Amazon selling "A Pedophile's Guide"

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

IceBergSLiM

Lifer
Jul 11, 2000
29,932
3
81
This all started when I asked a simple question of whether certain poster had kids. That first post never suggested banning.

Once asked, there was quick reaction and much venom thrown my way.

its too late now, its clear you hate the basic tenets of which this country was founded. Why do you hate america dude?
 

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
7
76
The book should be allowed to be printed and sold provided it does not encourage or incite harm to children. The second it does that it violates free speech conditions. I haven't read it so I don't know how the author wrote what he did, and i have no intention of reading it.
 
Last edited:

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
This all started when I asked a simple question of whether certain poster had kids. That first post never suggested banning.

Once asked, there was quick reaction and much venom thrown my way.

I think the venom began when you advocated rather un-American police-like actions towards someone's right to free speech, that's all.

Then the confusion over socialism, and such.


Your initial question, from the perspective of a parent, was worthy of discussion, if you ask me. :\




Anyway, the book has been removed according to the DT article. Also, the author (this was self-published), claims to be writing from his own experiences as a victim of pedophilia.

I don't know...I think I have to hand it to the guy, taking a unique angle on this subject that no one has considered. :|
 

monkey333

Senior member
Apr 20, 2007
785
5
81
I'm from North Carolina, actually. You know...one of those classically red states.

my response was based on your (purportedly honest) belief that this country is "becoming socialist." that tells me a lot about what you do know. ergo: you don't know dick about socialism.

is this clear to you?

the only one making assumptions here is you, bud. "You don't know anything about me, assuming to know based off of statements!" "Well, that's not surprising, you must think this way based on where you're from!"

How about this: I'm gonna assume you're from Kansas. You must be a science-hating inbred cornholer.

Does that work?
:D

Name calling is a great way to participate in a discussion.

Glad you can enlighten me on what I do and do not know about.
 

IceBergSLiM

Lifer
Jul 11, 2000
29,932
3
81
Anyway, the book has been removed according to the DT article. Also, the author (this was self-published), claims to be writing from his own experiences as a victim of pedophilia.

I don't know...I think I have to hand it to the guy, taking a unique angle on this subject that no one has considered. :|

And like I said its content could have legitimate research value to a sex therapist working with sexual victims or predators.
 

monkey333

Senior member
Apr 20, 2007
785
5
81
Your initial question, from the perspective of a parent, was worthy of discussion, if you ask me. :\

that's all the question was intended, then I got railroaded and got off base. I have strong beliefs and do not apologize for them. We are free to think what we want here...
 

Gooberlx2

Lifer
May 4, 2001
15,381
6
91
The book should be allowed to be printed and sold provided it does not encourage or incite harm to children. The second it does that it violates free speech conditions.

How so? I could write and self-publish a book that advocates turning children in to soup, and using ground puppy noses as garnish. In no way would that remotely violate free speech conditions.
 

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
7
76
How so? I could write and self-publish a book that advocates turning children in to soup, and using ground puppy noses as garnish. In no way would that remotely violate free speech conditions.

Wrong
You have to be very careful in how you word what you say on sensitive subjects. Free speech is not a right to say what you want no matter what it is. It has limitations, mainly that what you are saying does not incite violence or imply doing direct harm to someone.

The First Amendment, however, does not protect certain limited categories of speech that are "utterly without redeeming social importance." . . . See also R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 382-83 (1992) (stating that "[f]rom 1791 to present . . . our society, like other free but civilized societies, has permitted restrictions upon the content of speech in a few limited areas, which are of such slight value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality"). These categories include obscenity, Roth, 354 U.S. at 483, libel, Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250, 266 (1952), and "fighting words," Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 571-73 (1942) [see below. —jed]. Child pornography is also one of these categories of speech. Ferber, 458 U.S. at 763-64.

The area of speech defined as clear and present danger was codified in the Supreme Court case Brandenburg v. Ohio in which the court ruled that a law may only forbid speech advocating illegal or violent actions if the speech is intended to incite or produce imminent lawless action and if the speech is likely to incite or produce such action. (Cavazos and Morin, p. 74) Fighting words are a continuation of the clear and present danger idea, and are defined as words which are so offensive and abusive that they are likely to "cause or incite immediate physical retaliation by the audience." (Cavazos and Morin, p. 76)
 
Last edited:

Kirby

Lifer
Apr 10, 2006
12,028
2
0
HOWEVER. Free speech does not mean you can say anything you want. For example, you can not yell 'FIRE' in a theater, 'BOMB' on a airplane, etc. This is because it endangers people's lives. I actually think this book could be endangering the lives of children more so they yelling fire at a movie. Thus I could see legal grounds for a banning.

