# Kindle book on Amazon causing uproar



## kb7uen Gene (Mar 13, 2009)

Amazon allowing this book, The Pedophiles Guide to Love and Pleasure, to be submitted to the Kindle store can not go unchallenged by Kindle customers.

This book should simply be classified as child pornography and the author arrested, prosecuted, and locked up for good. Amazon needs to know that this is completely unacceptable and they need remove this book by this author from the Kindle store immediately.

I personally won't buy another Kindle book or anything else from Amazon until this book is gone from their site. Click the link below to learn more.

Gene
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/11/10/businessinsider-amazon-is-selling-a-guide-for-pedophiles-consumers-calling-for-boycott-2010-11.DTL


----------



## arshield (Nov 17, 2008)

While I think it is in bad taste and I think that Amazon should take it down.  I am not going to boycott.  I am not a fan of boycotts.  They have other distasteful stuff up there and have for a while.  It is part of what happens when you allow self publishing.


----------



## Me and My Kindle (Oct 20, 2010)

Does Amazon actually review every book which is sold on their site before they allow it to be listed? 

It's sort of a double-edged sword, because if they do, then they're implicitly endorsing every book which is sold. But if they don't, then sooner or later, couldn't they get in trouble?


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

Me and My Kindle said:


> Does Amazon actually review every book which is sold on their site before they allow it to be listed?


No, they don't, which is why illegal copies of Atlas Shrugged and other books have been "published" and then yanked.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

Its an offensive title,  but I don't intend to boycott Amazon over it, but I am curious how they approach this.


----------



## Me and My Kindle (Oct 20, 2010)

For what it's worth, here's Amazon's official position (as reported by ABC News.)

"Amazon believes it is censorship not to sell certain books simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable. Amazon does not support or promote hatred or criminal acts, however, we do support the right of every individual to make their own purchasing decision."


----------



## kb7uen Gene (Mar 13, 2009)

I really don't think this content should be protected by free speech because it represents a clear danger to children.  And as such, In my humble opinion, is no different than yelling fire in a crowded theater when there isn't a fire and causing a stampede which results in a person(s) getting hurt or killed.

Gene


----------



## arshield (Nov 17, 2008)

According to tech crunch they are not going to remove the book

http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/10/kindle-pedophile-book/

The quote from Amazon's official response is "Amazon believes it is censorship not to sell certain books simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable. Amazon does not support or promote hatred or criminal acts, however, we do support the right of every individual to make their own purchasing decisions."

While I am fine with that decision for them, I just wish people would not through around the word censorship so freely. I don't believe a business decision is really censorship.


----------



## Jodi O (Mar 3, 2010)

Correct. A business can choose to carry or not carry any product they like. This is not censorship. Amazon can choose not to sell material that encourages acts that are illegal and extremely damaging. Pedophilia is not a lifestyle choice between consenting adults.


----------



## Jesslyn (Oct 29, 2008)

Me and My Kindle said:


> For what it's worth, here's Amazon's official position (as reported by ABC News.)
> 
> "Amazon believes it is censorship not to sell certain books simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable. Amazon does not support or promote hatred or criminal acts, however, we do support the right of every individual to make their own purchasing decision."


While I don't condone censorship, what about not letting books that tell/demonstrate to a person how to do something that is illegal?


----------



## larryb52 (Nov 18, 2009)

sad that amazon is allowing sale of this, I usually do not care for boycotts but I will have to stop & think on this...


----------



## durphy (Nov 5, 2008)

If this has been brought up, please move or remove this.

There are people on Twitter saying they're going to boycott Amazon because a Kindle book was posted for sale, purportedly a pedophile's guide.  Amazon cs said they're on it.

My question is this. Can you post a book for sale directly to Amazon without having to go through an intermediary? Just curious.


----------



## tbrookside (Nov 4, 2009)

Yes, absolutely.

Just about every indie author here has done so.

I'd like to support Amazon in their stance here, but they aren't being perfectly candid.  If I changed the cover of my book to be a photo of a pair of unclothed female breasts, they'd take my book down as soon as anyone brought it to their attention.  So they don't actually have as open a policy as they're claiming.

If plain old vanilla nudity is out of bounds for publishing on Amazon, then they may as well declare the celebration of pedophilia to be out of bounds too.


----------



## durphy (Nov 5, 2008)

According to Pradeep, "We have already forwarded this to the appropriate people in the company.
We're taking a decision to remove this."

I have no truck with Amazon. Obviously the market has spoken, loudly. I think people are overreacting by thinking Amazon is complicit in this. I'm pretty sure publishing this material is against the law. Wonder how long before it hits the media.

Edit: After further research...there is already a lot of talk going on. What concerns me is that I'm not seeing proper attributions for supposed quotes by Amazon. I'll guess we'll just have to see how this plays out.


----------



## Kathy (Nov 5, 2008)

I think it is a very sick person that would write such a book. Is it really legal to buy this or does it fall under the law on child pornography? 

I won't  boycott Amazon, but I really hope they take it down.


----------



## kim (Nov 20, 2008)

If the contents of the book are consistent with the description, this book is so very wrong.  I have such a sick feeling in my stomach just seeing this.  My daughter was a victim when she was 7 years old.  Her swim instructor went to jail for 1st and 2nd Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct involving 12 young girls.  

Knowing that there is a book telling people how to get away with this crime and how to get a lighter sentence if they are caught really disturbs me.


----------



## shalym (Sep 1, 2010)

Has anyone thought that this may have been set up as a honeypot to catch pedophiles?

Shari


----------



## ZankerH (Oct 8, 2010)

Yes, and Amazon also sells Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto. They're obviously part of a communist-nazi conspiracy to take over the internet.

Or, people could just stop jumping to unwarranted assumptions. Doing business with someone doesn't mean you agree with his opinions on anything.


----------



## kim (Nov 20, 2008)

shalym said:


> Has anyone thought that this may have been set up as a honeypot to catch pedophiles?
> 
> Shari


Nope, I don't think so. Buying this book doesn't mean you are a pedophile and I can't believe it could be used to catch one. If I buy a bartender's mix book it doesn't mean I'm an alcoholic and I bought an elliptical machine but that certainly doesn't mean I'm skinny.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

***There were two threads on this topic in two different areas of KindleBoards. . .I've combined them into one thread here in the Corner.

And. . . . . a friendly reminder. . . .this is a subject that could very easily get heated. . . .remember there can be a lot of different points of view on this -- no personal attacks and let's keep the discussion civil.  Thanks.


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

While I keep reading headlines that says that this book "defends pedophilia," I have yet to see anything where anyone has actually _read_ the thing. I downloaded the sample, which was only a page long, and really didn't give a good indication of the contents.


----------



## luvmy4brats (Nov 9, 2008)

Verena,

There have been excerpts posted on various sites. One of them discusses how regular condoms won't fit a child and how they should use the "finger" condoms (made for protecting cuts of fingers) and how they come in small, medium, and large and one of them should be able to fit the child under 13.

There was more, but quite frankly, it made me sick to my stomach and I just can't bring myself to repeat it.

I'm trying to find where the excerpts were posted, but I can't remember where they where. 

Edited to add: http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=160167204019884&topic=267 (Warning: *VERY* disturbing)

I am not one to support or promote boycotts, but this issue has me very upset and at the moment I can't find it in me to support their decision to keep this on their site.


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

OK, that's just pathetic....

Is there going to be a boycott against CreateSpace as well? That is who is listed as the publisher of this person's other books....


----------



## sabinfire (Nov 11, 2010)

Who needs advertising when you can create a huge buzz like this one?  I bet a large percentage of the people who are actually buying this book are probably doing it just to see what's inside, kinda like happening upon an incredible car wreck, you can't help but want to look despite knowing nothing good will come of it.  I wonder what the next shocking subject will be that causes a stir in the media/social outlets and gets people to flock en masse to check it out.


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

So much for that. The link is dead already.


----------



## mlewis78 (Apr 19, 2009)

I'm not even going to look at the listing, and I'm not boycotting Amazon.  I'm not interested in it.


----------



## Pushka (Oct 30, 2009)

If the contents of this book are as Luv has described, then I suspect in Australia we could be charged with a criminal offence for even downloading it.  And as the title is so explicit, even downloading it for curiosity sake would be no defence.

In Australia today we heard of the arrest of a 30 year old male for rape and other child sex offences - his victim is an 11 year old girl who just gave birth to his baby.


----------



## Indy (Jun 7, 2010)

I'm not looking at it on amazon because, well, I don't want my "recommendations" to be inundated with similar crap.  Yeek.


----------



## Abigail (Apr 27, 2010)

This sickens me to the core based on what my own book is about. Amazon will at some point have to answer alot of questions, if people can go to prison for looking at pictures and are traced based on a visit to a web page then I am sure reading about it is just as bad and is just as much an offence..


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

Okay, I was all ready to give Amazon the benefit of the doubt... but I just can't defend this, it's disgusting.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40112145/?gt1=43001



> NEW YORK - Amazon is selling a self-published book defending pedophiles, sparking discussions about the retailer's obligation to vet items before they are sold in its online stores, and threats of boycott from Amazon customers if the book is not removed.
> The book, " The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: a Child-lover's Code of Conduct" by Philip R. Greaves II, offers advice to pedophiles afraid of becoming the center of retaliation. It is an electronic book available for Amazon.com Inc.'s Kindle e-reader.


