# Author who wrote 'how-to' for pedophiles arrested



## Imogen Rose (Mar 22, 2010)

Indie author who wrote 'how-to' for pedophiles arrested - http://bit.ly/eKDrGJ


----------



## J Dean (Feb 9, 2009)

Arrested for writing the book, or arrested for actually practicing it?


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

J Dean said:


> Arrested for writing the book, or arrested for actually practicing it?


For writing it. In Florida, evidently, you can be arrested for writing. I detest what the man wrote and certainly don't advocate it, but it should be interesting where this 1st Amendment test shall lead. I know you can't publish treasonable work or anything advocating the overthrow of the government (or can you?). A thought provoking issue, eh?

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

Edward C. Patterson said:


> For writing it. In Florida, evidently, you can be arrested for writing. I detest what the man wrote and certainly don't advocate it, but it should be interesting where this 1st Amendment test shall lead. I know you can't publish treasonable work or anything advocating the overthrow of the government (or can you?). A thought provoking issue, eh?
> 
> Edward C. Patterson


Considering that's how the country started, it would be pretty ironic if you couldn't talk about revolution.

I'd much prefer that than a book about how to be a successful pedophile....


----------



## Scott Neumyer (Dec 8, 2010)

I don't believe he was arrested for WRITING it, but for mailing it. As you may know, mailing child pornography (or salacious material about children, I guess) is illegal. In many states, actually, it's very iffy if normal pornography (dvds, movies, etc) is even illegal to mail and/or receive in the mail.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

Scott Neumyer said:


> I don't believe he was arrested for WRITING it, but for mailing it. As you may know, mailing child pornography (or salacious material about children, I guess) is illegal. In many states, actually, it's very iffy if normal pornography (dvds, movies, etc) is even illegal to mail and/or receive in the mail.


That's makes sense. I haven't really been following it. What will do when the Post Office goes out of business.

ECP


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

Edward C. Patterson said:


> For writing it. In Florida, evidently, you can be arrested for writing. I detest what the man wrote and certainly don't advocate it, but it should be interesting where this 1st Amendment test shall lead. I know you can't publish treasonable work or anything advocating the overthrow of the government (or can you?). A thought provoking issue, eh?
> 
> Edward C. Patterson


I think they're going for distribution rather than for having created it. Florida's obscenity law is being used but the Polk County, FL sheriff is arresting him in Colorado.

There are quite a few legal ramifications here and I need to read up more on interstate commerce, the internet, extradition and obscenity laws to make a complete opinion on this. My initial thought is the Sheriff may be overstepping his bounds by redefining his jurisdiction on an existing law - but I'm not going to break out my soapbox until I'm better informed on nuances of the laws in question.


----------



## Imogen Rose (Mar 22, 2010)

Scott Neumyer said:


> I don't believe he was arrested for WRITING it, but for mailing it. As you may know, mailing child pornography (or salacious material about children, I guess) is illegal. In many states, actually, it's very iffy if normal pornography (dvds, movies, etc) is even illegal to mail and/or receive in the mail.


Would that not mean that Amazon itself is in a precarious position for having mailed it out (to residents in the same area)?


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

Sorry, but I care less about that guy's rights than I do my latest bowel movement. Lock that sicko up in a dark room with only his own limbs for food.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

David McAfee said:


> Sorry, but I care less about that guy's rights than I do my latest bowel movement. Lock that sicko up in a dark room with only his own limbs for food.


That's a scene from Ovid's _Metamorphosis_.

ECP


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

Scott Neumyer said:


> I don't believe he was arrested for WRITING it, but for mailing it. As you may know, mailing child pornography (or salacious material about children, I guess) is illegal. In many states, actually, it's very iffy if normal pornography (dvds, movies, etc) is even illegal to mail and/or receive in the mail.


As you said, I think it was for the DISTRIBUTION of illegal material, not writing it.


----------



## amanda_hocking (Apr 24, 2010)

I can't imagine anything is really going to stick, though. A slap on a wrist. A fine. Maybe very brief time in jail. 

I am not pro-pedophilia at all, but I do think that FL overstepped their bounds and this case won't stick. But if it opens his home and property for search and seizure, I'm sure he's got stuff that's much worse in there.


----------



## flanneryohello (May 11, 2010)

As disgusting as I find that man and his book, I do think Grady Judd has just overstepped, and I very much doubt that there is any basis for a conviction. The man wrote a book. Writing a book is different than committing a crime, even if the book is _about_ committing a crime. I'm curious whether the fact that the Florida sheriff's department ordered a copy of the book could be considered entrapment. And if the mere act of mailing the book is illegal, where _does_ that leave Amazon?

I believe there's a reason that 49 out of 50 states don't have a way to go after this guy--because, technically, he has not committed a crime. If the book contained photographs of children, yes. Child pornography is a crime. Being a nasty freak isn't.

I'm certainly not defending the guy and I think he's a completely abhorrent individual, but I'm not going to applaud the state of Florida for potentially handing him the basis for a false arrest lawsuit that could eventually make him a very wealthy pedophile.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Of course it falls under freedom of speech protections, and will be overthrown in court.

It saddens me to see authors cheering someone being thrown in jail because of something they've written.


----------



## amanda_hocking (Apr 24, 2010)

swolf said:


> Of course it falls under freedom of speech protections, and will be overthrown in court.
> 
> It saddens me to see authors cheering someone being thrown in jail because of something they've written.


They're cheering because a pedophile is in jail. And he's not in jail because of something he wrote. He's in jail because of something he _distributed_. It won't hold up, that's probably true.


----------



## karencantwell (Jun 17, 2010)

It's not a free speech issue - he was teaching, encouraging and advocating.  Big difference.  I'm SO glad they got him.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

karencantwell said:


> It's not a free speech issue - he was teaching, encouraging and advocating. Big difference. I'm SO glad they got him.


BINGO. Throw his ass in jail and leave it to rot.


----------



## Steve Silkin (Sep 15, 2010)

Chad Winters (#102) said:


> Considering that's how the country started, it would be pretty ironic if you couldn't talk about revolution. I'd much prefer that than a book about how to be a successful pedophile....


it is illegal to plot and preach in favor of the violent overthrow of the government. i don't think that's unfair. i wouldn't want to wake up one morning and find that i'm living in a country run by people who weren't elected to do so.

semantics: you *can* talk about revolution. there's a difference between talking about 'revolution' and advocating the violent overthrow of the government. also, you *can* write and publish anything. the government can't stop you. most courts have always recognized there shall be no 'prior restraint.' but once you've written and published* it, there are legal consequences, among them libel, invasion of privacy and-or obscenity and the material can be banned under state and federal statutes and the publishers can face civil or criminal charges. (*Published can be defined as having shown it to one other person.)


----------



## kyrin (Dec 28, 2009)

swolf said:


> Of course it falls under freedom of speech protections, and will be overthrown in court.
> 
> It saddens me to see authors cheering someone being thrown in jail because of something they've written.


Why do people always yell about Freedom of Speech when they really don't understand it?

Freedom of Speech is not a pass to say whatever you want, however and whenever you want. There are limits to this freedom especially when it conflicts with other values and/or rights. In the United States, they follow the "harm principle" or the "offense principle". That is why there are laws against slander, liabel, obscenity and in some area hate speech. There are laws on the books to document these cases where freedom of speech is limited. Producing a work solely for the intent to aid or facilitate the commission of a crime is not protected speech.



amanda_hocking said:


> They're cheering because a pedophile is in jail. And he's not in jail because of something he wrote. He's in jail because of something he _distributed_. It won't hold up, that's probably true.


I don't know why he was arrested but it is a good thing. The case may or may not hold up. It might make it to the supreme court because the lawyers in the case will be famous and see their names in those nifty legal texts or be able to write a book about their experiences with the case.


----------



## TiffanyTurner (Jun 8, 2009)

Ok, when I first read this I got a bit sick. Children should be protected. But the whole free speech argument is very interesting. Overall, this guy is disgusting to me, but under the free speech law he is protected unless he breaks another law. If there were pictures of young kids, they might have him. 

But I was also thinking that it has been found that free speech doesn't extend to where it could harm others. I remember a judge ruling that a person can't yell "Fire" in a building that would cause people to run and maybe harm themselves. That would be considered not protected. His book tells others how to harm children. So, he might not be protected by the first amendment. It will be interesting to see how this ruling plays out.


----------



## R. Doug (Aug 14, 2010)

We wouldn't even be having this discussion save for the Supreme Court and their ever-expanding definitions of free speech and what that speech encompasses.  The First Amendment was envisioned as a protection for political debate only.  It was never the intention of the authors to protect obscene language, pornography, the burning of flags, indecency, exposing the general public (including children) to foul languages via bumper stickers and T-shirts, or even (in a very recent ruling) unlimited campaign contributions.

If it were, those very same authors would not have then returned to their state legislatures, county governing bodies, and city councils and then passed laws banning just this such material (which they did with regularity).


----------



## Philip Chen (Aug 8, 2010)

I am a strong supporter of free speech. If this author is being charged with writing his book, then he should be protected. However, if he is sending this "how to" manual through the mail, then he should be prosecuted, and if found guilty he should go to jail. 

I have no sympathy for this person, but I have strong feelings about free speech.


----------



## kyrin (Dec 28, 2009)

Philip Chen said:


> I am a strong supporter of free speech. If this author is being charged with writing his book, then he should be protected. However, if he is sending this "how to" manual through the mail, then he should be prosecuted, and if found guilty he should go to jail.
> 
> I have no sympathy for this person, but I have strong feelings about free speech.


His book is not covered by free speech as it's defined by the law. If it were, then it would be legal to distribute it any way the author saw fit.

Manuals and how to guides made solely to facilitate a crime are not protected speech. Neither is any speech that causes harm such as slander.

You can hold whatever opinion you want and even voice an opinion. That's freedom of speech in action. Someone can say, something shouldn't be a crime. Their speech is protected. The moment the person starts instructing people on how to commit that crime, their speech is no longer protected.


----------



## Steve Silkin (Sep 15, 2010)

R. Doug said:


> The First Amendment was envisioned as a protection for political debate only.


That is what Robert Bork believed. That is why he was not allowed to sit on the Supreme Court. Most Americans still believe that the First Amendment protects freedom of expression - not just political, but personal and artistic.

The First Amendment is not absolute. If you scream fire in a crowded theater, you will be punished, depending on the degree of harm you caused. If you discuss, even jokingly, bombs at airports or on airplanes, you will be punished, ditto. If you are found guilty of libel, you will be fined. If you are convicted of obscenity charges, you will be fined and-or jailed. The guy in question now faces obscenity charges. Whether he is convicted or found not guilty will depend on the skills of the prosection and defense attorneys and the perceptions of the judge and jury. The First Amendment does not offer absolute protection against obscenity charges. But it is not limited to political debate, either.


----------



## theaatkinson (Sep 22, 2010)

awesome!


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

kyrin said:


> His book is not covered by free speech as it's defined by the law. If it were, then it would be legal to distribute it any way the author saw fit.
> 
> Manuals and how to guides made solely to facilitate a crime are not protected speech. Neither is any speech that causes harm such as slander.
> 
> You can hold whatever opinion you want and even voice an opinion. That's freedom of speech in action. Someone can say, something shouldn't be a crime. Their speech is protected. The moment the person starts instructing people on how to commit that crime, their speech is no longer protected.


