find fascinating is that in the original articled linked in this thread, go.com/ABC 6 has several tags for the article you click to read more stories. Those tags are: national/world, child porn, child luring, child sex assault.

What kind of an ass hat thinks, "I better create a tag for child luring in case people want to read more about it?"

[wade moore]

meh

typical PETA publicity stunt

While I'm all for some good old fashioned PETA-hate, how is this request not logical?

They seem to be very, VERY similar situations to me and I totally agree with PETA.

[Lathum]

While I'm all for some good old fashioned PETA-hate, how is this request not logical?

They seem to be very, VERY similar situations to me and I totally agree with PETA.

I think I would need to see what books PETA are requesting before claiming this is logical.

If there is a book called "Michael Vicks guide how to torture and maim fighting dogs" I am all for removing them. If they are asking for every book on hunting and fishing to be removed then not so much.

Regardless, it is PETA piggy backing onto another issue to get their cause talked about, which seems typical of them.

[molson]

If you give a government power to ban writings of "no value", they will abuse it.

And I would also think this book would help people avoid predators and protect their kids.

Public pressure is a much better tool anyway, and it worked well here.

[JonInMiddleGA]

f there is a book called "Michael Vicks guide how to torture and maim fighting dogs" I am all for removing them. If they are asking for every book on hunting and fishing to be removed then not so much.

What we really need are more books on how to make sure PETA members don't breed. One generation of their inability to maintain anything resembling perspective is plenty.

[AlexB]

If there is a book called "Michael Vicks guide how to torture and maim fighting dogs" I am all for removing them.

I agree. Any book with an obvious grammatical mistake in the title FFS should be recalled and thoroughly checked before being re-released.

[RainMaker]

I don't know how the government got brought into this debate. Isn't this about Amazon's decision to pull or keep the book? And then our decisions as to whether we want to shop at Amazon? Those are the only things that really matter here.

There is no slippery slope here as there are countless stores where we can purchase products that Amazon sells. If Amazon pulls all books about Atheism, there will be other stores where they are sold.

[Lathum]

I agree. Any book with an obvious grammatical mistake in the title FFS should be recalled and thoroughly checked before being re-released.

ohh, someone one the internet pointing out a grammatical mistake, how hip and edgy of you.

[Klinglerware]

What we really need are more books on how to make sure PETA members don't breed.

Then Amazon should bring back the pedophile book, sell it to PETA members. It all comes back full circle, and everybody wins.

[AlexB]

ohh, someone one the internet pointing out a grammatical mistake, how hip and edgy of you.

Touchy much?

[Lathum]

Touchy much?

Not at all, just admiring your originality. It is refreshing and new. You going to rick roll me next?

[AlexB]

The point of the post was to take the faux-naive point that the reason to ban this fictional book wasn't the content but the editing, not a particular attack on your punctuation.

If you'd have said not funny, fair enough, each to their own. But you have missed the point of the post.

[JonInMiddleGA]

But you have missed the point of the post.

Kinda looked as though you missed the point of "humor".

As faux-naive parody goes, that was a pretty complete Fail.

[AlexB]

As I say fair enough, each to their own. Not sure why you're involved, but fair enough.

[JonInMiddleGA]

My Way News - Fla officials arrest pedophilia how-to book author (http://apnews.myway.com//article/20101220/D9K7O2RO0.html)

WINTER HAVEN, Fla. (AP) - Florida sheriff's deputies have arrested a Colorado man who wrote a guide for pedophiles on obscenity charges.

Polk County deputies arrested Phillip Ray Greaves II at his home in Pueblo, Colo., early Monday on a warrant out of Florida.

Polk Sheriff Grady Judd says his office was able to arrest Greaves on Florida obscenity charges because Greaves sold and mailed his book, "The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: a Child-lover's Code of Conduct," to Polk deputies. Judd says Greaves even signed the book.

The self-published book offered advice to pedophiles on how to make sexual encounters with children as safe as possible. It was briefly for sale on Amazon, but the website later removed it.