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

Sorry, just noticed this in the book corner - I DID do a search for it and nothing came up, weird.


----------



## Cardinal (Feb 24, 2010)

history_lover said:


> Sorry, just noticed this in the book corner - I DID do a search for it and nothing came up, weird.


Amazon removed the book, it is no longer for sale.


----------



## shalym (Sep 1, 2010)

The book is gone. http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/10/amazon-pedophile/

Shari


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Abigail said:


> This sickens me to the core based on what my own book is about. Amazon will at some point have to answer alot of questions, if people can go to prison for looking at pictures and are traced based on a visit to a web page then I am sure reading about it is just as bad and is just as much an offence..


The difference between pictures and text, it that a real child had to be abused in order to create the picture.

I find the reactions in this thread a bit scary. It should be a crime to write something offensive? Most of us find rape and murder offensive, but does that mean people should stop writing fictional accounts of those subjects?

The purpose of free speech isn't to protect speech we all agree with. That kind of speech doesn't need protection. Free speech allows the loathsome to be brought into the light, debated, and proved to be lacking.


----------



## hackeynut (Dec 16, 2008)

swolf said:


> The difference between pictures and text, it that a real child had to be abused in order to create the picture.
> 
> I find the reactions in this thread a bit scary. It should be a crime to write something offensive? Most of us find rape and murder offensive, but does that mean people should stop writing fictional accounts of those subjects?
> 
> The purpose of free speech isn't to protect speech we all agree with. That kind of speech doesn't need protection. Free speech allows the loathsome to be brought into the light, debated, and proved to be lacking.


I absolutely agree. There are offensive books all over Amazon. Including the Turner Diaries, Hunter and the Anarchist's Cookbook. Simply not liking the subject of a book is not enough to censor it in my opinion. The only difference between banning this book and Huck Finn is the relative level of tolerance of the censors.


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

The book is gone. no need to boycott.


----------



## kb7uen Gene (Mar 13, 2009)

Here's what the Daily Mail in the UK has to say on Amazon finally removing this "POC!" book from the Kindle Store.

Gene

Amazon bends to pressure and pulls e-book guide which offered advice to paedophiles

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 11:41 AM on 11th November 2010

Amazon.com has reacted to the outrage sparked after selling a self-published guide that offers advice to paedophiles, and pulled the electronic-book from the website.

'The Pedophile's (Sic) Guide To Love & Pleasure: A Child-Lover's Code of Conduct' had been available for sale for on Amazon's Kindle e-reader only on the retailer's American site.

But after users on the mico-blogging site Twitter called for the online retailer to pull the book - with some threatening to boycott the store - Amazon backed down under pressure and removed the title.

Users on the mico-blogging site Twitter have called for the online retailer to pull the book and some have threatened to boycott the store until it does

Initially the company had come out defiant in response, and released a statement to the BBC which read: 'Amazon believes it is censorship not to sell certain books simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable.

'Amazon does not support or promote hatred or criminal acts, however, we do support the right of every individual to make their own purchasing decisions.'

Amazon did not respond to e-mails or calls from the Daily Mail looking for comment after the e-book had been removed from its website.

The company, which allows authors to submit their own works and shares revenue with them, issues guidelines banning certain materials, including those deemed offensive.

However, Amazon doesn't elaborate precisely what constitutes offensive content, saying simply that it is 'probably what you would expect'.

Amazon also doesn't promise to remove or protect any one category of books.

The author of the self-published 'The Pedophile's Guide', listed as Philip R. Greaves II, argues that paedophiles are misunderstood, as the word literally means to love a child.

In reaction to Amazon's statement, one blogger, Michelle Rivera said: 'These pathetic statements Amazon made absolutely disgusted me to the core.

'Amazon you most certainly did support and promote hatred and criminal acts as you allowed this "author" to have a forum to sell and promote this product, this hideous book geared towards the victimization of innocent children since October! SHAME ON YOU AMAZON.COM!!!!!'

It isn't the first time Amazon has come under attack for selling objectionable content in its store.

It is currently accepting pre-orders for the hardcover version of 'I Am the Market: How to Smuggle Cocaine by the Ton, in Five Easy Lessons' by Luca Rastello.

And in 2002, the United States Justice Foundation, a conservative group, threatened to sue Amazon for selling 'Understanding Loved Boys and Boylovers.' That title is still available through Amazon.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1328651/Amazon-pulls-e-book-guide-offered-advice-paedophiles.html#


----------



## JCBeam (Feb 27, 2009)

Cardinal said:


> Amazon removed the book, it is no longer for sale.


Thank god because I was going to have to boycott Amazon which would have been more painful for me than them, I'm sure.


----------



## patrickt (Aug 28, 2010)

I haven't found anything even close to Amazon defending "Pedophile's Guide". Could History_lover direct me to a site where Amazon or someone connected to Amazon defended the book?


----------



## monkeyluis (Oct 17, 2010)

Ugh, such a tough topic.

I agree that it's absolutely disgusting to have this book around.  I have kids myself and I don't even let them go out front and play without me being able to see them.

But should we shut down the internet too?  I'm sure there are plenty of sites with the same type of objectionable content, we just ignore them right?  So why can't we do the same with this.  Why is it amazon's problem?  This same type of material is in the bible (and look how many versions are on amazon for it) and I choose not to buy it.  Not any different.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Exactly.  Amazon has pulled the book.  Time to move on.... 

Betsy


----------



## pjm (Jul 20, 2010)

I think this is a tricky situation. I am glad amazon finally decided to remove the book, and I hope amazon reviews the books before adding them to their product list. However, censorship is not good and will never be.
In this specific case, amazon is just a way for authors of taking a book to potential buyers (like ebay) and is not responsible for the content of the book, the author is. I do not think amazon defends pedophiles but they have to defend freedom of speech. Amazon sells religious books but also atheist books and I do not think we can conclude from that that amazon defends one or the other.
In the case of the "Pedophile's Guide", if the book can lead to crimes or facilitate crimes then the police should have taken actions.
Just my 2 cents...


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

A thread from LTK was merged with this one in the Corner on the same subject. . . .as noted, the book has been pulled.


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

patrickt said:


> I haven't found anything even close to Amazon defending "Pedophile's Guide". Could History_lover direct me to a site where Amazon or someone connected to Amazon defended the book?


They originally defended their right to sell the book. Many people interpret that as defending the book itself.


----------



## kb7uen Gene (Mar 13, 2009)

OK, if a person has child pornography pictures in their procession, they can be arrested and charged related to child pornography, right?  But if this person simply downloaded the pictures from the web, but was not present at the location during the picture taking or involved in what is shown in the pictures, then why would they be charged with a crime.  Isn't this more of a case of child porn voyeurism?  I'm asking for clarification to understand this whole thing and not because I condone the interest or acts of these people.

The reason why I'm asking this is because I'm wondering if a picture(s) are the only medium that is considered child pornography when it involves an adult engaged in a sexual act(s) with a child?  aren't descriptions of the same sexual act(s) of an adult with a child also considered child pornography?  If it isn't, it should be.  For example, when we read a book of any kind, we enter a world in our minds which is more than just printed words on a page or audio being spoken to us, so why would this be any different for these people?  If an author goes so far as to describe acts of this nature, shouldn't it be considered child pornography and be a crime?

Why should this be protected by "FREE SPEECH"?  Why shouldn't it be clumped in with hate speech or for example, yelling fire in a crowded or packed venue when there is no emergency to get a reaction or cause a panic from the crowd of people so you watch what happens next?  Both these examples can be either physically and or emotionally harmful or in the case of the fire example potentially fatal.

I really don't think this should be protected by free speech, I really don't, it goes beyond harmful to being criminal.

Gene


----------



## unknown2cherubim (Sep 10, 2010)

Whoa.  I'm glad they pulled the book because I was struggling with their decision to keep it.  I have the same struggle with hate speech as free speech.  To me, there is no such thing as a completely unfettered right.  

We need to respect the right for someone to have a minority, fringe, dissident or deeply unpopular viewpoint.  That is a bedrock.  However proven slander and hate speech is not allowable, nor IMO should this be.

OTOH, I see your viewpoint monkeyluis.  I'm for the least amount of restrictions possible whenever possible.


----------



## shalym (Sep 1, 2010)

unknown2cherubim said:


> Whoa. I'm glad they pulled the book because I was struggling with their decision to keep it. I have the same struggle with hate speech as free speech. To me, there is no such thing as a completely unfettered right.
> 
> We need to respect the right for someone to have a minority, fringe, dissident or deeply unpopular viewpoint. That is a bedrock. However proven slander and hate speech is not allowable, nor IMO should this be.
> 
> OTOH, I see your viewpoint monkeyluis. I'm for the least amount of restrictions possible whenever possible.


