At a loss for words...

[EagleFan]

Amazon no longer selling guide for pedophiles | 6abc.com

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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:

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.

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]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

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]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

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

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

[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]

Originally Posted by Alan T

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-r..._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]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

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

"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]

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

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]

Originally Posted by Autumn

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Alan T

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]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by 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.

+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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

So what exactly is the value of this book?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Alan T

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]

Originally Posted by Lathum

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]

Originally Posted by Lathum

So what exactly is the value of this book?

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

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

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]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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]

Originally Posted by Alan T

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]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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.