Amazon Sells Guide To Pedophilia

[phranchk]

I do teach my kids about it but it is still something the government needs to intercede on or change the law if there isn't one. What if the next guy out there decides to write a book on how to rape women or how to drug the girl at the bar so you can sleep with her? Those are in the same category and should be stopped. Let's have a little common sense here people.

By doing that you open a whole pandora's box that will let a persons interpretation of the law get in the way. You'll start seeing a whole slew of books getting banned because they merely mention date rape in them. No way. Should we ban guides on how to shoot and handle weapons? No! But someone will then know how to shoot another person cus they read that book on how to shoot a gun, and we'll have a whole rash of gun related murders! See, it doesn't work like that. Just because someone wrote a book about a disgusting topic like that doesn't mean that book should be banned.

Just because a book is written showing someone how to do activities as such doesn't mean there's all of a sudden going to be a whole slew of new activity.

 

[Kerfuffle]

By doing that you open a whole pandora's box that will let a persons interpretation of the law get in the way. You'll start seeing a whole slew of books getting banned because they merely mention date rape in them. No way. Should we ban guides on how to shoot and handle weapons? No! But someone will then know how to shoot another person cus they read that book on how to shoot a gun, and we'll have a whole rash of gun related murders! See, it doesn't work like that. Just because someone wrote a book about a disgusting topic like that doesn't mean that book should be banned.

Just because a book is written showing someone how to do activities as such doesn't mean there's all of a sudden going to be a whole slew of new activity.

If the law is changed or written to list what should be illegal wouldn't that work? Right to bear arms is in the Bill of Rights so someone discussing how to shoot a gun should be covered already. But I think when you look at pedophilia (or rape) of anyone that seems to cross the line. I know, I know from a legal standpoint what is that line? I don't know but I know it's wrong - kinda the common sense thing. it might not be what the law says but I think common sense needs to be involved here. Some child predator writing a book on how to get molest kids and get a lighter sentence is just sick.

 

[phranchk]

If the law is changed or written to list what should be illegal wouldn't that work? Right to bear arms is in the Bill of Rights so someone discussing how to shoot a gun should be covered already. But I think when you look at pedophilia (or rape) of anyone that seems to cross the line. I know, I know from a legal standpoint what is that line? I don't know but I know it's wrong - kinda the common sense thing. it might not be what the law says but I think common sense needs to be involved here. Some child predator writing a book on how to get molest kids and get a lighter sentence is just sick.

It is sick and disturbing, but once you throw opinions into what is common sense all goes to hell. The guy has every right to publish it as long as he's not inciting people to commit pedophilia. There's books out there on how to make crack and any numerous other drugs. There's books and manuscripts out there on how to make neurotoxins such as ricin. There's books on hacking and how not to get caught doing it.

I'm sure that this guys life will be beyond hell for a long time after the guys from 4chan start going after him. I wouldn't be surprised if they don't already have his address, phone number, email, etc. posted. I wouldn't be all too surprised if a flash mob showed up at his house and the police had to be called to protect him, and I'm sure there response will be far from swift.

 

[LordKOTL]

Fuffle: it IS in the bill of rights--freedom of speech.

 

[jakobeast]

What Phranchk said.



The dude is inviting a lot of pain into his life.



We don't need another law in the land. We have way to many as it is. And don't take this to mean I love pedophilia and this guy is awesome. He is not. it was mentioned common sense should be used. I agree, it should be, and not to outlaw a part of this mans freedom of speech. Keep in mind, under most "hate speech"laws and others like it, the Bible falls within those guidelines.

 

[Kerfuffle]

Fuffle: it IS in the bill of rights--freedom of speech.

but even freedom of speech is not absolute as you know. i.e. You can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre - your freedom of speech is not covered there. Likewise the law could and should be changed to define this subject and not protected.

 

[phranchk]

but even freedom of speech is not absolute as you know. i.e. You can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre - your freedom of speech is not covered there. Likewise the law could and should be changed to define this subject and not protected.

Part of having freedoms is knowing that there will be people who do things that may utterly disgust you, yet they have full right to do them (writing the book, not the pedophelia). If you want a free country you have to tolerate instances like this where you may not want to. The guy is sick. He has problems, but he's within his full rights to write such a stupid book. If you want those types of freedoms taken away then you are basically against what this country is founded upon.