But how do you define hate speech? Is it hate speech if I say "Gays are bad, evil people"? Is it hate speech if I say "Catholics are bad, evil people"? Is it hate speech if I say "Nazis are bad, evil people"?

Everything is relative. Remember that when you are trying to tell someone what they can and can not say.

Shari


----------



## unknown2cherubim (Sep 10, 2010)

shalym said:


> But how do you define hate speech? Is it hate speech if I say "Gays are bad, evil people"? Is it hate speech if I say "Catholics are bad, evil people"? Is it hate speech if I say "Nazis are bad, evil people"?
> 
> Everything is relative. Remember that when you are trying to tell someone what they can and can not say.
> 
> Shari


Yow, Shari. I believe that is up to the courts to decide, not me. I'm not a judge. I'm well aware that much that personally offends me doesn't offend others. Yes, it is relative. Where did I say it wasn't?

_ETA: That's why I used the word "proven" in my previous post. Apologies that that word wasn't specific enough._


----------



## s0nicfreak (Jun 10, 2010)

Removing this is like removing a book called "The Witch's Guide to Potions and Magic" from a library in the 15/16th century, imo.



> But if this person simply downloaded the pictures from the web, but was not present at the location during the picture taking or involved in what is shown in the pictures, then why would they be charged with a crime.


(This is the argument, not necessarily my opinion) A crime had to be committed to create the picture, a child had to be molested to create the picture. The picture is proof a crime was committed/a child was molested, and by downloading one is encouraging more crimes being committed/more molesting of children.

However, in the case of a book, no crime was committed, no child was molested, unless you count "thought crime."


----------



## G. Henkel (Jan 12, 2010)

Has anyone actually read the book or is this entire uproar simply based on the title? Did it ever occur to anyone that this could actually be a humorous book and the title - while in bad taste - is nothing more than a hook to attract attention - which seems to have worked exceedingly well. I don't know - I haven't read it - so I will abstain from taking any sides on this subject.


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

Guido Henkel said:


> Has anyone actually read the book or is this entire uproar simply based on the title? Did it ever occur to anyone that this could actually be a humorous book and the title - while in bad taste - is nothing more than a hook to attract attention - which seems to have worked exceedingly well. I don't know - I haven't read it - so I will abstain from taking any sides on this subject.


I'm pretty sure Amazon will have checked it out before pulling it off the site to make sure it really was what the title says and not a joke or a hook. And if it was just a hook, it did not actually work because it's now been removed completely.


----------



## intinst (Dec 23, 2008)

Guido Henkel said:


> Has anyone actually read the book or is this entire uproar simply based on the title? Did it ever occur to anyone that this could actually be a humorous book and the title - while in bad taste - is nothing more than a hook to attract attention - which seems to have worked exceedingly well. I don't know - I haven't read it - so I will abstain from taking any sides on this subject.


You obviously did not read some of the earlier posts with links to quotes from the book.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

kb7uen Gene said:


> OK, if a person has child pornography pictures in their procession, they can be arrested and charged related to child pornography, right? But if this person simply downloaded the pictures from the web, but was not present at the location during the picture taking or involved in what is shown in the pictures, then why would they be charged with a crime.


Because they are in possession of illegal material. No laws are broken by writing anything. In the U.S. at least.



kb7uen Gene said:


> The reason why I'm asking this is because I'm wondering if a picture(s) are the only medium that is considered child pornography when it involves an adult engaged in a sexual act(s) with a child?


There are guidlines for what is considered illegal child porn, and the children don't have to be engaged in a sex act with an adult. Any photos that expose genitalia and depict the child in a sexual or lacivious way, can be illegal child porn.



kb7uen Gene said:


> aren't descriptions of the same sexual act(s) of an adult with a child also considered child pornography?


It may be considered child porn, but it's not illegal.



kb7uen Gene said:


> If it isn't, it should be. For example, when we read a book of any kind, we enter a world in our minds which is more than just printed words on a page or audio being spoken to us, so why would this be any different for these people? If an author goes so far as to describe acts of this nature, shouldn't it be considered child pornography and be a crime?


I disagree. No one should be put in jail for simply putting words to paper. It's a very slippery slope you're headed down.



kb7uen Gene said:


> Why should this be protected by "FREE SPEECH"? Why shouldn't it be clumped in with hate speech or for example, yelling fire in a crowded or packed venue when there is no emergency to get a reaction or cause a panic from the crowd of people so you watch what happens next? Both these examples can be either physically and or emotionally harmful or in the case of the fire example potentially fatal.


In the U.S., there is no legal concept of 'hate speech', and you can't compare it to shouting fire in a theater, because there is no imminent danger created. It may be your opinion there's danger, but that's just your opinion.

Someone else may come to the conclusion that writing about murders is dangerous, and should be a crime. Or criticizing the government is dangerous, or detailing terrorist plots in novels is dangerous. Where does it stop and who gets to decide?


----------



## CandyTX (Apr 13, 2009)

Me and My Kindle said:


> For what it's worth, here's Amazon's official position (as reported by ABC News.)
> 
> "Amazon believes it is censorship not to sell certain books simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable. Amazon does not support or promote hatred or criminal acts, however, we do support the right of every individual to make their own purchasing decision."


I've seen this exact same quote before. People were up in arms about all the erotica on the top 100 list and that is what they sent to people when they emailed to complain about all the porn. The article I read said it was an email that was sent to a blogger that emailed in about it. I'm guessing/betting that some CS person didn't actually read the email and sent it as a standard "this is what we click when people ask" type of a thing.

All conjecture, I know.

Not to defend Amazon, we've seen stuff get pass their DTP in the past. I only hope that this makes them re-look at how they are handling DTP in the future, without affecting the authors we actually like.


----------



## unknown2cherubim (Sep 10, 2010)

swolf said:


> <much snipped>
> Someone else may come to the conclusion that writing about murders is dangerous, and should be a crime. Or criticizing the government is dangerous, or detailing terrorist plots in novels is dangerous. Where does it stop and who gets to decide?


IMO, the legal system gets to decide and sometimes I might not agree. That's why as a citizen of my country I lean towards the least amount of censorship or free speech restriction as possible. Where does it stop? The problem is we don't can't know.


----------



## s0nicfreak (Jun 10, 2010)

> Has anyone actually read the book or is this entire uproar simply based on the title? Did it ever occur to anyone that this could actually be a humorous book and the title - while in bad taste - is nothing more than a hook to attract attention - which seems to have worked exceedingly well. I don't know - I haven't read it - so I will abstain from taking any sides on this subject.


Well I have only read quotes and excerpts, but it is definitely about what the title says. However what I have seen does not really describe how to commit a crime, it seems like more of a "here's how to deal with being a pedophile without being arrested nor lynched" type of thing. Perhaps there are other parts that describe how to commit crimes that aren't being quoted, though.



CandyTX said:


> I only hope that this makes them re-look at how they are handling DTP in the future, without affecting the authors we actually like.


I think you meant to use "I" instead of "we" in that sentence. I personally have not read enough of the book to form an opinion on the author.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

unknown2cherubim said:


> IMO, the legal system gets to decide and sometimes I might not agree. That's why as a citizen of my country I lean towards the least amount of censorship or free speech restriction as possible. Where does it stop? The problem is we don't can't know.


The litmus test should always be, does the exercising of my rights infringe upon the rights of others? If yes, as in the case of shouting fire in the theater, libel, slander, and abusing (real) children, then the right should be restricted. If not, and I can't see how someone writing about a fictional sexual encounter involving a fictional child is infringing upon anyone's rights, then it should be allowed.

Creepy? Yes. Disgusting? Of course. But illegal? I don't think so. As I said, if freedom of speech only protected speech we all agreed with, there would be no need for it.


----------



## bce (Nov 17, 2009)

unknown2cherubim said:


> IMO, the legal system gets to decide and sometimes I might not agree. That's why as a citizen of my country I lean towards the least amount of censorship or free speech restriction as possible. Where does it stop? The problem is we don't can't know.


But this is not about Free Speech. This is about Amazon deciding to carry the book in question. The right to free speech does not mean that everyone has to listen to you, or that every outlet has to provide access to it. It just means that you can say/write/print/email it without GOVERNMENT interference.

Yes it is about censorship. Censorship is NOT a bad word. The world would be better off if people imposed some self-censorship on themselves and didn't always say the first thing that pops into their head. Amazon is certainly within their rights to not provide an outlet for this book. Yes that is censorship. They are censoring what their customers can buy. The person that wrote this book can try to find other outlets for it.

Personally, I am glad that Amazon has pulled this book. I have a member of my family that is HIV+ from when he was molested as a early teen, and I would hate to see others go through what he has gone through.


----------



## bordercollielady (Nov 21, 2008)

There are things that may not be illegal but that are hurtful  to  society and I  strongly feel  that this is one of  them.. Amazon -what are you thinking??

Later - sorry - I'm late to the party. so Amazon did pull it..Good for them.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Oogie Pringle said:


> But this is not about Free Speech.


It is, both in the general definition of the phrase, and, since some of the posters have advocated the author be jailed, the constitutional sense.