YES. THIS.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

amanda_hocking said:


> They're cheering because a pedophile is in jail. And he's not in jail because of something he wrote. He's in jail because of something he _distributed_.


Wrong.

From the article:



> "The message is very clear: If you write a book, if you sell that book, if you transmit that book to anyone in our jurisdiction, then we will investigate you and arrest, because our goal is protect the children," the sheriff said.


----------



## Scott Neumyer (Dec 8, 2010)

Imogen Rose said:


> Would that not mean that Amazon itself is in a precarious position for having mailed it out (to residents in the same area)?


Yup. IF those images/depictions were in the very copy that they were selling via mail.

That's one of the reasons I was like confused when people saying they SHOULDN'T pull it from their site. They're protecting themselves legally. They HAD to pull it... as we can now see.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

The sheriff can SAY that, but the arrest had to be made with regards to a particular law being broken.  

Either way though, if it isn't illegal to write instructions on how to harm children, it should be.  Period.


----------



## Scott Neumyer (Dec 8, 2010)

Oh, I'm pretty sure this WILL stick if they decide to pursue it rather than just use him as a quick example. Check out some of the cases of the law coming down on pornography for violating the 2258 law as well as distributing material in areas that don't condone it. It's pretty shocking.

If he hadn't have mailed it, he probably wouldn't have had any trouble (I mean, aside from mentally... he's clearly troubled there).

Frankly, as a father of a 2 year old daughter, he comes across as the lowest form of human being to me. He should rot...


----------



## Philip Chen (Aug 8, 2010)

It will be interesting to see the actual charges. I think the fact that detectives purchased a copy and it was mailed is telling. 

I do agree that the "how to" aspects of his book went over the line. 

We need to be careful about sweeping generalizations on how to books, least a manual legitimately written to teach explosives to mining engineers might be swept up in a dragnet of books teaching terrorism.


----------



## Guest (Dec 20, 2010)

swolf said:


> Wrong.
> 
> From the article:


umm, yeahhh...that quote doesn't say that he was arrested for just writing, and thanks for trying to make assumptions about a dozen or so people's posts.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

kyrin said:


> Why do people always yell about Freedom of Speech when they really don't understand it?


You should ask yourself that question.



kyrin said:


> Freedom of Speech is not a pass to say whatever you want, however and whenever you want. There are limits to this freedom especially when it conflicts with other values and/or rights. In the United States, they follow the "harm principle" or the "offense principle". That is why there are laws against slander, liabel, obscenity and in some area hate speech. There are laws on the books to document these cases where freedom of speech is limited.


And the child obscenity laws are quite clear, and this book doesn't even come close to being illegal.



kyrin said:


> Producing a work solely for the intent to aid or facilitate the commission of a crime is not protected speech.


Actually, the test is "imminent lawless action".

Tell me, do you think this book would make you go out and harm a child?

Or is it just 'other people' it would affect?



kyrin said:


> I don't know why he was arrested but it is a good thing.


Yeah, let's put people in jail because they write books we don't like.

Hurray!


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

R. Doug said:


> We wouldn't even be having this discussion save for the Supreme Court and their ever-expanding definitions of free speech and what that speech encompasses. The First Amendment was envisioned as a protection for political debate only. It was never the intention of the authors to protect obscene language, pornography, the burning of flags, indecency, exposing the general public (including children) to foul languages via bumper stickers and T-shirts, or even (in a very recent ruling) unlimited campaign contributions.


Any quotes from the founders to back up those claims?


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

kyrin said:


> His book is not covered by free speech as it's defined by the law.


Sure it is. That's why 49 states and almost every county in the 50th aren't charging him with a crime.



kyrin said:


> If it were, then it would be legal to distribute it any way the author saw fit.


It is. One yahoo claiming it's illegal doesn't make it illegal.



kyrin said:


> Manuals and how to guides made solely to facilitate a crime are not protected speech. Neither is any speech that causes harm such as slander.
> 
> You can hold whatever opinion you want and even voice an opinion. That's freedom of speech in action. Someone can say, something shouldn't be a crime. Their speech is protected. The moment the person starts instructing people on how to commit that crime, their speech is no longer protected.


Wrong.


----------



## Scott Neumyer (Dec 8, 2010)

swolf said:


> And the child obscenity laws are quite clear, and this book doesn't even come close to being illegal.


Have you actually read the book? If not, how do you have any clue? Not trying to be contrarian... Just asking.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Scott Neumyer said:


> Yup. IF those images/depictions were in the very copy that they were selling via mail.


The only images that can be illegal are photographs and images that look like photographs.

From what I understand, there were none of those in the book. If there were, Amazon wouldn't have defended selling it in the fist place.



Scott Neumyer said:


> That's one of the reasons I was like confused when people saying they SHOULDN'T pull it from their site. They're protecting themselves legally. They HAD to pull it... as we can now see.


They weren't protecting themselves. At first they defended selling it. They only stopped selling it when enough people complained and it was bad for business to sell it.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

foreverjuly said:


> umm, yeahhh...that quote doesn't say that he was arrested for just writing, and thanks for trying to make assumptions about a dozen or so people's posts.





> If you write a book,


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

I don't feel bad for the guy, but I gotta say that free speech means all speech, even speech we find offensive.

However, I also believe that pedophiles should be castrated, and would vote for any law that would make it happen.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Scott Neumyer said:


> Have you actually read the book? If not, how do you have any clue? Not trying to be contrarian... Just asking.


Because, if it actually did contain obscene material, he would be prosecuted for that, and not just by one state.


----------



## Scott Neumyer (Dec 8, 2010)

swolf said:


> The only images that can be illegal are photographs and images that look like photographs.
> 
> From what I understand, there were none of those in the book. If there were, Amazon wouldn't have defended selling it in the fist place.
> 
> They weren't protecting themselves. At first they defended selling it. They only stopped selling it when enough people complained and it was bad for business to sell it.


Wrong. Read up on your 2258 laws, sir.

And again... he's not in trouble for WRITING it. He's in trouble for distributing it. Mailing it. Trust me... I've seen it happen a million times in the world of pornography in 2258. It's a distribution issue.

Just trying to get the facts straight.

I'm gonna hop out of the thread now, as I'm not interested in arguing honestly. I've got books to write and promote!


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Jack Kilborn said:


> I don't feel bad for the guy, but I gotta say that free speech means all speech, even speech we find offensive.


Agree 100%



Jack Kilborn said:


> However, I also believe that pedophiles should be castrated, and would vote for any law that would make it happen.


Agree 200%


----------



## Guest (Dec 21, 2010)




----------



## Laurie (Jan 9, 2009)

_They're cheering because a pedophile is in jail. And he's not in jail because of something he wrote. He's in jail because of something he distributed._
Wrong. *RIGHT*

Quote:
"The message is very clear: If you write a book, *if you sell that book, if you transmit that book * to anyone in our jurisdiction, then we will investigate you and arrest, because our goal is protect the children," the sheriff said.

There was no period after "If you write a book, " - meaning you can write whatever you want, but the act of then selling and transmitting that book is where the problem begins.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

foreverjuly said:


>


You should stop trying then,


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Laurie said:


> _They're cheering because a pedophile is in jail. And he's not in jail because of something he wrote. He's in jail because of something he distributed._
> Wrong. *RIGHT*
> 
> Quote:
> ...


So, if someone else writes it and you transmit it, you're not breaking this guy's law?

Obviously not, so he obviously means any of the three 'ifs'.


----------



## Guest (Dec 21, 2010)

Laurie said:


> _They're cheering because a pedophile is in jail. And he's not in jail because of something he wrote. He's in jail because of something he distributed._
> Wrong. *RIGHT*
> 
> Quote:
> ...


+1 for reading skills


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

I think we should have a virtual book burning.


Start tossing them on fellow authors!  Whatever upsets you.


----------



## Philip Chen (Aug 8, 2010)

I echo the sentiment that however they did it; stopping the distribution of any book that purports to teach pedophilia is a good thing. There are enough weirdos out there and we don't need someone distributing salacious how to manuals for these creeps to think it somehow legitimizes their perverted fantasies.


----------



## Laurie (Jan 9, 2009)

Quote from: Jack Kilborn on Today at 06:58:46 PM
I don't feel bad for the guy, but I gotta say that free speech means all speech, even speech we find offensive.

Not necessarily. As somebody already mentioned, that's why we have laws regarding slander and libel. There have to be boundaries in a civilized society. I'm a conservative leaning person with strong feelings on what the government should or shouldn't be allowed to do, but I'm also a realist and I believe sometimes just good old common sense should count for something.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

foreverjuly said:


> +1 for reading skills


+1 for cheerleading skills.

Shake those pom-poms!


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Laurie said:


> I'm a conservative leaning person with strong feelings on what the government should or shouldn't be allowed to do, but I'm also a realist and I believe sometimes just good old common sense should count for something.


Sorry, I'm a conservative too, and no real conservative would concede that the government has the power to put someone in jail for writing a book.


----------



## Laurie (Jan 9, 2009)

swolf said:


> So, if someone else writes it and you transmit it, you're not breaking this guy's law?
> 
> Obviously not, so he obviously means any of the three 'ifs'.


I don't see it your way and you don't see it mine, and that's okay. We can agree to disagree. As long as you're not the writer of that garbage - which you aren't (right!? ) - then I have no reason to argue about what you believe in.


----------



## Laurie (Jan 9, 2009)

"...no real conservative would concede that the government has the power to put someone in jail for writing a book."

That's not what I said at all. And I don't appreciate you passing judgement on what I do or don't consider myself to be. I was trying to be friendly in what I thought was a mature debate. I guess I was mistaken.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Laurie said:


> I don't see it your way and you don't see it mine, and that's okay. We can agree to disagree. As long as you're not the writer of that garbage - which you aren't (right!? ) - then I have no reason to argue about what you believe in.


We're not arguing about what we believe, we're arguing about what the sentence says.

Do you think he means the person has to break any of the 'ifs' or all of the 'ifs'?

If it's all of the 'ifs', then the person has to write it AND distribute it in order to break this guy's law.

If it's any of the 'ifs', then the person either has to write it OR distribute it in order to break this guy's law.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Laurie said:


> "...no real conservative would concede that the government has the power to put someone in jail for writing a book."
> 
> That's not what I said at all. And I don't appreciate you passing judgement on what I do or don't consider myself to be. I was trying to be friendly in what I thought was a mature debate. I guess I was mistaken.


So, are you saying this guy shouldn't have been arrested?


----------



## P.A. Woodburn (May 22, 2010)

I did not look at the book. We don't know if the people who arrested this guy went to his house and found something discriminating there. I met and spoke to several pedophiles in my previous job and I'll tell you they are totally non repentant. I would rather deal with a regular old murderer any day. I don't know if he violated the freedom of speech, nor do I care. I am happy to hear that he is in jail. 

Ann


----------



## Sunset (Nov 10, 2010)

> "The message is very clear: If you write a book, if you sell that book, if you transmit that book to anyone in our jurisdiction, then we will investigate you and arrest, because our goal is protect the children," the sheriff said.


It's all of the ifs because you cannot have just the first and make it fit with the object of the sentence without the other two. To "write a book to anyone in our jurisdiction" implies that it was sold or transmitted. Writing a book outside of the jurisdiction that never makes its way in is fine.

Common sense, FTW!