 

[Kerfuffle]

Part of having freedoms is knowing that there will be people who do things that may utterly disgust you, yet they have full right to do them (writing the book, not the pedophelia). If you want a free country you have to tolerate instances like this where you may not want to. The guy is sick. He has problems, but he's within his full rights to write such a stupid book. If you want those types of freedoms taken away then you are basically against what this country is founded upon.

I don't see it as an 'either / or' type of thing though phranchk. There should be a way to ban people from writing pedophilia and still have freedom of speech. That is why laws are not absolute.

 

[phranchk]

I don't see it as an 'either / or' type of thing though phranchk. There should be a way to ban people from writing pedophilia and still have freedom of speech. That is why laws are not absolute.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's books that rank as literary masterpieces that cover pedophelia in the book. They may be fiction, but what would stop a book such as that from getting banned. Of Mice and Men comes to mind.

Fiction books often go into great detail about how to murder someone. So much detail that it could be used in real life. Should those books be banned? See what happens when you try to make an absolute law such as that and turn into one that requires interpretation? There needs to be zero room for interpretation of this law or you'll start censoring all sorts of things. Freedom of speech requires some degree of tolerance. Maybe you just can't handle that.

I've said all I can say on this topic.

 

[LordKOTL]

And keep in mind as well that back when the Consitution was drafted, girls were getting married around 14 or so, and nowadays that would get you some massive time in the slammer.



And also, from my knowledge the only way they can abridge freedom of speech is if it causes direct physical harm to others (i.e. the much over-used fire in a croded theatre example), or if it's directly inciteful to cause physical harm.



To me, the book is not the issue because even just reading it will not make you a pædophile unless you already had those tendencies. As such, it falls back onto personal responsibility.



To wit: If a neighbor read this book and then raped a kid...it's not likley that the book precipitated the cause, because the pædophilic tendences would have had to already be there, and, further, any reasonably intellegent person by the time they reach adulthood should know that pædophilia is wrong and illegal and damaging to a child to do so.



Otherwise, I could use the same arguments to kick a catholic church out of my community, and you know that will fly about as well as a ValueJet DC-9.

 

[JOVE23]

I would laugh if when you opened the book, page one was:

"Why don't you have a seat over there?"



And the rest was blank.

 

[Kerfuffle]

And keep in mind as well that back when the Consitution was drafted, girls were getting married around 14 or so, and nowadays that would get you some massive time in the slammer.



And also, from my knowledge the only way they can abridge freedom of speech is if it causes direct physical harm to others (i.e. the much over-used fire in a croded theatre example), or if it's directly inciteful to cause physical harm.



To me, the book is not the issue because even just reading it will not make you a pædophile unless you already had those tendencies. As such, it falls back onto personal responsibility.



To wit: If a neighbor read this book and then raped a kid...it's not likley that the book precipitated the cause, because the pædophilic tendences would have had to already be there, and, further, any reasonably intellegent person by the time they reach adulthood should know that pædophilia is wrong and illegal and damaging to a child to do so.



Otherwise, I could use the same arguments to kick a catholic church out of my community, and you know that will fly about as well as a ValueJet DC-9.

What if a child was abused and the abuser had a copy of this book in their house with the Amazon receipt attached to it. Would Amazon have any liability here at all and couldn't the case be made that they perpetrated the crime? Just asking...

 

[phranchk]

What if a child was abused and the abuser had a copy of this book in their house with the Amazon receipt attached to it. Would Amazon have any liability here at all and couldn't the case be made that they perpetrated the crime? Just asking...

If that person had that book the only thing it would do would be additional incriminating evidence against him. Amazon would have no liability whatsoever.



Charles Manson often sited the Beatles, Helter Skelter specifically, as motivation to kill. Should we ban that song?

Mark David Chapman used the book Catcher in the Rye as his motivation for killing John Lennon. Should we also ban that book?



These are only two examples of many.

 

[supraman]

but even freedom of speech is not absolute as you know. i.e. You can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre - your freedom of speech is not covered there. Likewise the law could and should be changed to define this subject and not protected.

Yelling fire is an illegal act because it incites a riot. That is where free speech no longer applies

 

[Ton]

For me, its not about the guys right to write the book... he can write whatever he wants.