Of course, Amazon is a private company and can sell or not sell anything they please. But this thread is not only about their decision, but also people's reaction to it. I find it ironic that many people claim to be for free speech, but when they run into some speech they dislike, they attempt to have it removed, either through the law or with boycotts.


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

swolf said:


> Someone else may come to the conclusion that writing about murders is dangerous, and should be a crime. Or criticizing the government is dangerous, or detailing terrorist plots in novels is dangerous. Where does it stop and who gets to decide?


Writing about murder isn't the same thing as encouraging murder. If someone wrote a book on the psychological study of pedophilia, I wouldn't have a problem with it. If someone wrote a novel that involved pedophilia, I wouldn't have a problem with it. There are already books of this nature - I have even read a Jody Picoult novel involving pedophilia. I don't see the mass public being outraged by them or Amazon banning them so I'm not too worried about it at the moment. I'll worry about it if and when it ever happens - but there's no sense worrying about something that's highly unlikely to happen in the near future... that's called paranoia.

However, if a serious book on "how to murder someone and get away with it" was written, yeah, I'd probably be just as disgusted. If there is a book like this already, please bring it to my attention and I will complain to Amazon. I was never going to boycott Amazon over this but I would have sent in a complaint.

This book was encouraging pedophilia as though the rape of a child is an acceptable act of "love" and whether it did so within the bounds of the law or not doesn't really matter. What's legal is not always ethical and as a private company, Amazon have the right to decide if something is unethical enough that they do not want to be a party to it. That is who gets to decide and I don't see a problem with it. Had they decided to allow it to remain, I would have complained to them but ultimately, it's their decision.


----------



## s0nicfreak (Jun 10, 2010)

Pedophilia and child rape/molestation are different things.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

history_lover said:


> Writing about murder isn't the same thing as encouraging murder. If someone wrote a book on the psychological study of pedophilia, I wouldn't have a problem with it. If someone wrote a novel that involved pedophilia, I wouldn't have a problem with it. There are already books of this nature - I have even read a Jody Picoult novel involving pedophilia. I don't see the mass public being outraged by them or Amazon banning them so I'm not too worried about it at the moment. I'll worry about it if and when it ever happens - but there's no sense worrying about something that's highly unlikely to happen in the near future... that's called paranoia.
> 
> However, if a serious book on "how to murder someone and get away with it" was written, yeah, I'd probably be just as disgusted. If there is a book like this already, please bring it to my attention and I will complain to Amazon. I was never going to boycott Amazon over this but I would have sent in a complaint.
> 
> This book was encouraging pedophilia as though the rape of a child is an acceptable act of "love" and whether it did so within the bounds of the law or not doesn't really matter. What's legal is not always ethical and as a private company, Amazon have the right to decide if something is unethical enough that they do not want to be a party to it. That is who gets to decide and I don't see a problem with it. Had they decided to allow it to remain, I would have complained to them but ultimately, it's their decision.


Here is the post I was responding to:



kb7uen Gene said:


> The reason why I'm asking this is because I'm wondering if a picture(s) are the only medium that is considered child pornography when it involves an adult engaged in a sexual act(s) with a child? aren't descriptions of the same sexual act(s) of an adult with a child also considered child pornography? If it isn't, it should be. For example, when we read a book of any kind, we enter a world in our minds which is more than just printed words on a page or audio being spoken to us, so why would this be any different for these people? If an author goes so far as to describe acts of this nature, shouldn't it be considered child pornography and be a crime?
> 
> Why should this be protected by "FREE SPEECH"? Why shouldn't it be clumped in with hate speech or for example, yelling fire in a crowded or packed venue when there is no emergency to get a reaction or cause a panic from the crowd of people so you watch what happens next? Both these examples can be either physically and or emotionally harmful or in the case of the fire example potentially fatal.
> 
> I really don't think this should be protected by free speech, I really don't, it goes beyond harmful to being criminal.


Gene was discussing written child pornography that described sexual acts between and adult and a child, not the book being discussed in the OP of this thread.


----------



## JCBeam (Feb 27, 2009)

history_lover said:


> Writing about murder isn't the same thing as encouraging murder. If someone wrote a book on the psychological study of pedophilia, I wouldn't have a problem with it. If someone wrote a novel that involved pedophilia, I wouldn't have a problem with it. There are already books of this nature - I have even read a Jody Picoult novel involving pedophilia. I don't see the mass public being outraged by them or Amazon banning them so I'm not too worried about it at the moment. I'll worry about it if and when it ever happens - but there's no sense worrying about something that's highly unlikely to happen in the near future... that's called paranoia.
> 
> However, if a serious book on "how to murder someone and get away with it" was written, yeah, I'd probably be just as disgusted. If there is a book like this already, please bring it to my attention and I will complain to Amazon. I was never going to boycott Amazon over this but I would have sent in a complaint.
> 
> This book was encouraging pedophilia as though the rape of a child is an acceptable act of "love" and whether it did so within the bounds of the law or not doesn't really matter. What's legal is not always ethical and as a private company, Amazon have the right to decide if something is unethical enough that they do not want to be a party to it. That is who gets to decide and I don't see a problem with it. Had they decided to allow it to remain, I would have complained to them but ultimately, it's their decision.


Amen, sister


----------



## durphy (Nov 5, 2008)

I'm glad Amazon chose to take down the book. I think that was an appropriate response. Supposedly the book wasn't illegal because it didn't have photos.


----------



## Thumper (Feb 26, 2009)

Figures..I spent a while this morning writing a blog post about this, and by then time I was done and had published... =poof= the book is gone.

I am _always _late to the party!


----------



## monkeyluis (Oct 17, 2010)

swolf said:


> It is, both in the general definition of the phrase, and, since some of the posters have advocated the author be jailed, the constitutional sense.
> 
> Of course, Amazon is a private company and can sell or not sell anything they please. But this thread is not only about their decision, but also people's reaction to it. I find it ironic that many people claim to be for free speech, but when they run into some speech they dislike, they attempt to have it removed, either through the law or with boycotts.


::thumbs up::

I see this all the time too.


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

Thumper said:


> Figures..I spent a while this morning writing a blog post about this, and by then time I was done and had published... =poof= the book is gone.
> 
> I am _always _late to the party!


Shoulda checked first.  The book was gone by 10pm Central Time last night.


----------



## unknown2cherubim (Sep 10, 2010)

swolf said:


> Of course, Amazon is a private company and can sell or not sell anything they please. But this thread is not only about their decision, but also people's reaction to it. I find it ironic that many people claim to be for free speech, but when they run into some speech they dislike, they attempt to have it removed, either through the law or with boycotts.


I know you weren't implying otherwise, swolf, but protesting or boycotting is also a protected right, as is attempting to change the situation by means of a vote of the people. One of my favorite things about democracy is how messy and paradoxical it is.


----------



## GMUHistorian (Jul 1, 2009)

history_lover said:


> They originally defended their right to sell the book. Many people interpret that as defending the book itself.


If individuals don't have the intellectual capacity to understand that something written in a book is not endorsed by the seller that's just sad. One can defend someone's right to say or write something objectionable without endorsing that speech. It is up to the "marketplace of ideas" to decide which ideas are worthwhile and which are not. Even though he never used the term, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. defined this marketplace of ideas in his 1919 dissenting opinion in the Abrams v. United States.

I don't endorse the ideas of either the loudmouth on MSNBC (Keith Olbermann) or the loudmouth on Fox News (Glenn Beck) but I will defend their right to get paid enormous sums of money to be loudmouths. If individuals think these two guys views are endorsed up the corporate ladder and find this objectionable, depending on your political views, you also have to stop watching a whole litany of American cable and broadcast TV stations, stop reading books published by particular publishers and stop going to movies produced or distributed by particular movie studios depending on whether you ideologically agree with Keith Olbermann, a Democrat or Glenn Beck, a Republican, because they're on MSNBC or Fox News and "obviously" the networks, their parent companies and every other company owned by those parent companies, endorse their views.

For those of you who say Amazon shouldn't sell this book because it concerns illegal behavior, if aren't a hypocrite that means you also must now ask Amazon to stop selling a book I found on the site in dead tree form as well as Kindle form that teaches a reader how to grow marijuana (Grow Great Marijuana: An Uncomplicated Guide to Growing the World's Finest Cannabis) because doing so is against Federal law in the United States. Amazon also sells books that describe (in a couple cases in fictionalized form but using very real techniques), how an individual might go about stealing another individual's identity or hack a computer network. (Stealing the Network: How to Own an Identity, Stealing the Network: How to Own a Continent and The Hackers Codebook: The Ultimate Book of Hacks, Mods and Computer Tricks.)

See how far this kind of thinking can go?

As for the legality of what this author wrote, in 1969 in their decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that it is legal in the United States to say or to write anything "except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Even though they describe how to commit illegal acts, even the books I mentioned above likely don't meet the "imminent lawless action" criteria. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=395&invol=444

The use of "falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater" is from Justice Holmes Jr.'s opinion in the 1919 Schenck vs. United States case. It's commonly cited to illustrate exceptions to the First Amendment but that "standard" has been irrelevant for over 80 years. The Supreme Court overruled this decision in 1927 in the Whitney v. California decision. That decision was itself overruled in the 1969 Brandenburg decision. Unless the author of this book has a chapter on how to lure kids in to a relationship, he's very likely broken no law in the United States.