The requirement for those restrictions (fire, bomb) is that it has to be imminent (originally clear and present danger). Books aren't imminent.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
 

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
7
76
The requirement for those restrictions (fire, bomb) is that it has to be imminent (originally clear and present danger). Books aren't imminent.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio


Actually that isn't the part that applies regarding harm to children , it would be "such slight value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality" . The courts have sued many publishers for attempting to violate the rules.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/case.aspx?id=1684
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
that's all the question was intended, then I got railroaded and got off base. I have strong beliefs and do not apologize for them. We are free to think what we want here...

but not free to let others know what we think, based off of your comments in this thread.


Think about it.
 

Kirby

Lifer
Apr 10, 2006
12,028
2
0
Actually that isn't the part that applies regarding harm to children , it would be "such slight value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality" . The courts have sued many publishers for attempting to violate the rules.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/case.aspx?id=1684

Looks like that's overruled by Miller v. California, but sets 3 criteria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California

1.) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards (not national standards, as some prior tests required), would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
2.) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions[3] specifically defined by applicable state law; and
3.) "whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."[4]

Seems like states have the say if there's a law for it, and not on the national scale. I'm not sure how that would apply to something like Amazon. Still can't say I agree with it.
 

monkey333

Senior member
Apr 20, 2007
785
5
81
but not free to let others know what we think, based off of your comments in this thread.


Think about it.

this is proof you are not reading what I am posting, and are making assumptions.
I posted above that this great country allows me to feel this way on this subject and you to have your take on it.
 

Gooberlx2

Lifer
May 4, 2001
15,381
6
91
Wrong
You have to be very careful in how you word what you say on sensitive subjects. Free speech is not a right to say what you want no matter what it is. It has limitations, mainly that what you are saying does not incite violence or imply doing direct harm to someone.

In my example:

Clearly, printed word sold through distribution channels is nothing like "fire in a crowded place", just to get that one out of the way.

Child porn directly harms the children depicted, and propagates an industry where its existence is a general threat to any child's rights.

Torture and rape porn exists, legally, but is not censored because it doesn't mean some person can claim he was solely inspired by the work to go out and rape/torture someone (well, they can claim it but it doesn't mean it would stand up in court). Similarly, using the Miller test, such a work might fit the second and third conditions, but certainly not the first.

Zinfamous's link demonstrates exactly the legality of my example (funny how that worked out). It's available as a free ebook on Amazon as well.
 
Last edited:

monkey333

Senior member
Apr 20, 2007
785
5
81
so taking a step back for a moment. So let's say this author wrote this with the intent on helping parents and educating them, and presented it as such. Bravo, anything we can use today to help raise normal kids is great.

from the description of the book BY THE AUTHOR, I am led to believe it has darker intentions...

"This is my attempt to make pedophile situations safer for those juveniles that find themselves involved in them, by establishing certian [sic] rules for these adults to follow," a product description read. "I hope to achieve this by appealing to the better nature of pedosexuals, with hope that their doing so will result in less hatred and perhaps liter sentences should they ever be caught."
 

lxskllr

No Lifer
Nov 30, 2004
57,960
8,204
126
so taking a step back for a moment. So let's say this author wrote this with the intent on helping parents and educating them, and presented it as such. Bravo, anything we can use today to help raise normal kids is great.

from the description of the book BY THE AUTHOR, I am led to believe it has darker intentions...

"This is my attempt to make pedophile situations safer for those juveniles that find themselves involved in them, by establishing certian [sic] rules for these adults to follow," a product description read. "I hope to achieve this by appealing to the better nature of pedosexuals, with hope that their doing so will result in less hatred and perhaps liter sentences should they ever be caught."

Intent doesn't matter. If I sell a kitchen knife for the express purpose of eviscerating humans, it's still allowed to be sold, as it should be.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
this is proof you are not reading what I am posting, and are making assumptions.
I posted above that this great country allows me to feel this way on this subject and you to have your take on it.

you advocated banning this book.


...how is that not disallowing the expression of certain ideas?

please explain how this was misread.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Yes. Security through obscurity is no security at all. Banning thoughts and words accomplishes nothing other than breeding fear in the population, and stagnating culture.

Not to mention driving the discussion of taboo topics underground where the worst elements can fester, rather than keeping them in the open.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
I support the mans right to write and publish his book.
I support Amazon's right to decide to sell or not to sell the book.
I support law enforcement scrutinizing the writer of this book and hopefully putting him in jail if he really is a pedo.

Being a pedophile is not illegal, nor should it be. Acting on those impulses and assaulting child is and should be, because that is an action and not a thought.