It's Amazons decision to sell the book is what pisses me off.



People trust Amazon as a good market to purchase products. Things like this are going to ruin their reputation, although they say they don't endorse the book, people will still relate it as an endorsement of Amazon approving the book to be on their virtual shelves. They admit they don't endorse the book, and want to keep their inventory as wide as possible, people won't care. They will correlate this book with Amazon and ruin their image.



IMO its a bad move by the company. They are in no way pressured to keep the book on the shelves and there is no direct involvement between Amazon and the government. It really has nothing to do with the constitution and whether or not its right to publish a book -- more so the fact that Amazon chooses to sell it and make money. That itself is sick and twisted in its own right. Anyone want to publish a book like that? Fine, have them sell it themselves.



Theres no way Amazon can say they do not endorse the product when they are clearly supporting it by accepting it into their inventory. They have a choice and they approved of the book.

 

[the canadian dream]

What if a child was abused and the abuser had a copy of this book in their house with the Amazon receipt attached to it. Would Amazon have any liability here at all and couldn't the case be made that they perpetrated the crime? Just asking...

No Amazon would hold no liability in this case. And no a case culd not be made that they perpetrated the crime. That's absurd. That's like a brewing company being held liabel for a drunk driver killing someone. Would the gun manufacturers be responsible for a muder involving their product? 100 bucks says you are pro firearms and have no issue with people buying guns then commiting a crime? Why would you even ask such a silly question if Amazon would be responsible? Yikes.





Anyways I am a huge anti-censhorship advocate but things like these issues are tricky. Absolutley Amazon has the right to sell what ever the **** they want to or can pull anything from their shelves which they seem fit. Free market here. That's not censorship. Censorship is when the government starts dictating. But yes the case could be made that certain items should be kept out of the hands of those who will use it to do harm. But where does the line get drawn? Who's to say what item will cause harm? I don't really think someone who picks up this book is going to go out and think it justifies child abuse. Sorry I don't think it works like that. Will it fuel a fire that is already burning? Possibly. That's where the danger lies.



I have a major issue with child abuse also. I don't see how anyone couldn't. Makes issues like these ones tricky. Makes one think for sure.



Because this is in written word and published and for sale to the masses it really makes for a debate.

 

[supraman]

For me, its not about the guys right to write the book... he can write whatever he wants.



It's Amazons decision to sell the book is what pisses me off.



People trust Amazon as a good market to purchase products. Things like this are going to ruin their reputation, although they say they don't endorse the book, people will still relate it as an endorsement of Amazon approving the book to be on their virtual shelves. They admit they don't endorse the book, and want to keep their inventory as wide as possible, people won't care. They will correlate this book with Amazon and ruin their image.



IMO its a bad move by the company. They are in no way pressured to keep the book on the shelves and there is no direct involvement between Amazon and the government. It really has nothing to do with the constitution and whether or not its right to publish a book -- more so the fact that Amazon chooses to sell it and make money. That itself is sick and twisted in its own right. Anyone want to publish a book like that? Fine, have them sell it themselves.



Theres no way Amazon can say they do not endorse the product when they are clearly supporting it by accepting it into their inventory. They have a choice and they approved of the book.

But amazon wants to be known as a place you can go to buy everything. So that item is part of everything

 

[Ton]

But amazon wants to be known as a place you can go to buy everything. So that item is part of everything

Where do they draw the line? A graphic scene with a child getting raped in a fictional book is one thing, a how-to-guide on being a pedophile is another. This isn't just a story, its a guide with the purpose of educating these sick people to get away with criminal acts.



They have no obligation to carry this product, and in my eyes the fact that they do carry it is a form of endorsement.

 

[Kerfuffle]

Where do they draw the line? A graphic scene with a child getting raped in a fictional book is one thing, a how-to-guide on being a pedophile is another. This isn't just a story, its a guide with the purpose of educating these sick people to get away with criminal acts.



They have no obligation to carry this product, and in my eyes the fact that they do carry it is a form of endorsement.

Agreed. Also doesn't seem to help their reputation - it just seems to be bad press heading their way as the story continues to get out.

 

[Ruhtra]

I would laugh if when you opened the book, page one was:

"Why don't you have a seat over there?"



And the rest was blank.