I do agree that if they were to make this book available in the Kindle store Amazon would have to restrict it from being downloaded in countries where selling such material is illegal. Incidentally, Mein Kampf is not an example of this kind of restriction. The book is not banned in Germany. The allies gave the German state of Bavaria the assets of the Nazi's publishing company Eher-Verlag when the war ended and the Bavarian government has just declined to have the book published in Germany since the end of World War II. The copyright on Mein Kampf is supposed to expire in 2015. Unless something changes before then, anyone in Germany who wants to publish it will be able to do so.

I suspect Amazon's heavily debated their own guidelines the past couple of days. They probably didn't have much of a conversation about that previously, especially not one involving what would happen if an objectionable title sparked an outcry via social media. Apple has been known to change and boomerang on how they define their guidelines too. In 2008 Apple banned author David Carnoy's app based on his book Knife Music because the content in the app contained "objectionable" words. Yet they permitted the Pull My Finger and iFart moble, which (at least in 200 were sold in the app store's "mature" section.

I have to laugh at people who actively participated in the boycott. When Amazon finally pulled the book down for good it was listed as the #80 Kindle best seller. The boycott got this author much more publicity, and money, than his ideas are worth. They accomplished their goal but well after this guy made a decent amount of money on ideas that aren't worth one cent.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

unknown2cherubim said:


> I know you weren't implying otherwise, swolf, but protesting or boycotting is also a protected right, as is attempting to change the situation by means of a vote of the people. One of my favorite things about democracy is how messy and paradoxical it is.


I consider part of democracy to be offering counter arguments to ideas presented, not attempting to shut up those you disagree with.


----------



## unknown2cherubim (Sep 10, 2010)

swolf said:


> I consider part of democracy to be offering counter arguments to ideas presented, not attempting to shut up those you disagree with.


I consider trying to shut someone up by legal and ethical means to be absolutely a part of democracy. We'll agree to disagree, I expect. 



> I have to laugh at people who actively participated in the bocycott. When Amazon finally pulled the book down for good it was listed as the #80 Kindle best seller. The boycott got this author much more publiity, and money, than his ideas are worth. They accomplished their goal but well after this guy made a decent amount of money on ideas that aren't worth one cent.


The more people steal or deface the library's witchcraft materials so as to "protect" people or to censor the contents, the more often we have to replace them, thus leaving less money to purchase more "acceptable" items.

IMO it is much better to add to the cacophony than to try to shut an unwelcome idea down.


----------



## Pushka (Oct 30, 2009)

swolf said:


> The difference between pictures and text, it that a real child had to be abused in order to create the picture.
> 
> I find the reactions in this thread a bit scary. It should be a crime to write something offensive? Most of us find rape and murder offensive, but does that mean people should stop writing fictional accounts of those subjects?
> 
> The purpose of free speech isn't to protect speech we all agree with. That kind of speech doesn't need protection. Free speech allows the loathsome to be brought into the light, debated, and proved to be lacking.


Well, in Australia children have protection. This kind of book is regarded as pornography of the worst kind. It harms vulnerable children. There is no consent implied in any of the texts, and indeed, children under 16 cannot be regarded as giving consent anyway. I cannot think how anyone can consider that such books deserve the light of day in the context of free speech.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

unknown2cherubim said:


> I consider trying to shut someone up by legal and ethical means to be absolutely a part of democracy.


And I consider people who hold that belief don't really understand what democracy is.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Pushka said:


> Well, in Australia children have protection. This kind of book is regarded as pornography of the worst kind. It harms vulnerable children. There is no consent implied in any of the texts, and indeed, children under 16 cannot be regarded as giving consent anyway. I cannot think how anyone can consider that such books deserve the light of day in the context of free speech.


Which children is it harming? Real children please. And show how this specific book harmed them.


----------



## Pushka (Oct 30, 2009)

swolf said:


> Which children is it harming? Real children please. And show how this specific book harmed them.


Quoted from a recent successful criminal prosecution in Australia:
*Briefly put, censorship in Australia is primarily concerned with 'hard-core pornography' (in particular where it involves children, bestiality, violence, cruelty and/or exploitation); and incitement to or instruction in crime (especially those involving violence or proscribed drugs). Particularly severe legislation relates to 'child pornography'.*

This book would be banned in Australia. Instructing someone how to commit a crime (and sex with a child IS a crime) is a criminal offence.


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

ZankerH said:


> Yes, and Amazon also sells Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto. They're obviously part of a communist-nazi conspiracy to take over the internet.
> 
> Or, people could just stop jumping to unwarranted assumptions. Doing business with someone doesn't mean you agree with his opinions on anything.


Yes, I agree. Although I wouldn't place those two books into the same category.

I agree that the book in question sounds sickening. But I'm not convinced it's necessarily Amazon's job to police these things. If their lawyers (and I'm sure their lawyers were consulted) did not flag it as illegal, then...well, there it is. And I'm not sure this is yet in the same category as screaming fire in a crowded theater. That law was made after some litigation and the decision was made by the US Supreme Court. If anyone litigates this book up to the USSC, then we can have further guidelines on what is and isn't legally accepted.

Also, I don't think this falls into the same category as placing a nude photo on the cover. I think a comparable thing would be if there was a book with fully spelled out profanity on the cover. (As opposed to "Sh*t My Dad Says," which obviously makes an effort to obscure the profanity.)


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Pushka said:


> Quoted from a recent successful criminal prosecution in Australia:
> *Briefly put, censorship in Australia is primarily concerned with 'hard-core pornography' (in particular where it involves children, bestiality, violence, cruelty and/or exploitation); and incitement to or instruction in crime (especially those involving violence or proscribed drugs). Particularly severe legislation relates to 'child pornography'.*
> 
> This book would be banned in Australia. Instructing someone how to commit a crime (and sex with a child IS a crime) is a criminal offence.


You didn't answer my questions.


----------



## unknown2cherubim (Sep 10, 2010)

swolf said:


> And I consider people who hold that belief don't really understand what democracy is.


I bet we both agree that our right to disagree is a part of democracy in action.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

unknown2cherubim said:


> I bet we both agree that our right to disagree is a part of democracy in action.


Yep. 

However, if I took your point of view, it would be ok for me to run to the mods and try to get your posts deleted because I don't agree with your position. And if I was successful, you'd have to agree that was democracy in action.


----------



## s0nicfreak (Jun 10, 2010)

Pushka said:


> Instructing someone how to commit a crime (and sex with a child IS a crime) is a criminal offence.


I still have not seen anything from this book that instructs how to have sex with children, though.


----------



## Margaret Jean (Aug 31, 2010)

When I was an idenpendent bookseller (years ago), I had to make some difficult decisions about books that either most of my customers found objectionable or I myself found beyond the pale.  Where the rubber meets the road, it was finally my call.  I wasn't constrained by the free speech argument or the art for art's sake argument, because as a business owner, I could simply choose not to sell something because I did not "want" to.  I drew the line when it came to pedophiliac, sado-masochistic material and other just plain wrong (in my "book") areas (such as making radioactive bombs, assasinating public figures etc.).  We actually had "customers" who wanted us to special order such books (because we didn't stock them), but we always refused.  

Cut to the chase:  Amazon can do as it d****d well pleases (just as I did).  I find it really peculiar that they censor curse words and gutter language from their forums (and are quick to wag a finger at bad manners in forums) and yet are willing to sell such a book on their site.  Pedophiliac behavior is illegal (and utterly immoral to my way of thinking).  Simple as that.  What are they trying to prove by listing books like this?  Very odd.


----------



## Okkoto86 (Oct 29, 2010)

The books been pulled. Just thought y'all should know.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20022495-93.html?tag=TOCmoreStories.0


----------



## Pushka (Oct 30, 2009)

swolf said:


> You didn't answer my questions.


I did actually. These were your original questions.



> Which children is it harming? Real children please. And show how this specific book harmed them.


If you read the criminal law quote which I posted, and which you requoted, you would see that in Australia there does not have to be a Victim - simply providing the instructions to a criminal act is in itself, a Criminal Act. Real children? As I said, the Instructing is a crime in itself. I think instructing someone on


Spoiler



the size of a condom to use for a young child


 is more than enough evidence than a child would be harmed if the instructions were followed. Unless of course people think


Spoiler



having sex with a child is ok.


 Having


Spoiler



sex with anyone who is unable to consent (whether by age - old or young, mental capacity, or intoxication)


 is never ok and I would hate to live in a community where freedoms of "offenders" takes precedence over the victims.

Whether the book has been pulled is kind of irrelevant to this discussion.


----------



## Abigail (Apr 27, 2010)

I don't agree with there has to be pictures. For example if Police found texts, emails, letters explaining how the person can fly a plane into a building under a terrorists organisations name, then that is enough to send the person to prison.


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

swolf said:


> Here is the post I was responding to:
> 
> Gene was discussing written child pornography that described sexual acts between and adult and a child, not the book being discussed in the OP of this thread.