----------



## flanneryohello (May 11, 2010)

Look, I've got a five-year-old son, and if someone ever hurt him--especially in that way--I can't even imagine what laws _I_ might break. It's very easy to think about this issue on a purely emotional level. Pedophiles are the worst of the worst, as far as I'm concerned.

But I'm trying hard not to think about this on a purely emotional level.

The book _is_ protected under free speech--even the arresting sheriff acknowledges that (it "frustrates" him).

If it's illegal to distribute or mail "obscene material" "depicting minors engaged in harmful conduct", as the sheriff claims, I wonder if mailing someone a copy of the novel _Lolita_ would therefore be considered a crime--since it does, in fact, portray pedophilia.

One thing to remember here is that any decisions made on this case would have far-reaching effects, probably not limited to depictions of pedophilia. Legal decisions are often applied broadly. Do we want the government to be able to arrest people for writing and/or mailing material that is considered "obscene"? Does "obscenity" stop at depictions of pedophilia, or might it also cover certain types of consensual sexual practices between adults? Who gets to decide?

I think we would all agree that pedophilia is disgusting and we'd like pedophiles who actually harm children to be banished from the planet. But we shouldn't let that cloud our analysis of the big picture. Because there is a big picture here, if you can get past the yuck factor.


----------



## Philip Chen (Aug 8, 2010)

It is interesting that you bring up "Lolita". I think the difference is that the author of the book in question crossed the very fine line between literature and purient how to manual. Nonetheless, I believe that the charge that will stick is the fact that the book ordered by the detectives in Florida was sent by the US Mail. This leaves an open question as to whether there would have been a case if he had used UPS or FedEx for delivering the book. 

Don't forget that Al Capone was finally sent to prison for income tax evasion; not for running a criminal enterprise.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_Here's an interesting post on the issue by Eugene Volokh. He's a law professor at UCLA and specializes in First Amendment. It's at http://volokh.com/_

"Pedophile Guide Author Arrested on Obscenity Charge
Eugene Volokh • December 20, 2010 8:20 pm

The AP reports:

_A Colorado man who wrote a how-to guide for pedophiles ["The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: a Child-lover's Code of Conduct"] is being transferred to Florida to face obscenity charges, after deputies there ordered a copy of the book that has generated online outrage...._

If the book actually provides useful and nonobvious information about how to more effectively seduce children (or escape detection), then it brings us to the difficult and unresolved issue of crime-facilitating speech (full article here). I doubt there is a currently existing statute under which he could be prosecuted on a crime-facilitating speech theory, but if there were one then there would be an interesting First Amendment question about whether such a statute is constitutional.

But from what I've heard of the book, I doubt that an obscenity prosecution would work. The obscenity exception essentially covers hard-core pornography - material that is not just about sex, or that advocates or gives information about illegal sex, but material that is highly sexually explicit. Specifically, to be obscene, a work (1) must be, taken as a whole, erotically stimulating (in a way that is seen as "shameful or morbid") to its likely readership, (2) must depict or describe, in an offensively explicit way, sexual conduct, and (3) must, taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

From what I understand, the book is not, taken as a whole, erotically stimulating; neither its purpose nor its likely use is erotic stimulation. The Polk County Sheriff's Office says that "The book contains two graphic stories depicting an adult engaged in sex acts with children," but I doubt that these two stories suffice to make the work erotically themed when "taken as a whole."

And to the extent that "[t]he book also defends [and] advocates ... illegal sex acts between adults and children" (I again quote from the Sheriff's Office), it conveys a serious political message, albeit an evil message. That should suffice to satisfy the serious political value prong. In any event, even if I'm mistaken as to one or another of these items, I doubt that it satisfies all three of the prongs. And to be obscene, it has to satisfy all three.

To be sure, in the past advocacy of the propriety of harmful sexual conduct - at the time, adultery, but the logic would extend even to the much more harmful behavior of sexual molestation - could be seen as "thematically obscene." But the Court rejected that in Kingsley Int'l Pictures Corp. v. Regents (1959), and has not resurrected it since.

Of course, a child pornography prosecution wouldn't work either. To be child pornography, a work has to depict (in photographs, videorecordings, or audiorecordings) actual children. Text might in principle be obscene, if it's sufficiently sexually explicit. But it can't be child pornography.

Thanks to Robert Woolley and Prof. Eric Freedman for the pointers.


----------



## Laurie (Jan 9, 2009)

T.L. Haddix said:


> I think this debate has moved away from the original celebration of the arrest. I proudly admit that I am Conservative. I believe in the right to speak freely. I also realize that the ability to speak freely does not a)guarantee us the right to be heard, or b) keep us secure against consequences related to that speech. My basic, down-to-the-bone point about the guy's having been arrested was this - he's promoting pedophilia and he deserves to rot and burn. I am glad he is in jail because that is exactly where he deserves to be, and I hope he gets exactly what he deserves while he is in there - I'll leave the details of that to your imaginations. I Do Not Care that this man's 'rights' might possibly be violated by this arrest. As far as I am concerned, he has No Rights. Sex offenders in general, pedophiles in particular have no rights. Not in my book. They cannot be rehabilitated. The compulsion cannot be removed. They won't stop unless someone stops them. This is the ONLY situation in which I support the wholesale, unfettered denial of rights. The ONLY situation. This is a crime that cannot be excused, cannot be explained.


Bravo! Couldn't agree more.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> _Here's an interesting post on the issue by Eugene Volokh. He's a law professor at UCLA and specializes in First Amendment.
> 
> _


_

Thanks you for posting this, Terrence._


----------



## kyrin (Dec 28, 2009)

Thanks for posting that Terrence. After reading the article, it is useful from a first ammendment standpoint. it doesn't really address local laws for the various states and counties. Now on to responding to for Swolf.



swolf said:


> You should ask yourself that question.


I have a very good idea how Freedom of Speech works in theory and in practice from my time at work. I don't have to ask myself the question but I do because things change and it's always good to do some research.



swolf said:


> And the child obscenity laws are quite clear, and this book doesn't even come close to being illegal.


Obscenity laws differ from state to state. What is clear in one jurisdiction might not be in another.



swolf said:


> Actually, the test is "imminent lawless action".
> 
> Tell me, do you think this book would make you go out and harm a child?
> 
> Or is it just 'other people' it would affect?


Do I think it would make me harm a child? No. Do I think it might encourage a pedophile or someone thinking of becoming a pedophile to harm a child? Yes.



swolf said:


> Yeah, let's put people in jail because they write books we don't like.
> 
> Hurray!


Not because he wrote the book but because he is a pedophile who is promoting his views and instructing people on how to engage in unlawful activity.



swolf said:


> Sure it is. That's why 49 states and almost every county in the 50th aren't charging him with a crime.


When you commit a crime, every state in the union does not charge you at the same time. It's not the way our legal system works.



swolf said:


> It is. One yahoo claiming it's illegal doesn't make it illegal.


We're not talking about one yahoo. The person has the support of his county/city/state prosecuting attorney and the court system.

In closing, look at the law concerning freedom of speech and what is covered by it. You might be surprised. It is not a license to say whatever you want in print or out loud.


----------



## Philip Chen (Aug 8, 2010)

The author in question had better beg forgiveness and not be sent to the big house. I understand that child abusers (and this includes pedophiles) do not fare well there. Also, the residents of that insitution do not generally debate the subtle nuances of what is or is not protected speech.  They tend to act out on raw feelings against people who they detest like ... child abusers.


----------



## R. Doug (Aug 14, 2010)

swolf said:


> Any quotes from the founders to back up those claims?


Certainly: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

All one need do is look up the definitions in effect at the time for the words "speech" and "press" (hint: they haven't changed all that much . . . except apparently in the dictionary used by various Supreme Courts over the intervening years). The founding fathers were very literate and had a very good understanding of words and their meanings. If they had meant "expression" they would have said, "expression." They, in fact, did not. Indeed, these very same individuals went back to their home states and towns and proceeded to pass with great regularity laws prohibiting all kinds of "expression," including indecency laws, laws prohibiting obscenity including books), swearing in public, and a whole host of other restrictions. Apparently they saw no dichotomy between passing those laws and the First Amendment they themselves authored. Things that make one go, "HMMmmmm."

As to what speech and press they intended to protect, one need go no further than the Federalist Papers and transcripts of the Congressional debates at the time the Bill of Rights were discussed and passed. Political debate is mentioned frequently; advocating pedophilia, being allowed to display or use the "F" word in public, or the right to expose oneself in public (just as a few examples) aren't mentioned even once.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_" Indeed, these very same individuals went back to their home states and towns and proceeded to pass with great regularity laws prohibiting all kinds of "expression," including indecency laws, laws prohibiting obscenity including books), swearing in public, and a whole host of other restrictions."_

When the Constitution was adopted by the states, the Bill of Rights, constituting the first ten amendments, applied only to the federal government. It did not bind state governments. It prevented the federal government from establishing religion and prohibiting speech. It did not prohibit the states. Hence, the actions of the Founders when they returned home are consistent with the scope and understanding of the Constitution at the time.

The application of these amendments to the states is called "incorporation against the states." I know it's an odd term, but that's what it is. This incorporation happens when the US Supreme Court rules that state government must abide by the amendment. This didn't really start until around 1890. In fact, in 1833 the US Supreme Court ruled in Barron v Baltimore that the Bill of Rights did not apply to state government.

Most amendments except 9 and 10 have been incorporated against the states.

When did the last incorporation happen? A few months ago in McDonald v Chicago when the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms was incorporated against the states.

Once an amendment has been incorporated against the states, state law cannot overrule it. State law varies from one state to another, but the rights incorporated against the states cannot be violated by any state statute.


----------



## Steve Silkin (Sep 15, 2010)

T.L. Haddix said:


> As far as I am concerned, he has No Rights.


even before he is convicted? no 'innocent until proven guilty?' no right to a fair trial?