[Sun Tzu]

I wonder how he got the mailing address to all of the deputies.

[JediKooter]

I wonder how he got the mailing address to all of the deputies.

I'm surprised that Polk County sheriffs knew how to find Colorado on the map.

[Sun Tzu]

lulz

[Passacaglia]

I'm surprised that Polk County sheriffs knew how to find Colorado on the map.

But once they did, they were wise enough to wait until ski season to make the trip out there and arrest him.

[JediKooter]

But once they did, they were wise enough to wait until ski season to make the trip out there and arrest him.

Oh absolutely. :)

[RainMaker]

Not that this guy shouldn't be locked up, but Polk County is a shady place and that Sheriff is a borderline nazi in my opinion. He has had a history of using obscenity charges to lockup people he doesn't like.

[Mustang]

Not that this guy shouldn't be locked up, but Polk County is a shady place and that Sheriff is a borderline nazi in my opinion. He has had a history of using obscenity charges to lockup people he doesn't like.

I would agree. Nature of the book aside, I'm not a big fan of some county have their own obscenity laws and extending that reach to someone else in some other part of the country.

[Glengoyne]

I would agree. Nature of the book aside, I'm not a big fan of some county have their own obscenity laws and extending that reach to someone else in some other part of the country.

+1 here.

I imagine that the ACLU will take up for the guy arrested here. This seems to be a perfect fit. Plus it will really piss off a lot of people that already hate the ACLU as well as the rights of all those they despise.

[miked]

This is baffling, as apparently it was undercover agents who requested and bought his book. Is this legal? They asked for something that is legal everywhere save some counties, had him send it to them, then arrested him 2000 miles away for sending it to them. Is that the gist of this? Guy is a scumbag, but this is where tax dollars are going?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

U.S. v. Thomas (http://www.loundy.com/CASES/US_v_Thomas2.html)

[DaddyTorgo]

This is baffling, as apparently it was undercover agents who requested and bought his book. Is this legal? They asked for something that is legal everywhere save some counties, had him send it to them, then arrested him 2000 miles away for sending it to them. Is that the gist of this? Guy is a scumbag, but this is where tax dollars are going?

Nature of the book aside it does seem like quite the slippery slope. Is the book distributor (and yes I know it's the scumbag author) now responsible for knowing the laws of every town in the US to determine if it's safe to ship his book there?

That seems a pretty massive burden.

And yes...I'm glad they're doing something about this scumbag...but still...I can see this setting a bad precedent for non-scumbags.

[Young Drachma]

He got what he deserved, it seems.

[Sun Tzu]

I hope the cur burns in hell, and thank the lord for Polk County.

[Atocep]

Sheriff Grady Judd was quoted as saying, "There may be nothing that the other 49 states can do, but there is something that the state of Florida can do ... to make sure we prosecute Philip Greaves for his manifesto.

I IN NO WAY SUPPORT PEDOPHILIA

This is complete bullshit and it saddens me that some people have no problem with someone's rights getting tossed aside because they don't agree with what he's doing.

[JediKooter]

I hope the cur burns in hell, and thank the lord for Polk County.

You're welcome.


*Polk county native = Jedikooter

[JonInMiddleGA]

I IN NO WAY SUPPORT PEDOPHILIA

Just people who peddle products to pedophiles apparently. You're probably going to have to deal with the reality that a lot of people don't cut that line so finely.

This is complete bullshit and it saddens me that some people have no problem with someone's rights getting tossed aside because they don't agree with what he's doing.

Bzzt. He has no "right" to sell that product in Polk Co, FL, in fact there seems to be a specific restriction against it.

[Atocep]

Bzzt. He has no "right" to sell that product in Polk Co, FL, in fact there seems to be a specific restriction against it.

I'm not ok with one state using a vague law to act as bounty hunter for the other 49.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm not ok with one state using a vague law to act as bounty hunter for the other 49.

Doesn't seem all that vague & as cited by someone else above, it seems as though they got him quite fair & square. The onus of knowing what law is applicable falls on the perp.