Of the quotes I read from the book, that is exactly what was in it. I stand by my statements.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Pushka said:


> I did actually. These were your original questions.
> 
> If you read the criminal law quote which I posted, and which you requoted, you would see that in Australia there does not have to be a Victim - simply providing the instructions to a criminal act is in itself, a Criminal Act. Real children? As I said, the Instructing is a crime in itself. I think instructing someone on
> 
> ...


No, you didn't. I asked for real kids being harmed, and you gave me theoretical ones that MAY be harmed.

Try again.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

history_lover said:


> Of the quotes I read from the book, that is exactly what was in it. I stand by my statements.


So wait, you quoted my post and then responded to something completely different?


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

swolf said:


> So wait, you quoted my post and then responded to something completely different?


No, I'm saying the book was a part of what you were talking about because it also "described sexual acts between and adult and a child". I really can't have a discussion with someone who is intent on nitpicking irrelevant points in order to avoid replying to the valid ones. If what you're talking about is so off the original topic then maybe you should start a different topic.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

history_lover said:


> No, I'm saying the book was a part of what you were talking about because it also "described sexual acts between and adult and a child". I really can't have a discussion with someone who is intent on nitpicking irrelevant points in order to avoid replying to the valid ones. If what you're talking about is so off the original topic then maybe you should start a different topic.


I was responding to someone else's post, answering their specific point. And then you responded to mine. So now it's my fault you misunderstood what we were talking about?


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks. . . . .I think it would be wise to take a break from the discussion. . .I think there's been talking at cross purposes, incomplete reading of posts, and, of course, the laws of more than one country involved regarding a topic that can cause high passions in folks. . . . .and some of the posts are beginning to stray toward personal attack which, as you all know, we do not permit here in KindleBoards.

The topic is worthy of discussion so I'd hate to have to lock the thread. . . .let's all be respectful and recognize that while opinions can be expressed, opposing opinions can also be expressed and must be respected.

Thanks


----------



## tecwritr (Oct 28, 2008)

swolf said:


> The litmus test should always be, does the exercising of my rights infringe upon the rights of others? If yes, as in the case of shouting fire in the theater, libel, slander, and abusing (real) children, then the right should be restricted. If not, and I can't see how someone writing about a fictional sexual encounter involving a fictional child is infringing upon anyone's rights, then it should be allowed.
> 
> Creepy? Yes. Disgusting? Of course. But illegal? I don't think so. As I said, if freedom of speech only protected speech we all agreed with, there would be no need for it.


In my opinion there is no true freedom of speech. Why? With the many ways we as a society communicate a person can make a statement and have their lives destroyed by certain groups of people. Examples: Jimmy the Greek (you may have to look that one up), Don Imus, John Rocker, etc.


----------



## Pushka (Oct 30, 2009)

swolf said:


> No, you didn't. I asked for real kids being harmed, and you gave me theoretical ones that MAY be harmed.
> 
> Try again.


You don't seem to understand or dont want to understand, that 'real kids' don't need to be harmed for writing such a book to be considered a criminal act here in Australia. And that is relevant because Amazon distributes here. Extending your 'real people and must have names position' are you also suggesting that if someone plots a terrorist act, murder etc but is discovered before that act is carried out, that no crime has occurred?


----------



## s0nicfreak (Jun 10, 2010)

Pushka said:


> You don't seem to understand or dont want to understand, that 'real kids' don't need to be harmed for writing such a book to be considered a criminal act here in Australia. And that is relevant because Amazon distributes here. Extending your 'real people and must have names position' are you also suggesting that if someone plots a terrorist act, murder etc but is discovered before that act is carried out, that no crime has occurred?


What you don't seem to understand is that swolf is not disputing what the law is in Australia. He's asking a separate question which you keep avoiding. 
If someone wrote a book called "The Murder's Guide to Knives and Guns" I would say no crime was committed. This book, from what I have seen, is not akin to a murder plot. And if Amazon wanted to make it unavailable to only Australia, they could have done so.


----------



## Pushka (Oct 30, 2009)

s0nicfreak said:


> What you don't seem to understand is that swolf is not disputing what the law is in Australia. He's asking a separate question which you keep avoiding.
> If someone wrote a book called "The Murder's Guide to Knives and Guns" I would say no crime was committed. This book, from what I have seen, is not akin to a murder plot. And if Amazon wanted to make it unavailable to only Australia, they could have done so.


Then please tell me what this question is that I am avoiding. I have explained that here there does not need to be an actual victim for an instructional book describing how to commit a crime, to be considered a crime. But he keeps asking me for real children. And your book about knives and guns - probably not relevant what you think about whether it is a crime, but what the law states about it. And here, that book would be considered a criminal act. I don't know whether amazon chose to sell that book into Australia as like a previous person, I didn't want to explore further in case that type of filth somehow ends up in my recommendations list. But I did research further into it outside of my Amazon account.


----------



## s0nicfreak (Jun 10, 2010)

The children harmed. Ignore the fact that there does not need to be an actual victim for an instructional book describing how to commit a crime to be considered a crime in Australia. Not that what I have seen of this book describes how to commit a crime, at least by American laws (maybe thoughtcrime is illegal in Australia, I don't know).


----------



## Pushka (Oct 30, 2009)

s0nicfreak said:


> The children harmed. Ignore the fact that there does not need to be an actual victim for an instructional book describing how to commit a crime to be considered a crime in Australia. Not that what I have seen of this book describes how to commit a crime, at least by American laws (maybe thoughtcrime is illegal in Australia, I don't know).


So, I guess you are asking whether children are actually harmed if they have sex or are involved with sexual activities with an adult? I have had enough experience in the legal system and mental health area for me to know about that but will leave you to your own research.

I think thoughtcrime is a very interesting word to use. Once it is in writing, they are no longer thoughts though, are they. Is looking at a picture a thoughtcrime too?


----------



## s0nicfreak (Jun 10, 2010)

> So, I guess you are asking whether children are actually harmed if they have sex or are involved with sexual activities with an adult?


No, the question is: *what actual children are being harmed by this book? *



> Once it is in writing, they are no longer thoughts though, are they.


They are still thoughts, just shared thoughts. The crime (if there is one) exists only in the minds of the writer and reader.



> Is looking at a picture a thoughtcrime too?


To make an actual picture of an illegal act, a crime had to be committed, so pictures are a different subject.


----------



## Pushka (Oct 30, 2009)

s0nicfreak said:


> No, the question is: *what actual children are being harmed by this book? *
> They are still thoughts, just shared thoughts. The crime (if there is one) exists only in the minds of the writer and reader.
> To make an actual picture of an illegal act, a crime had to be committed, so pictures are a different subject.


I give up. How can I say which actual children are being harmed. Sorry, I don't get it. I believe in prevention and risk management, not waiting until there is a victim.

But back to the picture issue. You say that the creation of a picture involves an illegal act therefore it is quite clear as to the offense. Surely then, if in this Instructional book it says things like "abc size is too large for correct use and will result in xyz happening when used with a child younger than 12" then that very statement has some implication of prior knowledge and experience and therefore an illegal activity has been committed. It is just described in words, not pictures. Or are you saying that this explicit Instructional ebook is simply a figment of the authors imagination?


----------



## s0nicfreak (Jun 10, 2010)

I am saying that nothing illegal had to have happened for this information to be deduced. I can tell you a regular condom won't fit on an infant's penis, but I have never done anything illegal with an infant.



> I believe in prevention and risk management, not waiting until there is a victim.


To me that sounds like "I believe in stopping thoughtcrime before it becomes actual crime."


----------



## Pushka (Oct 30, 2009)

s0nicfreak said:


> I am saying that nothing illegal had to have happened for this information to be deduced. I can tell you a regular condom won't fit on an infant's penis, but I have never done anything illegal with an infant.


The detail is much more specific than that which leads to the 'suggestion' that it was obtained by experience.


----------



## Basil Sands (Aug 18, 2010)

On the Killzone, another blog I frequent, this topic was brought up. Apparently author makes no bones that the book is about getting children to consent to sex with adults. As he states in his own book description: "This is my attempt to make pedophile situations safer for those juveniles that find themselves involved in them, by establishing certian rules for these adults to follow. 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." _(the misspelling was in the original quote)_ 
When the existence of the book became publicly known outrage flew and masses of people threatened to boycott Amazon for allowing its sale. Amazon promptly took it down from its site. Other masses are crying that this is an abridgement of free speech. That it is not right for a loud group of dissenters to dictate what can and cannot be sold by a company.
I think this is at the core of what society is about. We as humans are a general mob that organizes itself by gathering together in groups of people with similar sensibilities and moral convictions.
In some places in the world this person's book may be accepted as a reasonable treatise on something that is considered common. In other (perhaps most) parts of the world the author will be lucky to remain alive after making his thoughts known.
It all has to do with what the majority is willing to accept. In many Muslim countries men force grown women to completely hide their identity from public view in the name of modesty, yet those same men may marry and have sexual relations with a young child without condemnation. On the other hand in the West we tend to let our women show off their figure in public and even allow public displays of adult sexuality but get extremely protective of children's innocence. 
In my opinion there need to be boundaries. If no one is willing to enforce those boundaries then we fall to anarchy. In an event such as this, where the letter of the law is incapable of defending the weak from a predator, the law of the pack takes its natural place and that which is deemed unsuitable for society is quashed.