----------



## Steve Silkin (Sep 15, 2010)

R. Doug said:


> All one need do is look up the definitions in effect at the time for the words "speech" and "press" (hint: they haven't changed all that much . . . except apparently in the dictionary used by various Supreme Courts over the intervening years).


that is the role of the supreme court, to interpret and apply the constitution, including the bill of rights. as i mentioned earlier, robert bork believed that the first amendment applied only to political speech. in order to try to save his nomination to the supreme court, his partisans had to claim that he didn't really write that, he didn't really mean it. but he did, so he was not confirmed for the supreme court seat to which he'd been appointed. even his partisans knew it was a disqualifying factor. the first amendment protects personal and artistic expression. see the outcomes of the dennis barrie/mapplethorpe case and the luther campbell case for proof. the first amendment is not restricted to political speech just as the second amendment does not restrict the right to bear arms to militiamen. some people would like that to be the case, but it wasn't, isn't and will likely never be.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_Here's the beginning of an article by Eugene Volokh, the UCLA law professor cited above. He deals with crime facilitating speech. I have only cited the very beginning because I found the litany of instances he provides so interesting. This stuff isn't as easy as it might appear. It's a good article. About 50 pages without the footnotes, and 100 with them. (I have deleted footnotes in this quote.) The full article is at http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/facilitating.pdf_
_
In particular, note this from near the end of the below passage:

"And getting the answer right is important: Because these
scenarios are structurally similar-a similarity that hasn't been generally recognized-a decision
about one of them will affect the results in others. If a restriction on one of these kinds of speech
is upheld (or struck down), others may be unexpectedly validated (or invalidated) as well."_
----------Start Volokh ---------------

INTRODUCTION: THE SCOPE OF THE CRIME-FACILITATING SPEECH PROBLEM
Some speech provides information that makes it easier for people to commit crimes, torts, or
other harms. Consider:
(a) A textbook,1 magazine, Web site, or seminar describes how people can make bombs
(conventional2 or nuclear3), make guns,4 make drugs,5 commit contract murder,6 engage in
sabotage,7 painlessly and reliably commit suicide,8 fool ballistic identification systems or
fingerprint recognition systems,9 pick locks,10 evade taxes,11 or more effectively resist arrest
during civil disobedience.12
(b) A thriller or mystery novel does the same, for the sake of realism.13
(c) A Web site or a computer science article explains how messages can be effectively
encrypted (which can help stymie law enforcement),14 how encrypted copyrighted material can
be illegally decrypted,15 what security flaws exist in a prominent computer operating system,16
or how computer viruses are written.17
(d) A newspaper publishes the name of a witness to a crime, thus making it easier for the
criminal to intimidate or kill the witness.18
(e) A leaflet or a Web site gives the names and possibly the addresses of boycott violators,
abortion providers, strikebreakers, police officers, police informants, anonymous litigants,
registered sex offenders, or political convention delegates.19 (f) A Web site posts people's social security numbers or credit card numbers, or the
passwords to computer systems.20
(g) A newspaper publishes the sailing dates of troopships,21 secret military plans,22 or the
names of undercover agents in enemy countries.23
(h) A Web site or a newspaper article names a Web site that contains copyright-infringing
material, or describes it in enough detail that readers could quickly find it using a search
engine.24
(i) A Web site sells or gives away research papers, which helps students cheat.25
(j) A magazine describes how one can organize one's tax return to minimize the risk of a tax
audit,26 share music files while minimizing the risk of being sued as an infringer,27 or better
conceal one's sexual abuse of children.28
(k) A newspaper publishes information about a secret subpoena,29 a secret wiretap,30 a
secret grand jury investigation,31 or a secret impending police operation,32 and the suspects thus
learn they are being targeted; or a library, Internet service provider, bank, or other entity whose
records are subpoenaed alerts the media to complain about what it sees as an abusive
subpoena.33
(l) When any of the speech mentioned above is suppressed, a self-styled anticensorship Web
site posts a copy, not because its operators intend to facilitate crime, but because they want to
protest and resist speech suppression or to inform the public about the facts underlying the
suppression controversy.34
(m) A master criminal advises a less experienced friend on how best to commit a crime, or
on how a criminal gang should maintain discipline and power.35
 A supporter of sanctuary for El Salvadoran refugees tells a refugee the location of a hole
in the border fence, and the directions to a church that would harbor him.36
(o) A lookout,37 a friend,38 or a stranger who has no relationship with the criminal but who
dislikes the police39 warns a criminal that the police are coming.
(p) A driver flashes his lights to warn other drivers of a speed trap.40
These are not incitement cases: The speech isn't persuading or inspiring some readers to
commit bad acts. Rather, the speech is giving people information that helps them commit bad
acts-acts that they likely already want to commit.41
When should such speech be constitutionally unprotected? Surprisingly, the Supreme Court
has never squarely confronted this issue,42 and lower courts and commentators have only
recently begun to seriously face it.43 And getting the answer right is important: Because these
scenarios are structurally similar-a similarity that hasn't been generally recognized-a decision
about one of them will affect the results in others. If a restriction on one of these kinds of speech
is upheld (or struck down), others may be unexpectedly validated (or invalidated) as well.
In this Article, I'll try to analyze the problem of crime-facilitating speech,44 a term I define
to mean
(1) any communication that,
(2) intentionally or not,
(3) conveys information that
(4) makes it easier or safer for some listeners or readers (a) to commit crimes, torts,45 acts
of war (or other acts by foreign nations that would be crimes if done by individuals), or
suicide, or (b) to get away with committing such acts.46
In Part III.G, I'll outline a proposed solution to this problem; but my main goal is to make
observations about the category that may be useful even to those who disagree with my bottom
line.


----------



## sabinfire (Nov 11, 2010)

Steve Silkin said:


> even before he is convicted? no 'innocent until proven guilty?' no right to a fair trial?


Why don't we just string him up a tree while a hysterical mob gathers around to watch?

Everyone has rights. No matter what crime they are accused of. And as of right now, the only "crime" this man is accused of is writing a book. To say a fellow human being in American has absolutely no rights, especially before anything is proven, is just inhumane.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Edward C. Patterson said:


> I know you can't publish treasonable work or anything advocating the overthrow of the government (or can you?)


And yet the makers of the movie DEATH OF A PRESIDENT were never even given a verbal slap-down... Despite depicting (through Adobe Premiere special effects) the assassination of a sitting US president.


----------



## kyrin (Dec 28, 2009)

sabinfire said:


> Why don't we just string him up a tree while a hysterical mob gathers around to watch?
> 
> Everyone has rights. No matter what crime they are accused of. And as of right now, the only "crime" this man is accused of is writing a book. To say a fellow human being in American has absolutely no rights, especially before anything is proven, is just inhumane.


Actually, he's accused of a lot more than writing a book. He has also admitted to a lot more during interviews.

As for his rights, I'm sorry, certain actions mean you forfeit those rights. It's why we have prisons although I think pedophiles and childl molestors should get a much harsher sentence.


----------



## sabinfire (Nov 11, 2010)

The last news bit I read on this subject said he's being charged with distributing 'obscenity'.  Is he being charged with other crimes now?


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Steve Silkin said:


> That is what Robert Bork believed. That is why he was not allowed to sit on the Supreme Court.


Sorry, Steve, but that's pure historical revisionism on your part.

There were many issues at play in the confirmation hearings of Robert Bork. There were many things that swung the votes against him to the point that he was not confirmed.

The biggest of these issues was the "balance of the court." The justice being replaced, Lewis Powell, was a moderate and a swing vote on most 5-4 decisions. Dems controlled both houses of Congress and warned Reagan they'd oppose anyone who wasn't a Powell.

The final Senate vote on Bork was 42-58 with 6 Republicans voting against and 2 Democrats voting for confirmation.

But the ultimate issue at play was Democrats attempting to puff themselves up against the lame duck President.

There were several "Robert Bork's views" issues that were trumpeted to stir up the public, but in the end it was a mostly partisan fight between a lame-duck President and a Congress controlled by the opposing party.

That Bork was pro-life was a much larger issue at play at the time. His abortion view, well publicized prior to his appointment by Reagan, was used to demonize him.

His "free speech" views were barely mentioned, by comparison... reams were written on his abortion position.

The way he was treated is what led all presidents since Reagan to seek out nominees who have short track-records on their decisions, have seldom published or given speeches on their decisions and judicial temperament, and who have never, ever published a book. (Presidents from both parties look for this "lack of a track record" these days...)

By opposing Bork before the first hearing was ever held (Ted Kennedy gave a doomsday speech on Bork's nomination 45 minutes after Bork was nominated), the process of opposing Supreme Court candidates out-of-hand before any hearings are held has come to be referred to as "Bork-ing" a candidate. And both parties engage in it, these days.

But to suggest that his "free speech" views are the reason he isn't on the Supreme Court instead of Anthony Kennedy is misleading, untrue and historically inaccurate.

SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork_Supreme_Court_nomination


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

T.L. Haddix said:


> The guy wrote a "How-To" book on pedophilia. 'Nuff said. No trial necessary.


Honestly, this scares me more than anything else I've read on this thread.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States

Of interest:



> There are exceptions to these general protection, including the Miller test for obscenity, child pornography laws, *speech that incites imminent danger,* and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising. Within these limited areas, other *limitations on free speech balance rights to free speech and other rights, *such as rights for authors and inventors over their works and discoveries (copyright and patent), interests in "fair" political campaigns (Campaign finance laws), *protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons *(restrictions on fighting words), or the use of untruths to harm others (slander).


Such a book certainly "incites imminent danger" and the author's free-speech rights must be balanced against a legitimate "protection from imminent *or potential* violence against particular persons."

Will the case hold? It all depends on who ends up with the better lawyers.

Also... and I say this from experience... the outcome of the trial will largely depend on the jury instructions. Having sat on a jury about 18 months ago, I can tell you that the jury instructions really restrict the jury's ability to rule based on feelings (which is probably for the better, though it can lead to some wacky verdicts) and restricts them to rule on the law.

NOTE: I say this *not* in defense of this particular fellow, but it ought to be pointed out that many of us are assuming that since this guy wrote a book on such a disgusting and morally repugnant topic, that he has committed such acts himself. Writing about something is not necessarily proof that you've engaged in similar behavior, or Thomas Harris would have been sitting in federal prison for a couple decades by now. (Just to name one.) And I'd hate to think of what it says about David McAfee or Daniel Pyle! The point is, one can write about a topic without having engaged in a specific identical behavior, with a sufficient amount of imagination. And I am certain this fellow's defense attorney will argue exactly that.

What might be more promising is if, in the process of investigation and discovery, the prosecution can find proof of real victim-ology outside of the guy's word processor and in the real world. If it can be proven that this fellow has harmed real children, that would stick him with a much more significant sentence.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

T.L. Haddix said:


> Monique - why?


It's the no trial part. Due process is incredibly important. Without it...I can't imagine what we'd become.


----------



## sabinfire (Nov 11, 2010)

You don't have to look too far back in history to find evidence of that.

I know, it scares me too.  I don't admit to being scared of much, but this sort of thing makes my blood run cold.


----------



## R. Doug (Aug 14, 2010)

Sorry, Steve S., but it is simply not true that Robert Bork lost his nomination bid because of his (correct) stand on the First Amendment. That was merely the excuse by those who feared his stand on another totally unrelated issue: Abortion rights. And if he _was_ booted on _either_ basis, then so much for, "tolerance of unpopular political debate," as supposedly protected by the First Amendment. He certainly wasn't granted any such tolerance.

Read his book, _The Tempting of America_. Very well argued. Backed up by prodigious amounts of research and documentation. Most enlightening.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

It's a difficult issue. It reminds me of the Bush-Dukakis debate.

When Bernie Shaw posed that question about the death penalty to Dukakis ("Would you support the death penalty if someone raped and murdered your wife, Kitty?") he was in a no-win situation, really, when you think about it.

Dukakis chose the Superman response... saying (very dispassionately) that he'd want the prosecution of the criminal to follow the letter of the law, and that he was grateful for our country having a system of laws and penalties that protect us from having to decide such things when we're personally invested in it.

It was the right answer from a legal standpoint, but his cold and dispassionate response made him seem to lack heart.

What people tend to want is the Batman response... to admit that you'd want to see the scum-bum suffer the way his victim suffered, and to show him no mercy the way he showed his victims no mercy.

Of course, Batman is often wrongly portrayed as being willing to kill. Yet it's actually a thing that makes him a hero and not a total PUNISHER-type character... Batman doesn't kill... he never crosses that line.

I think the classic portrayal of Batman's "vengeful" spirit, which still respects his "no killing" policy, came in Frank Miller's classic graphic novel, THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS.

In one sequence, Batman is being overpowered by a larger opponent and the interior dialog/narration reads as follows:

"From this position, there are six defenses. Three kill. Two maim. The other... hurts."

And the artwork shows him obviously choosing the defense that "... hurts."