Nothing wrong there.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

swolf said:


> Which children is it harming? Real children please. And show how this specific book harmed them.





Pushka said:


> I give up. How can I say which actual children are being harmed.


At least you're finally admitting that you can't answer the question.

There are no real children being harmed. It's only in your imagination that kids are being harmed by this book.

Not sure how it works in Australia, but here in the U.S. we don't put people in jail for imaginary crimes.


----------



## Pushka (Oct 30, 2009)

swolf said:


> At least you're finally admitting that you can't answer the question.
> 
> There are no real children being harmed. It's only in your imagination that kids are being harmed by this book.
> 
> Not sure how it works in Australia, but here in the U.S. we don't put people in jail for imaginary crimes.


The author has stated that in his teens he had sex with children. By his own admission, they existed. You want names? Sorry, dont know them.

You say our laws put people in gaol for imaginery crimes? Hmm, just wondering, how many people have been executed in the US for crimes they didnt commit? Or incarcerated for crimes in which they were later found innocent when the real offender became known. Or are you going to say that the crimes were not imaginery, but real, just that the so called offender was imaginery so that doesnt count....


----------



## unknown2cherubim (Sep 10, 2010)

Pushka said:


> <snipped> Extending your 'real people and must have names position' are you also suggesting that if someone plots a terrorist act, murder etc but is discovered before that act is carried out, that no crime has occurred?


I was hoping somebody would answer this one, but the terrorist act has to be a credible threat, doesn't it? Or am I wrong about this? If it were a credible threat, I don't think one needs to know who would be harmed, just the direct result would be there _was _harm.

Interesting question, though.



> The author has stated that in his teens he had sex with children. By his own admission, they existed.


I don't think there is a statute of limitations on this...

_And we really haven't delved too far into the idea of societal mores and the results of contravening those, which clearly this author did._


----------



## Pushka (Oct 30, 2009)

unknown2cherubim said:


> I was hoping somebody would answer this one, but terrorist act has to be a credible threat, doesn't it?


I was hoping it would have been answered too, because it lies at the crux of the issue. But apparently only others questions must be answered in order to prove a coherent discussion point.


----------



## shalym (Sep 1, 2010)

Pushka said:


> I was hoping it would have been answered too, because it lies at the crux of the issue. But apparently only others questions must be answered in order to prove a coherent discussion point.


I believe the difference is that is someone is planning a _specific_ terrorist plot, there are locations, names of people involved, specific types of weapons to be used. This is actionable, because it is specific. If someone writes a manual of how to be a terrorist, with no specific target location, etc, it is not actionable. If it were, the Anarchist's Cookbook would be illegal, along with Che Guevera's Guerilla Warfare. This book does not target specific people or places, and is therefore not actionable.

Shari


----------



## unknown2cherubim (Sep 10, 2010)

shalym said:


> I believe the difference is that is someone is planning a _specific_ terrorist plot, there are locations, names of people involved, specific types of weapons to be used. This is actionable, because it is specific. If someone writes a manual of how to be a terrorist, with no specific target location, etc, it is not actionable. If it were, the Anarchist's Cookbook would be illegal, along with Che Guevera's Guerilla Warfare. This book does not target specific people or places, and is therefore not actionable.
> 
> Shari


Thank yo so much, Shari. This makes sense to me. I've purchased the _Anarchist's Cookbook _in the past. It was stolen. Shortly after, around our town, some mailboxes were destroyed with homemade explosives. It is possible that the book wasn't used to develop those explosives but the timing was suspicious.


----------



## ajhunter (Aug 23, 2010)

I just read this morning that PETA is now calling for the ban of a book about dog fighting...

So it begins.


----------



## unknown2cherubim (Sep 10, 2010)

ajhunter said:


> I just read this morning that PETA is now calling for the ban of a book about dog fighting...
> 
> So it begins.


From my perspective it has never stopped ... for centuries. http://www.springfieldlibrary.org/Pynchon/pynchon.html


----------



## Melonhead (Jan 1, 2010)

So, what country is Philip R. Greaves II from? Is his location known?


----------



## shalym (Sep 1, 2010)

unknown2cherubim said:


> Thank yo so much, Shari. This makes sense to me. I've purchased the _Anarchist's Cookbook _in the past. It was stolen. Shortly after, around our town, some mailboxes were destroyed with homemade explosives. It is possible that the book wasn't used to develop those explosives but the timing was suspicious.


The techniques listed in the book may have been used, but since the book didn't specifically tell the reader to blow up mailboxes in your town, in the eyes of the law the book is not at fault. In the United States, at least, the law is clear. I don't know what it is in other countries, though.

Shari


----------



## shalym (Sep 1, 2010)

Melonhead said:


> So, what country is Philip R. Greaves II from? Is his location known?


He lives in Colorado.

Shari


----------



## unknown2cherubim (Sep 10, 2010)

shalym said:


> The techniques listed in the book may have been used, but since the book didn't specifically tell the reader to blow up mailboxes in your town, in the eyes of the law the book is not at fault. In the United States, at least, the law is clear. I don't know what it is in other countries, though.
> 
> Shari


Absolutely right. Indeed, the cops came around but our copy was stolen and patron check out records are protected by law anyway. They didn't pursue a subpoena. Besides, there is no way of knowing if it was the library's stolen copy that gave them that information or if someone(s) purchased the book or stole it from somebody else. Or actually even if they got their formula from another source entirely. Purchasing and owning the book was not illegal.

I tried twice more to keep a copy, but the third time (within 4 months) it was stolen I admit I gave up. _Yeah, a successful strike for censorship_.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Pushka said:


> The author has stated that in his teens he had sex with children. By his own admission, they existed. You want names? Sorry, dont know them.


If it can be proven, then he should be arrested for that crime.

But writing the book is not a crime.


----------



## Christopher Bunn (Oct 26, 2010)

Thought-provoking conversation. Whether or not a thing is legal doesn't necessarily equate to it being right. I'd give a lot of money to hear a recording of the discussions in Amazon's legal department on this topic and this Greaves fellow. In my job, I spend a lot of time dealing with lawyers (oh, the joy), and I am consistently struck by how, usually, they are more concerned with the letter of the law, rather than the abstract notion of what is right (a notion that, I'd argue, oddly exists external to man).


----------



## Labrynth (Dec 31, 2009)

I'm going to have to back *swolf* here. He said everything I would have said but much more eloquently and politely than I likely would have been able to do. It doesn't matter if I think the material is disgusting, writing down something doesn't make it illegal. I was the victim of a pedophile for many years. I believe these people to be very sick individuals. But you can't go after them for THINKING it. Minority Report anyone?

Just because this guy claims these things have happened, doesn't actually make them true. I can say I had sex with Obama, but that doesn't make it so. Now, if his claimed were investigated and found to be true, that's another story. Then I certainly hope he'd be prosecuted to the fullest extent.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

This is an interesting thread as it touches on an item I'm very passionate about: our civil rights.

I do agree with swolf's comment some pages back that the speech we all agree upon is not the speech designed to be protected by the First Amendment. To my mind, the hardest type of free speech to stand up and protect is speech one personally finds offensive. For example, I support Rev. Phelps' right to carry his horrible, disgusting signs outside of funerals. Now, everyone else has every right to protest their protests, but so long as they are satisfying all distance requirements, etc. required by local law, they are allowed to do as they please.

Likewise, there is a line between freedom of expression and child pornography. Now, I don't know all the details behind that line, but, so long as that line isn't crossed, then all is well. Otherwise, how can movies such as _L.I.E._ or _Pretty Baby_ exist? At the moment I'm reading a novel in which one of the characters and her sister were child prostitutes in Bangkok. Now this book isn't presented as a how-to guide, but, it's the same topic. Does a novel fall under the same umbrella?


----------



## Pushka (Oct 30, 2009)

All I can do is comment on the law in Australia as I know nothing of First Amendments etc.  

The law here is clear that Instructional Manuals on how to commit a serious crime (and paedophilia is regarded as a serious crime here) are subject to classification - ie they are banned.  Fiction - a novel is a story, so a novel would not be subject to the same law; it might describe but it doesn't instruct.  Apparently.

Movies that are hard core porn or extremely violent are banned; or given an R which means only watched by adults.  There is some controversy going on here because several video games have been banned - these depict scenes where women are being raped by the game character, and such like.  

Also here, if someone confesses to something, then unless there is evidence to contradict them, and the crime is serious enough, then that is enough to convict them.  

Did you know that if an Australian adult travels to Asia and has sex with a minor while there; and the law finds out about it, they will be convicted of Tourist Sex?  Several convictions have already been recorded.


----------



## Labrynth (Dec 31, 2009)

But the book wasn't released in AU.  It was released in the US and those laws don't apply, thus any AU argument is null and void.

I don't think anyone here is saying the book is in good taste, or even supports anything IN it.  What everyone seems to be saying is that it is this fruit loop's First amendment right to publish this book.