The point is, a vengeful Batman response is what the emotional side of us all want when faced with acts of pure evil.

But the Batman response is legally wrong.

So that's the balancing act... you can be Superman on issues like this, be right on the law and seem heartless; or you can be a vengeful Batman on issues like this, be wrong on the law but display your passionate distaste for the crimes at hand.

It's a tough thing to tackle, responding to this sort of evil.

We all, I am sure, hate child molesters.

Tossing out the Constitution and due process might make us feel better, feel more righteous and more passionate about protecting kids... but it loses sight of what we're giving up in the process.

As one founding father put it, "He who would surrender freedom to ensure safety deserves neither."

It's not a perfect system, but I have to believe a guy who is stupid enough to put out literary garbage like this will also be stupid enough to make mistakes in other areas of his life... including areas that will reveal anything else he's done that is illegal. And once hard evidence of those crimes come to light, I certainly hope that he would receive a sentence befitting the level of evil he unleashed upon the world.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

I share that concern, T.L.

I think by jumping on the book, they are potentially missing out on nailing him for the abuse of his real-life victims.


----------



## flanneryohello (May 11, 2010)

Has anyone here read the book?

Do we really know what it says, or doesn't say?

It seems to me that there are a _lot_ of assumptions being made here--about the contents of the book, and about this man's possible history or criminal activity. I doubt anyone here _really_ knows much, if anything, about Philip Greaves or his book. And yet there are people ready to convict him, burn him at the stake, whatever. If there was evidence he committed a crime, I'd be a lot more comfortable about what I'm hearing. Writing a book is not a crime.

What bothers me most about this case is that the "law" that was broken was mailing a book that Polk County officials have determined to be "obscene" (I'm not convinced this passes the Miller test for obscenity) to someone in Polk County--at the explicit request of Polk County law enforcement. That sounds like entrapment to me. If he had mailed that book to any other state, any other county, he would not have broken a law. He quite possibly would never have sent a copy of the book to that jurisdiction if he hadn't been enticed. Doesn't this bother anyone else?

This blog post over at the Citizen Media Law Project offers an interesting perspective, and a bit of background on the history of obscenity cases and other arrests which suggest overreaching that have happened in that particular county:

http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2010/first-amendment-alert-author-arrested-writing-book


----------



## Pushka (Oct 30, 2009)

For me it is a no brainer. If the law allows the publication of material whose very purpose is to describe how to commit a crime against children, then the law is wrong. It isn't a matter of whether it is offensive. While I wont personally read Porno books, I find them offensive but if about consenting adults then others can go ahead. But it seems that people talk about the rights. Does anyone care about the rights of the child here?  Who takes precedence? Surely the protection of children even if that therefore limits adults 'rights'.


----------



## kyrin (Dec 28, 2009)

flanneryohello said:


> Has anyone here read the book?
> 
> Do we really know what it says, or doesn't say?
> 
> ...


You can still find samples from the book on the internet then judge for yourself. I didn't buy the book or read a sample of it but I did see and hear enough excerpts to be disturbed.

You can also find interviews with the author on television and radio defending his work. The author was kind enough to go on record numerous times stating his intent and what the book is about. The man clearly has issues and sees nothing wrong with being a pedophile.

I'm one of the first people to defend freedom of speech and civil liberties but the author's book does not qualify based on his own words and intent.

As for entrapment, police do that sort of thing all the time. They run sting and undercover operations. Wiretaps and other means of surviellance are authorized. Entrapment is when a law enforcement agent induces a person to commit an offense that the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit. If he was already sending copies of his book to Florida or stated that he would, then it's not entrapment for law enforcment to order a copy of the book. It is entrapment if the police had to talk him into doing so or twist his arm.

EDIT: It's a bit more complex and a good attorney might be able to make a case for entrapment depending on the circumstances unless a court order was involved.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

kyrin said:


> I have a very good idea how Freedom of Speech works in theory and in practice from my time at work. I don't have to ask myself the question but I do because things change and it's always good to do some research.


Obviously not.



kyrin said:


> Obscenity laws differ from state to state. What is clear in one jurisdiction might not be in another.


And the First Amendment is consistent.



kyrin said:


> Do I think it would make me harm a child? No. Do I think it might encourage a pedophile or someone thinking of becoming a pedophile to harm a child? Yes.


Did you ever hear anyone say, "That work had better be banned because I might read it and it might be very damaging to me?" ~Joseph Henry Jackson



kyrin said:


> Not because he wrote the book but because he is a pedophile who is promoting his views and instructing people on how to engage in unlawful activity.


In other words, because he wrote the book.



kyrin said:


> When you commit a crime, every state in the union does not charge you at the same time. It's not the way our legal system works.


If you commit the crime in every state they do.



kyrin said:


> We're not talking about one yahoo. The person has the support of his county/city/state prosecuting attorney and the court system.


Ok, two yahoos.



kyrin said:


> In closing, look at the law concerning freedom of speech and what is covered by it. You might be surprised. It is not a license to say whatever you want in print or out loud.


As long as you're not infringing upon other's rights, you have the right of free speech.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

R. Doug said:


> Certainly: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
> 
> All one need do is look up the definitions in effect at the time for the words "speech" and "press" (hint: they haven't changed all that much . . . except apparently in the dictionary used by various Supreme Courts over the intervening years). The founding fathers were very literate and had a very good understanding of words and their meanings. If they had meant "expression" they would have said, "expression." They, in fact, did not. Indeed, these very same individuals went back to their home states and towns and proceeded to pass with great regularity laws prohibiting all kinds of "expression," including indecency laws, laws prohibiting obscenity including books), swearing in public, and a whole host of other restrictions. Apparently they saw no dichotomy between passing those laws and the First Amendment they themselves authored. Things that make one go, "HMMmmmm."
> 
> As to what speech and press they intended to protect, one need go no further than the Federalist Papers and transcripts of the Congressional debates at the time the Bill of Rights were discussed and passed. Political debate is mentioned frequently; advocating pedophilia, being allowed to display or use the "F" word in public, or the right to expose oneself in public (just as a few examples) aren't mentioned even once.


I guess, according to your viewpoint, the government has the power to shut down the internet, since the founders never thought of it being used for speech. Or music and films.

Hell, unless someone's speaking on a street corner like they used to do back in the 1700s, the government can just put them in jail if they say something we don't like. Because that's all the founders were protecting, right?


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

T.L. Haddix said:


> I proudly admit that I am Conservative. I believe in the right to speak freely.





T.L. Haddix said:


> I Do Not Care that this man's 'rights' might possibly be violated by this arrest. As far as I am concerned, he has No Rights.


Those two statements are incongruous.


----------



## Philip Chen (Aug 8, 2010)

Monique said:


> It's the no trial part. Due process is incredibly important. Without it...I can't imagine what we'd become.


As a former trial lawyer, I totally agree with Monique. No matter how debased a person's actions are to the public, our system requires that he deserves a full trial by his peers (ordinary citizens for anyone contemplating a smart retort).

I once asked a prominent criminal defense attorney how he could defend an obviously guilty murderer. His answer was that his job was to make the prosecution prove their charge that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the standard for convicting a person of a crime in the country: beyond a reasonable doubt. I then asked him, "do you ever ask your client whether he is guilty". The attorney's reply was, "No, that is not my job. My job is to defend him against illegal activities by the prosecutor and to hold the prosecutor to the standards for conviction". [I'm obviously paraphrasing a conversation I had over twenty-years ago.

I do not like what this guy has done one bit. Emotionally, I hope they lock him up. But as an attorney, I will defend his right to a fair trial.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Such a book certainly "incites imminent danger" and the author's free-speech rights must be balanced against a legitimate "protection from imminent *or potential* violence against particular persons."


I disagree that it's a 'certainty'.

It could be argued that it does, but then it could be argued that a lot of books 'teach' people how to commit crimes. Pretty much every murder mystery is a 'how to'.

And after just reading Konrath's 'Dirty Martini', I can see how some nutcase could claim that he's teaching people how to create biological weapons.


----------



## Steve Silkin (Sep 15, 2010)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Sorry, Steve, but that's pure historical revisionism on your part.


excerpt from the kennedy speech, which, according to the wikip. article you cited, played a key role in derailing his nomination: "Mr. Bork should also be rejected by the Senate because he stands for an extremist view of the Constitution and the role of the Supreme Court ... He opposed the ... Civil Rights Act of 1964. He opposed the one-man one-vote decision of the Supreme Court the same year. _He has said that the First Amendment applies only to political speech, not literature or works of art or scientific expression._ Under the twin pressures of academic rejection and the prospect of Senate rejection, Mr. Bork subsequently retracted the most neanderthal of these views on civil rights and the first amendment. ... Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, _schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government_, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy."

i was an editorial writer at the time, and i was assigned to research whether it was true: did robert bork write that the first amendment only applies to political speech, and that he only retracted only under pressure as kennedy claimed? the answer was yes. the wiki article you cited states that the reagan admin. was blindsided by kennedy's speech and did not respond for more than two months. it is my belief that they had no response because bork was indefensible. it is my belief that he was most indefensible on the first amendment stance and that the American public and the American legal community of attorneys and judges would not and could not support bork due to what he had written on the first amendment. i recognize that there were other factors. but i believe it was the key.


----------



## Steve Silkin (Sep 15, 2010)

R. Doug said:


> Sorry, Steve S., but it is simply not true that Robert Bork lost his nomination bid because of his (correct) stand on the First Amendment. That was merely the excuse by those who feared his stand on another totally unrelated issue: Abortion rights. And if he _was_ booted on _either_ basis, then so much for, "tolerance of unpopular political debate," as supposedly protected by the First Amendment. He certainly wasn't granted any such tolerance.


the first amendment protected American publication of James Joyce, D.H. Lawrence, Henry Miller and William Burroughs. the first amendment protected Dennis Barrie and Luther Campbell. the first amendment protects strip clubs. the first amendment does not protect only political speech. you may think that it should. that is your right. robert bork, the same. but most other lawyers and judges believe that books, art and strip clubs are fully protected by the first amendment.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

R. Doug said:


> Sorry, Steve S., but it is simply not true that Robert Bork lost his nomination bid because of his (*correct*) stand on the First Amendment.


It actually boggles (boggles I say!) my mind that we have _authors_ here advocating that the government has the right to arrest them if they write something non-political that happens to offend enough (or the wrong) people.

Simply stunning.


----------



## Laurie (Jan 9, 2009)

It boggles my mind (boggles, I say!) that certain individuals can't participate in a civil debate. Most posters can cross points and reference other comments in a constructive way that moves the debate forward. Others just want to clobber people over the head and shout "you're stupid!" I like a good debate. I don't like to argue. I have no overwhelming compulsion to force or demand that other people see things my way, and I find it fascinating to see how other opinions differ from mine and how people arrived at those conclusions. I enjoy threads like this that present opposing points of view, but there are a couple of people who I've decided to post a mental "Ignore" flag on. Not because I don't care about their opinion, but because I don't care for how it's presented.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Laurie said:


> It boggles my mind (boggles, I say!) that certain individuals can't participate in a civil debate. Most posters can cross points and reference other comments in a constructive way that moves the debate forward. Others just want to clobber people over the head and shout "you're stupid!" I like a good debate. I don't like to argue. I have no overwhelming compulsion to force or demand that other people see things my way, and I find it fascinating to see how other opinions differ from mine and how people arrived at those conclusions. I enjoy threads like this that present opposing points of view, but there are a couple of people who I've decided to post a mental "Ignore" flag on. Not because I don't care about their opinion, but because I don't care for how it's presented.


This thread is about the pedophile author and the First Amendment, not about me.  Try to stick to the subject.

I haven't accused anyone of being stupid, so please don't quote me as saying it.

And BTW, your 'mental ignore flag' isn't working.


----------



## altworld (Mar 11, 2010)

Monique said:


> It's the no trial part. Due process is incredibly important. Without it...I can't imagine what we'd become.


The book is wrong, although it kicks over an ant hill of freedom of speech/expression rights. With every post in the this thread I believe what Monique said is the most important thing to remember.


----------



## sandynight (Sep 26, 2010)

I say YAY! GOOD JOB! to the Polk County Sheriff's dept in FL.  I don't know my facts but I recall a similar case in FL (I think it was last year) where they busted some guy selling the same crap through email. I don't know exactly what happened to the case. But this story here did sound familiar.


----------



## Steve Silkin (Sep 15, 2010)

Laurie said:


> ... certain individuals can't participate in a civil debate. ...


i've found everyone very civil!! i admit i threw bork out there because i knew i'd get challenged on him! i wanted to see what the challenges would be and if i could defend my viewpoint! i've had fun!

now let's talk about the value of the pedo-book:

i'm glad he wrote it. i'm glad he published it. because

- if i were a police chief, i'd want my officers to read the book in order to be familiar with the thought patterns, rationalizations and seduction and coverup techniques of pedophiles so that when they investigate a crime, they know what the criminal is thinking.

- if i were a district attorney, i'd want my deputies to read the book so they'd know how to match evidence to the templates presented in the book.

- if i were an elementary school principal, i'd want my teachers to read the book so they'd know how to warn their students about the techniques that people with evil intentions use to get close to them and how to avoid these dangers.

- if i were the parent of young children, i'd want to know what was in the book in order to better know how to educate my kid to avoid the dangers. (that said, i wouldn't ever buy the book for an array of reasons.)

now, you may say that everybody already knows how to recognize pedophiles, everybody already knows their techniques, everybody already knows how to educate their kids. and i don't dispute that totally. but this guy may be revealing things that people don't know about how a pedophile does his thing. i think law enforcement and education officials should know what it says, just in case there is new information in there.


----------



## R. Doug (Aug 14, 2010)

Just to clarify a few things, I am not against extending First Amendment protections to books, the internet, and other forms of communication. Never said anything even implying that, because I did not even mention what my beliefs on that topic were. I was making an observation about the origins of the First Amendment _only_. Indeed, I've yet to make public my stand on the book in question and whether it deserves First Amendment protections.

Steve, I'm well aware of what transpired during the Bork hearings, and I also am well aware that specific groups and at least one Senator publicly came out saying they would do anything and everything to quash the nomination . . . long _before_ his stand on the First Amendment even came out (in the case of Ted Kennedy, only 45 minutes after the nomination was announced). We're taking about groups that even conspired to violate his right to privacy (and before you say anything, yeah, I know he didn't find that in the Constitution either) by attempting to obtain information on what videos he rented in hopes of finding a porno title amongst the list. That's a pretty bizarre tactic for those screaming about "rights," wouldn't you say? I'm also aware that most of his writings on the First Amendment were academic writings to be used in a law school setting (so much for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas).

And to Swolf, enough of the snarky replies, already. If you don't like my posts, do us both a favor and just don't reply or even read them. This is really getting tiresome. As such, and of the second time in as many months, I'm through responding to you on this thread as well.


----------



## Reyn (Feb 10, 2009)

I think Steve has a valid point.  I would never purchase the book but as an educator and the wife of a law enforcement officer (LEO), as well as a parent of 4 boys, I think we need to know how pedophiles are adapting to the children being educated on their enticement techniques. What new techniques are they plotting to use on our children next? It really would be nice to have a heads up even if it only pertains to one idiot.  I am not going to comment on the free speech issue but the author should have had a little common sense here.  He had to know that sending that garbage out would result in something negative whether it be imprisonment or something else.  I firmly believe the justice system will take care of the situation, as far as this guy is concerned.  I just hope they took the necessary time to complete the investigation before making the arrest.  I (like most of you here) want to see these charges stick and keep this idiot off the streets.


----------



## R. Doug (Aug 14, 2010)

Reyn said:


> I think Steve has a valid point.


Oh, Steve has a _bunch_ of valid, well-presented points going. I'm really enjoying discussing them with him. I love conversations such as this.


----------



## Guest (Dec 21, 2010)

swolf said:


> I haven't accused anyone of being stupid, so please don't quote me as saying it.
> 
> And BTW, your 'mental ignore flag' isn't working.


Umm, so you say you aren't accusing people of being stupid and then do so in the very same post? Your second comment here is just an obvious jab via insinuation. Duh. Here's another insinuation: you seem to have a poor grasp of how your words will be interpreted.


----------



## julieannfelicity (Jun 28, 2010)

swolf said:


> The only images that can be illegal are photographs and images that look like photographs.
> 
> From what I understand, there were none of those in the book. If there were, Amazon wouldn't have defended selling it in the fist place.
> 
> They weren't protecting themselves. At first they defended selling it. They only stopped selling it when enough people complained and it was bad for business to sell it.


I haven't read all the comments yet, but I just wanted to add my 2 cents (for what it's worth) ... he had very detailed, hand-drawn depictions of a 9 year old boy and a 13 year old boy. He discussed ways to make the child lie to their parents, how to groom the child, etc. Just reading the article had bile rising in my throat.

Being a mother of three children (2 of which are boys), and a child abuse survivor, I hope this man is locked up FOREVER!!


----------



## s0nicfreak (Jun 10, 2010)

I have 4 kids, and I want them to grow up in a world where they are free to write and read without fear of being thrown in jail.


----------



## altworld (Mar 11, 2010)

Just had a thought and going throw it into this ring.

First off the book is wrong, just plain wrong on more levels than I need to discuss here. Frankly Amazon should of just rejected it via their ToC and been done with the entire mess.

However, implications on first amendment rights are interesting.

Plus, what does it mean for a movie (and book) like Lolita, especially the second one, that deals with the same subject. Albeit at a different level, but isn't that in the same case promoting the same act?

Just an example of were exactly does the line get drawn in the sand, and another shade of gray on this entire issue.


----------



## Steve Silkin (Sep 15, 2010)

R. Doug said:


> I did not even mention what my beliefs on that topic were. I was making an observation about the origins of the First Amendment _only_.


I hope I was careful enough not to attribute any beliefs to you that you do not hold. At least I tried to be.


----------



## R. Doug (Aug 14, 2010)

No, that wasn't directed toward you, Steve.  You've been a real gentleman here during this discussion.


----------



## julieannfelicity (Jun 28, 2010)

Tabby, have I told you today I <heart> you? If not ... I <heart> you!!


----------



## Steph H (Oct 28, 2008)

I read it all, T.L., and I'm sorry you had to go through that.  I'm just glad it was stopped before it went too far, physically at least.  Big hugs to you!

I knew a lot of what you said, as far as offenders usually looking like normal people and picking/grooming the child, and so on. I don't have kids myself so it's not a horror I have to think about for my own, but it's still something to be concerned about as a regular ol' human being on behalf of others. Heck, I'm hesitant to even smile at a cute little kid in the store, concerned someone's going to think I'm a pervert or something. You just never know. I'm always careful, when I do smile at that cute kid, to make eye contact with the parent and smile at them too, at least, try and let 'em know I mean no harm and am just being indulgent with/of their offspring.  That usually seems to work...


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

Can't... look... away....

I think we all agree that those who molest children should be locked up, or worse.

I think we all agree that children should be protected, and that when we're confronted with those who would seek to harm children, we react strongly.

But the reason the Constitution works so well is because it protects everyone equally. Even those who say and write things we despise. 

You simply can't draw a line between what is protected speech and what isn't. It all has to be protected. Even hate speech. Even manuals on how to make bombs. Even pornography. Even yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater. 

Living in a tolerant society that embraces free speech means we have the right to hate certain people based on what they say.

But we don't have the right to shut them up.


----------



## s0nicfreak (Jun 10, 2010)

T.L. Haddix said:


> http://kidproof.blogs.com/samanthawilsoncom/2009/04/eleven-ways-to-spot-a-pedophile.html Not the most graphically pleasing site, but valuable information.


Oh please, the only one of those I do not fit is #5, which I will probably partially fit soon (I am 25 and have never been married). This is just fear mongering. Making everyone afraid to even look at children does not protect them.


----------



## R. Doug (Aug 14, 2010)

Jack Kilborn said:


> Even yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater.


You had me in agreement until that last example, Jack. Courts have consistently ruled you do _not_ have a right to yell, "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. Ditto with talking about bombs or guns while going through airport security or making a threat of physical violence against government officials. Look up what constitutes 'assault' in most jurisdictions, or making a 'terroristic threat.' You'll be in for quite a shock.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

R. Doug said:


> You had me in agreement until that last example, Jack. Courts have consistently ruled you do _not_ have a right to yell, "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. Ditto with talking about bombs or guns while going through airport security or making a threat of physical violence against government officials. Look up what constitutes 'assault' in most jurisdictions, or making a 'terroristic threat.' You'll be in for quite a shock.


I believe those are civil courts. If you shout "fire", the owner of the theater can sue you, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean you go to jail.

As for terrorist threats, one of the big criticisms of the last administration was its disregard for rights. Just because our government allows something, doesn't mean it automatically becomes Constitutional.

I believe "clear and present danger" and "imminent lawless action" have been overturned. So talking about bombs in airport security might get you in trouble--as it should. And it could lead to the actual discovery of bombs--which is what you'd go to jail for. But it's still protected speech. The law just isn't tolerant of it, and the government may react in a way that violates the First Amendment.


----------



## Steve Silkin (Sep 15, 2010)

T.L. Haddix said:


> That is what makes it so insidious to me - he teaches pedophiles/offenders how to get around defenses. How to avoid the pitfalls of getting caught. Think about that for a minute. How disturbing is that? He's teaching these people who might now be just fantasizing about this sort of thing, how to do it and get away with it.


exactly. and that's why i think parents, law enforcement officials and educators should know those tricks.

and as for personal stories: i may have had a close encounter with a pedophile when i was 10. a guy was volunteering with our boy scout troop, based at our local rec center. he invited me and a friend up to his apartment one day to pick up some scouting gear. we went, had no problem, but when my dad found out he explained to me that if anything like that ever happens again, we were not to go into the apartment alone, we were to wait outside. that was the last i saw of the guy. i wouldn't be surprised if my dad had called the rec center and told them to keep this guy away from his kid. i don't know if the guy was righteous or not, but i had the distinct impression that my dad did not think he was.

i'm pretty sure i had a close encounter when i was 14, a little smarter, a little better radar. student teacher, mid- to late-20s, who sat next to me in english class observing the class and how my teacher handled it. we got to chatting, he was a guitarist, i played keyboards, he wanted to get together over the weekend and jam. i politely declined. he got insistent. really insistent. to the point where all my alarms were ringing: 'wow, this guy is way too excited about the prospect about me coming over to his house this weekend.'

so this is not a strictly academic debate for me, either. i know that this stuff is out there and happens and is real. but i also know that innocent people get accused of crimes and even convicted. so i want everyone, including child molesters, to have the right to a fair trial.

and i also know that if not for the first amendment, the government would have been allowed to censor books by james joyce and henry miller and d.h. lawrence.