The KKK has released books about killing all the black people, gays, jews, asians, etc, and those aren't banned books.  Were anyone to actually use any of the methods talked about or start burning crosses in people's front yards, they would be arrested.  But they still have thr right to voice that opinion whether the vast majority of people agree with them or not.

as swolf pointed out, protecting free speech isn't about protecting only the parts you agree with.  It's about protecting all of it.  even the stuff that you find distasteful.


----------



## Pushka (Oct 30, 2009)

Did you actually check to see if it was available in Australia?  

The thing is, paedophilia is not simply a matter of just bad taste, personal preference, a distateful act - it is a criminal offence. And it is ok to protect that?


----------



## mlewis78 (Apr 19, 2009)




----------



## Pushka (Oct 30, 2009)

mlewis78 said:


>


Isnt it ok to discuss significant issues though? This might be just the first of many such debatable issues, so whether or not it is this book, or one like it, surely the discussion is relevant?


----------



## caracara (May 23, 2010)

Maybe these threads should be combined? I think they have both turned into the same thing.

http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,42159.msg751941.html#msg751941


----------



## Labrynth (Dec 31, 2009)

Pushka said:


> Did you actually check to see if it was available in Australia?
> 
> The thing is, paedophilia is not simply a matter of just bad taste, personal preference, a distateful act - it is a criminal offence. And it is ok to protect that?


My understanding is that it was only available in the US. I could very well be wrong.

You're right, it IS criminal. But so is making a bomb and blowing something up, yet there are lots of books out there that tell you how to make a bomb. Where do we draw the line then? It's ok to build bombs, but not ok to talk about being a pedophile? I will go back to my previous KKK reference... why aren't their books being banned? They're talking about killing anyone they don't like essentially but I don't see folks screaming about it. Why? WHERE is that line? Because it's an awful slippery slope to go down when you start censoring one thing but not another.


----------



## s0nicfreak (Jun 10, 2010)

Pushka said:


> The thing is, paedophilia is not simply a matter of just bad taste, personal preference, a distateful act - it is a criminal offence. And it is ok to protect that?


Paedophilia is not a criminal act. It is _imagining_ something which would be a criminal act if done in real life. This is the crux of the issue, at least in my opinion. Yes, it is ok to protect_ imagining _a criminal act, even if one finds the criminal act distasteful.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

I'm curious about the opinions here, so I've set up some questions.  (I know that this doesn't exactly reflect the book being discussed in this thread.)

We have two scenarios:

A) An explicit film that shows a real child having sex with an adult.
B) A book that explicitly depicts a fictional account of a child having sex with an adult.

Now think about how you would answer the following questions for each of those scenarios:

1) Should the creater be prosecuted?
2) Should the viewer/reader be prosecuted?
3) Should this work be prevented from being sold? (Either through law or boycott)
4) Do you think lesser of someone for creating this work?
5) Do you think lesser of someone for viewing/reading this work?

Now, we have two more scenarios:

C) An explicit film that shows a real murder (a snuff film)
D) A book that explicitly depicts a fictional account of a murder.

I'm interested in hearing about answers that are different between the two sets of scenarios, for example, would you think lesser of someone who read a fictional account of child sex but not think lesser of someone who read a fictional account of murder?  And your reasons why.


----------



## Pushka (Oct 30, 2009)

swolf said:


> I'm curious about the opinions here, so I've set up some questions. (I know that this doesn't exactly reflect the book being discussed in this thread.)
> 
> We have two scenarios:
> 
> ...


My stomach turns just thinking about A.

Ok, I'll bite.
*
A) An explicit film that shows a real child having sex with an adult.*
Creator should be prosecuted, the adult having sex should be prosecuted, the child should be counselled, the film would (should) be banned, anyone downloading it illegally should be prosecuted, and yes, anyone who makes or watches or in any way participates in such activities rates on the low score of humanity. Why? Because a child has been deliberately harmed in order to provide someone else's pleasure, and possibly for money. (And the same argument would apply if the child was an adult, but incapable of voicing consent - eg drunk, mental impairment etc etc)

*B) A book that explicitly depicts a fictional account of a child having sex with an adult.*
As long as the account is Fictional - ie, the act *never* took place, but is the product of someone's pure fantasy, then while I wouldnt read it, I dont see why others cant.
*
C) An explicit film that shows a real murder (a snuff film)*
Basically the same as case A - a crime has been committed in order to make the film.

*D) A book that explicitly depicts a fictional account of a murder.*
Basically the same as B - as long as the crime was never committed to write to book.

My issue with the book that started all this, is that the Author confirmed he had sex with a child. Crime. He then went on to write an instructional book on how other pedophiles can have sex with children. He didnt write a Lolita, he wrote instructions for others to implement, which were, by his words, based on his experience.

Should we allow instructional books about bombs? No. Terrorist opportunities? No. But of course they are everywhere on the net - but by not taking a stand, we are condoning them. Same with this book. By not taking a stand, we are condoning the act because the book instructs people on the 'best way' to commit the act. It isnt a work of fiction, it isnt even a dramatisation.

This term "thought crime" - a little weary of it. This is not a thought crime. Pedophile is not just unorthodox, a social choice, or a moral option - it has a victim, a child. And this book instructed people how to do it.

For what is worth, I couldnt believe the furore that occurred in the States when Janet Jackson had a costume 'accident' in the Superbowl (I think it was). In Australia we just thought it was all too funny, but the publicity info we got here was that many in the States were totally outraged. Meh, it was a nothing.

Sorry, as I mentioned before, pedophilia presses my button, I have seen too many suicidal people who were harmed by rock spiders to even think that something like this can just be acceptable. I think as soon as the author stated they had sex with a child, then that for me was the critical time.


----------



## Heinrich Xin (Nov 9, 2010)

I'm kinda surprised to see another thread about the pedophillia guide. This reminds me of the debate on the pedophillia in A Song of Ice and Fire.

Some time ago I was in a fantasy forum. And they were talking about Princess Daenerys Targaryen (13 years old in the book) having sex with Khal Drogo (an adult man). Apparently there are many pages depicting the intercourse.

Now HBO filmed the scene with two adult actors, of course.

People on that fantasy forum also mentioned the sex between the 13 years old Sansa Stark and the adult Tyrion Lannister, which didn't happen actually.

Should we boycott GRR Martin or HBO?


----------



## s0nicfreak (Jun 10, 2010)

Pushka said:


> My issue with the book that started all this, is that the Author confirmed he had sex with a child.


Unless this can be proven, we must assume this "confirmation" is fiction.


----------



## Indy (Jun 7, 2010)

Pushka said:


> Sorry, as I mentioned before, pedophilia presses my button, I have seen too many suicidal people who were harmed by rock spiders to even think that something like this can just be acceptable.


Oh my goodness, I can't for the life of me figure out this sentence. Help! What's a rock spider got to do with suicide?


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

Per Wiktionary:



> Noun
> rock spider (plural rock spiders)
> Australian prison slang for a pedophile/child molester. Rock spiders constitute the lowest rung of inmates in the prison system, and are looked down on (and often mistreated) by all other inmates.


----------



## joanhallhovey (Nov 7, 2010)

I believe the  offensive book is gone, and I salute amazon.com for the decision to remove it. I'm very relieved.  Sometimes it's just a matter of common sense and decency.  When freedom of speech and freedom of expression is in question, it's a serious matter.  We have to ask the question, does it put anyone in danger.  In this case, yes: it puts our children in danger. The answer is as clear as water over a cleft rock.


----------



## Labrynth (Dec 31, 2009)

joanhallhovey said:


> The answer is as clear as water over a cleft rock.


Obviously not since it's still being debated.


----------



## s0nicfreak (Jun 10, 2010)

joanhallhovey said:


> In this case, yes: it puts our children in danger.


How so?


----------



## splashes99 (Aug 11, 2010)

Pushka said:


> The law here is clear that Instructional Manuals on how to commit a serious crime (and paedophilia is regarded as a serious crime here) are subject to classification - ie they are banned. Fiction - a novel is a story, so a novel would not be subject to the same law; it might describe but it doesn't instruct. Apparently.


That is a slippery slope in itself - what exactly IS the definition of Instructional Manual? Does it have to have the words "instructional manual" in the title?

Theoretically, a fictional novel certainly COULD instruct. For example, Aesop's Fables are fiction, but they are used to instruct or teach moral lessons. There are certainly stories that, in the presentation of the story, could be followed as an instructional guide. I know guys I grew up with tried to act out certain stories from certain men's magazines. In that respect, couldn't those be considered to be instructional manuals?

I'm also going to have to agree with all of swolf's points. If you disagree with the book, then don't publicize it, don't read it, and don't even talk about it. Guarantee that if the book merely existed on Amazon, and no one made a stink, it would just have sat there and most of us wouldn't have had any idea the book was out there. By presenting boycotts, etc, we just gave the guy, his ideas and viewpoints, and the book massive amounts of publicity that he didn't even have to pay for. In the end, people who really are looking to commit, and who intend to commit crimes are going to find the info - whether it is published on Amazon or not.


----------