----------



## kyrin (Dec 28, 2009)

Steve Silkin said:


> exactly. and that's why i think parents, law enforcement officials and educators should know those tricks.


Steve, the police and law enforcement actually have a lot better resources and information at their disposal. There are a lot of the books used for training and teaching purposes are not sold to the general public because they can potentially be used by the people the law is trying to stop. The same goes for the military and other professions.

Also, the intent of the author is not to educate the police on how to catch child molestors and pedophiles. His intent is to help those who wish to break the law escape detection and prosecution.

In this case, the author is doing a lot more harm than good.


----------



## kyrin (Dec 28, 2009)

s0nicfreak said:


> Oh please, the only one of those I do not fit is #5, which I will probably partially fit soon (I am 25 and have never been married). This is just fear mongering. Making everyone afraid to even look at children does not protect them.


I wouldn't call them fear mongering. Some of the things listed are more accurate than others but I wouldn't call it an absolute guide. The author even states "_Each one of these characteristics, taken on their own, can mean little_". Some of the characteristics on the list don't seem bad until you take them to an extreme. When that happens, they are unhealthy and can point to some sort of problem.

With all the talk of the First Ammendment, people forget the actual law and the way our government works. Freedom of Speech, like Justice, is a concept and an ideal that laws are made to protect and enforce. The laws don't always work. When they don't, there is a process in place to address the situation. For example, if you see this book case as a first ammendment issue then it's a good thing the author was arrested. Now, the courts can decide and rule on the issue. If the law upholds the author's rights, it might result in a supreme court ruling or legislature to ammend the constitution. If the law rules against the author, those who are crying about this man's rights can send mail to their representatives to ask for legislation to address the issue. That's the way the system works. Sometimes you need cases like these.

Now, I am going to bow out of this thread. For the most part, it's been a civil discussion but a couple of people don't care enough to read the posts of their fellow authors or take perverse pleasure in making snarky comments that make it hard to hold a rationale conversation.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Steve,

I appreciate your background on the issue, but we'll have to agree to disagree on this. Sen. Kennedy wrote a half-cocked, knee-jerk reactionary speech that would have been largely the same no matter who Reagan had put forward, had the nominee not been another "swing vote" type.

While I admire that you researched the First Amendment statement in Kennedy's speech, I notice you never mention whether you researched his wild claims of Bork forcing women into back alleys and blacks into segregated lunch counters and encouraging police to perform midnight raids. Kennedy's speech was sloppy, full of cliches and baseless demagoguery, and you want me to believe it was an off-hand reference to the First Amendment stance that derailed Bork?

Sorry, but I was alive and in college when all this happened. I followed the news... I was even on staff with my college newspaper. And even in the days before the Drudge Report and Fox News and other alternative media, this revisionism just doesn't wash.

Am I saying his First Amendment interpretation played no role? Absolutely not. I am simply disagreeing with you that it played any sort of primary role.

Again, it was a showdown between a lame duck president and a Congress controlled by the opposing party... a party still smarting and embittered from the biggest electoral landslide in US history... like it or not, that's what it was. (And odds are, Obama's next couple years could be just as rocky with the GOP playing spoiler this time to his presidency... like I said, both sides do it now.) If any single issue played a primary role in Bork's defeat, it was abortion, not the First Amendment.



Steve Silkin said:


> excerpt from the kennedy speech, which, according to the wikip. article you cited, played a key role in derailing his nomination: "Mr. Bork should also be rejected by the Senate because he stands for an extremist view of the Constitution and the role of the Supreme Court ... He opposed the ... Civil Rights Act of 1964. He opposed the one-man one-vote decision of the Supreme Court the same year. _He has said that the First Amendment applies only to political speech, not literature or works of art or scientific expression._ Under the twin pressures of academic rejection and the prospect of Senate rejection, Mr. Bork subsequently retracted the most neanderthal of these views on civil rights and the first amendment. ... Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, _schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government_, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy."
> 
> i was an editorial writer at the time, and i was assigned to research whether it was true: did robert bork write that the first amendment only applies to political speech, and that he only retracted only under pressure as kennedy claimed? the answer was yes. the wiki article you cited states that the reagan admin. was blindsided by kennedy's speech and did not respond for more than two months. it is my belief that they had no response because bork was indefensible. it is my belief that he was most indefensible on the first amendment stance and that the American public and the American legal community of attorneys and judges would not and could not support bork due to what he had written on the first amendment. i recognize that there were other factors. but i believe it was the key.


----------



## Philip Chen (Aug 8, 2010)

T.L.,

You make a most important observation.  The pedophile is not some lecherous stranger lurking on a side street to snatch your child.  That person could be the parish priest, the cop, the grade school teacher, a relative, or even a member of your immediate family.  Teaching you child to be wary of inappropriate behavior is a terribly important thing to do.

Phil


----------



## R. Doug (Aug 14, 2010)

Jack Kilborn said:


> I believe those are civil courts. If you shout "fire", the owner of the theater can sue you, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean you go to jail.


That would be incorrect, Jack. It's a criminal offense in just about any jurisdiction I've ever heard because it endangers people in the resulting panic. If bodily injury occurs, it can even be prosecuted as a felony. At a minimum you'd get nailed for disturbing the piece and perhaps reckless endangerment.

Same thing applies to making a false 911 call. If you don't believe me, just give it a try and see what happens.

There are all kinds of recognized restrictions on Freedom of Speech.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

R. Doug said:


> That would be incorrect, Jack. It's a criminal offense in just about any jurisdiction I've ever heard because it endangers people in the resulting panic. If bodily injury occurs, it can even be prosecuted as a felony. At a minimum you'd get nailed for disturbing the piece and perhaps reckless endangerment.
> 
> Same thing applies to making a false 911 call. If you don't believe me, just give it a try and see what happens.
> 
> There are all kinds of recognized restrictions on Freedom of Speech.


You'd have to show me a case where someone was successfully prosecuted and jailed for yelling "fire," because I haven't been able to find one.

As for prank calling 911, I'm not sure that's a free speech/first amendment issue.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

s0nicfreak said:


> Oh please, the only one of those I do not fit is #5, which I will probably partially fit soon (I am 25 and have never been married). This is just fear mongering. Making everyone afraid to even look at children does not protect them.


Did you actually read the text for each point, or just skim? I find it hard to believe that you fit ALL of the markers except number five. If so, please give me some examples of behavior that match each marker that you think is fine.


----------



## Philip Chen (Aug 8, 2010)

While I was not able in a short period of time to find a specific instance of someone who yelled "fire" falsely in a crowded theater, I suspect that anyone caught doing so will be subject to other misdemeanor and, possibly, felony charges such as inciting to riot should someone be injured or killed in the ensuing melee.

In _Schenck v. United States_, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stated,

_The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent._

as justification to uphold the conviction of person who was voicing opposition to the draft during the WWI. This case established the principle that free speech is not absolute and must be balanced against other societal needs. (paraphrased without getting into a long, dreary legal summation)


----------



## flanneryohello (May 11, 2010)

Philip Chen said:


> While I was not able in a short period of time to find a specific instance of someone who yelled "fire" falsely in a crowded theater, I suspect that anyone caught doing so will be subject to other misdemeanor and, possibly, felony charges such as inciting to riot should someone be injured or killed in the ensuing melee.
> 
> In _Schenck v. United States_, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stated,
> 
> ...


FYI, Schenck v. United States is not the last word on this issue. The "clear and present danger" test established by this case was later weakened and replaced by the less restrictive "bad tendency" test (Whitney vs. California). Both of those cases were later narrowed by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which introduced the "imminent lawless action" test.

Here's a link to a fascinating excerpt that discusses human rights as property rights: http://mises.org/daily/2569.

Relevant to our discussion is the section on the idea of freedom of speech, illustrated by the scenario of falsely shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater. The author argues that no weakening of the absoluteness of rights is necessary if we analyze the problem in terms of _property_ rights:



> In the first place, there are two senses in which property rights are identical with human rights: one, that property can only accrue to humans, so that their rights to property are rights that belong to human beings; and two, that the person's right to his own body, his personal liberty, is a property right in his own person as well as a "human right." But more importantly for our discussion, human rights, when not put in terms of property rights, turn out to be vague and contradictory, causing liberals to weaken those rights on behalf of "public policy" or the "public good." As I wrote in another work:
> 
> Take, for example, the "human right" of free speech. Freedom of speech is supposed to mean the right of everyone to say whatever he likes. But the neglected question is: Where? Where does a man have this right? He certainly does not have it on property on which he is trespassing. In short, he has this right only either on his own property or on the property of someone who has agreed, as a gift or in a rental contract, to allow him on the premises. In fact, then, there is no such thing as a separate "right to free speech"; there is only a man's property right: the right to do as he wills with his own or to make voluntary agreements with other property owners.[2]
> 
> ...


----------



## Pushka (Oct 30, 2009)

Jack Kilborn said:


> Can't... look... away....
> 
> I think we all agree that those who molest children should be locked up, or worse.
> 
> ...


On that basis then, the rights to free speech are given more importancein the Constitution than the right to have children grow up in a safe community. And the examples of yelling fire in a crowded theatre, hate speech etc are simply not the same as a book which tells others how to commit a crime on a child. This is much more than a "this book is offensive to me" argument. I can ignore offensive material but others can do what they want. This is a book written specifically to describe to others what to do to 'get away' with paedophilia. Is that the intention of those who created the Constitution?


----------



## R. Doug (Aug 14, 2010)

Jack Kilborn said:


> As for prank calling 911, I'm not sure that's a free speech/first amendment issue.


How is that example not germane to the discussion, Jack? You pick up a telephone, dial a number (in this case 911), and you falsely _say_ something; versus you stand up in a crowded theater, raise your voice, and _say_ something. Two sides of the same coin.

As for yelling, "Fire," in a crowded theater, here's what gets you into trouble with the law:

_Reckless Endangerment: the offense of recklessly engaging in conduct that creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury or death to another person.
Reckless endangerment is a misdemeanor but sometimes rises to a felony, as when a deadly weapon is involved.
_
And as for the origination of the phrase, that comes from (of all things) a Supreme Court decision:

_U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Schenck v. U.S. (1919), setting limits on the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Junior, wrote: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic."_

So, whether I take the time to find an actual successful prosecution is irrelevant (although I'm sure there are relevant examples out there but I don't have the time to go looking) because the Supreme Court has already ruled that yelling, "Fire," in a crowded theater is not protected speech.


----------



## Philip Chen (Aug 8, 2010)

@flanneryohello,

Thank you for the clarification.  I haven't done any legal research since my associate days over thirty years ago, and then not even in this area.  However, if you want to ask me about the law as it applies to autoerotic asphyxia, I had to write a legal memorandum on that one.  Hint: divided circuit opinions. 

Phil


----------



## flanneryohello (May 11, 2010)

R. Doug said:


> So, whether I take the time to find an actual successful prosecution is irrelevant (although I'm sure there are relevant examples out there but I don't have the time to go looking) because the Supreme Court has already ruled that yelling, "Fire," in a crowded theater is not protected speech.


Just to clarify, the Supreme never actually ruled that _falsely_ yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is not protected speech. Schenck v. United States actually concerned the defendent's right to freedom of speech against the draft during World War I. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes used the example of _falsely_ yelling fire in a crowded theater in the opinion he wrote on the case.

It's worth noting (as I did above) that subsequent cases have narrowed the tests established by this particular case.


----------



## LB Gschwandtner (Jun 21, 2010)

Jack Kilborn said:


> Can't... look... away....
> 
> I think we all agree that those who molest children should be locked up, or worse.
> 
> ...


But the society has the right to challenge the legality of their "writing/publishing" & make them take responsibility for the consequences that result from it.


----------



## R. Doug (Aug 14, 2010)

I'm aware of that also, Flannery.

Schenck vs U.S. and the clear and present danger test were later narrowed by:

The bad tendency test defined in Patterson vs Colorado and Abrams vs U.S. and the imminent lawless test defined in Brandenburg vs Ohio.

Still, I stand by my observation that you can't falsely yell "Fire" in a crowded theater any more than you can falsely yell "Fire" at a 911 operator.  People get prosecuted for that all the time . . . and such convictions stand.


----------



## s0nicfreak (Jun 10, 2010)

T.L. Haddix said:


> Sonic Freak, you say you do all but one of those things, and you'll be coming upon the 11th soon. Does that mean you take excessive pictures of children who are not your own? Does that mean you organize events for kids and purposefully exclude adults? Does that mean you encourage kids to defy their parents, and to come to your house to do so? Because if you are truly admitting to that sort of behavior, and not trying to be deliberately disruptive or sideline the discussion, then you worry me. I hope you are just playing a very nasty Devil's advocate, because if you aren't, I hate thinking of what the implications might be.


Well everyone has a different idea of excessive, but yes when my kids are playing with other kids I often take pictures. Yes, I organize events for kids that exclude adults as my kids have many friends that I do not want to associate with the parents of, and like to do some things that most adults don't like to do. I do not encourage kids to defy their parents, no.



Arkali said:


> Did you actually read the text for each point, or just skim? I find it hard to believe that you fit ALL of the markers except number five. If so, please give me some examples of behavior that match each marker that you think is fine.


1. I love video games and anime.
2. can't think of a specific example for that
3. That one is pretty self-explanatory
4. Many of my xbox life friends are under 18
5. As I said I am 25 and have never been married, so if I don't get married before my birthday... 
6. Well not so much anymore but in the past I just moved wherever I felt like seeing what living there was like, I lived pretty much all over the US. 
7. I organize parties for my kids and invite some kids that I don't really like the parents of. I go to the park and play on the playground equipment, most adults don't like to do that or are too big to do that. Etc. 
8. When my kids are playing with other kids I often take pictures
9. I go to the park, I play on xbox live
10. There's some of my Sonic The Hedgehog stuff around the house and tons of my partner's Xmen (& other comic books) stuff around the house. I am wearing Wii pants right now. I buy many of my clothes in the childrens' section.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

R. Doug said:


> Still, I stand by my observation that you can't falsely yell "Fire" in a crowded theater any more than you can falsely yell "Fire" at a 911 operator. People get prosecuted for that all the time . . . and such convictions stand.


What law are they breaking, if this is the case? What are they convicted of?

Again, civil suits are a different matter. The owner of a theater could sue someone for yelling "fire" and damaging his building, or someone could sue for getting trampled if someone falsely shouted "fire", but we're talking about criminal penalties.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Jack Kilborn said:


> What law are they breaking, if this is the case? What are they convicted of?
> 
> Again, civil suits are a different matter. The owner of a theater could sue someone for yelling "fire" and damaging his building, or someone could sue for getting trampled if someone falsely shouted "fire", but we're talking about criminal penalties.


Reckless endangerment?


----------



## s0nicfreak (Jun 10, 2010)

T.L. Haddix said:


> So then it's as I suspected, Sonic - you are being deliberately antagonistic and obtuse. There's no arguing, debating or convincing you that those of us who dissent from your opinion have valid stances. You seem to be gaining entertainment value from your antagonistic behavior, and you only seem to be participating so that you may ridicule or anger those who disagree with you. It's sad, what that behavior says about you.


That is not what I am doing at all. It's sad that you think I am.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

Pushka said:


> On that basis then, the rights to free speech are given more importancein the Constitution than the right to have children grow up in a safe community.


It isn't either/or. Explain to me how a book infringes on a child growing up safe in a community.

Are you saying that people, when exposed to ideas from books, can suddenly become child molesters? I'd guess not. In fact, I'd guess that 99.99999999% of the people exposed to this book would not want to molest children. Instead, they'd likely be revolted and want to lock up the author.

That doesn't mean they should be allowed to do so, especially without due process, and especially if they value freedom of speech.



Pushka said:


> And the examples of yelling fire in a crowded theatre, hate speech etc are simply not the same as a book which tells others how to commit a crime on a child. This is much more than a "this book is offensive to me" argument. I can ignore offensive material but others can do what they want. This is a book written specifically to describe to others what to do to 'get away' with paedophilia.


Actually, your opinion here shows you're unable to ignore offensive material.

Make no mistake: this book is disgusting, and the author is a pig. He can surely be condemned for writing stuff. But he shouldn't be convicted for writing stuff. That's against free speech.

However, though we value free speech, we do restrict freedom of action. If he's caught with child pornography, or caught trying to harm a child, that breaks the law, and he can then go to jail.

Once you deny a person rights to express their beliefs--no matter how offensive their beliefs are--you're breaking the First Amendment.

And once you say there are subjects we can't talk or write about, you're on a slippery slope that leads to censorship.

My country isn't perfect. My government isn't perfect. Laws aren't perfect.

But the First Amendment, as written, is pretty close to being perfect. True, lawyers and judges can interpret and bend and twist it, but Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. put it best when he said, "if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable."


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

T.L. Haddix said:


> How about wanton endangerment, or inciting a riot? I think it would depend on the circumstances, the jurisdiction the person was in, how ticked off the cops were, etc.


Have there been cases of wanton endangerment that focused on the First Amendment and freedom of speech?

I'm not denying that yelling "fire" is a bad idea. But has anyone been convicted of it?


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Jack Kilborn said:


> You'd have to show me a case where someone was successfully prosecuted and jailed for yelling "fire," because I haven't been able to find one.
> 
> As for prank calling 911, I'm not sure that's a free speech/first amendment issue.


Let me get this straight.... prank-calling 911 is not a free speech/first amendment issue, but something like a (digs up ancient history) Robert Mapplethorpe photo somehow IS a free speech/first amendment issue?

I mean, at least a prank call is _actual speech!_ 

Sorry, couldn't resist tweaking that comment, LOL.


----------



## Pushka (Oct 30, 2009)

Jack Kilborn said:


> Actually, your opinion here shows you're unable to ignore offensive material.


No, I dont agree. People can read or see anything they want to between consenting adults. Even hard core porn. The issue is about consent.



Jack Kilborn said:


> Once you deny a person rights to express their beliefs--no matter how offensive their beliefs are--you're breaking the First Amendment.
> 
> And once you say there are subjects we can't talk or write about, you're on a slippery slope that leads to censorship.


Most of your statements make excellent sense. If this had been a novel written about a paedophile molesting a child, then I would not be taking the same stance. Extremely distasteful, but the book should not be banned.

But this book isnt a novel; it isnt regarded as fiction. It is not a story. It is an instructional manual on how to commit a crime. On a child.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

T.L. Haddix said:


> For me, the legal offense would be something along the lines of contributing to the delinquency of a minor or intent to distribute for the purpose of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.


I'm not sure about that. That makes it sound consensual. Molesting a kid isn't consensual. And even if we take case that I find outrageous--like a female high school teacher sleeping with a sixteen year old male student--the law defines the age of consent. I don't think a teenage boy getting lucky is the same crime as a five-year-old being raped by a priest, even though the law treats them equally.

But underage sex isn't delinquency in any case.



T.L. Haddix said:


> With that in mind, from solely an academic standpoint, what do you feel is the difference between this guy producing a product with intent to distribute and say a marijuana grower who produces a crop of primo Mary Jane? They both have created something that they intend to sell and make a profit off of, and both those things (assuming the author's intent was promoting pedophilia) are harmful to others as well as illegal.


You tripped over a hot-button issue for me. I believe drugs should be legal, and there is ZERO evidence marijuana is harmful.

That said, drugs are illegal, and you can get arrested for selling them. But in the case of something like heroin or meth, there is ample evidence that it is harmful.

Words are not illegal, nor should they ever be illegal. If words are so powerful that they inspire acts that are criminal, the first book we need to ban is the bible, which has caused more wars, pain, and suffering than any other book in history.

But to ban books, or words, or ideas, is a slippery slope. Better to let it all exist, and give people the benefit of the doubt that they'll make informed, deliberate decisions to do no harm.


----------



## Pushka (Oct 30, 2009)

There is evidence that marijuana is harmful, but the degree of harm depends on the individual.  There is evidence that marijuana use contributes to mental health issues.  Having said that, where I live, it is not a criminal offence to grow up to five plants for personal use; and personal use is not a crime unless you are driving.  I am ok with that.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

Pushka said:


> But this book isnt a novel; it isnt regarded as fiction. It is not a story. It is an instructional manual on how to commit a crime. On a child.


I've got dozens of instructional manuals on how to commit crimes. 

Books on picking locks, breaking out of jail, making poisons, burglary techniques, making explosives, killing and interrogation techniques. Anarchist's Cookbooks, Poor Man's James Bond, books on making LSD and forging passports. I've even got a copy of the infamous Hitman book, which resulted in a civil suit. Paladin Press made a mint on me.

And yet, I've never poisoned anyone, robbed anyone, killed anyone, bombed anyone, or broken into anyone's house.

Information or ideas aren't nearly as dangerous as suppressing information or ideas.

Again, you don't have to agree with it. But if you want to live in a free country, you should know why it needs to be tolerated.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

Pushka said:


> There is evidence that marijuana is harmful, but the degree of harm depends on the individual.


I'd love to see an unbiased study that shows this.


----------



## s0nicfreak (Jun 10, 2010)

Pushka said:


> But this book isnt a novel; it isnt regarded as fiction. It is not a story. It is an instructional manual on how to commit a crime. On a child.


From the excerpts I have seen it is more a manual on how to deal with _being_ a pedophile, which is not a crime. 
Either way, though, whether I agree with the content or not I will defend everyone's right to write about whatever they wish.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

T.L. Haddix said:


> So let's change the pot to heroin. Why should it be okay to distribute a product like a book that is intended to harm children, but not okay to distribute heroin, which is also sold with the intention of harming (causing addiction and thus repeat customers) someone?


Lot's of things to dissect here.

First of all, you're making assumptions about a book I'm pretty sure you haven't read. That's always a bit dangerous.

Second, drugs are illegal. Words are not.

Third, if intent plays a part, a drug user is only hurting themself, and a dealer is only enabling that. A book is only providing information. In neither case, is the dealer or writer willfully inflicting harm. It is up to the buyer (of the drugs or the book) to decide how to use it.

We can't assume people suddenly no longer have free will, and must be protected from words the same way the law has (ineffectively) tried to protect them from drugs.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Jack Kilborn said:


> I'd love to see an unbiased study that shows this.


Tricky wording, Jack.  Any study that shows evidence one doesn't like can conveniently be labeled as "biased."

The active chemical in marijuana is THC.

Here is some info from the government that seems balanced to me:

http://drugabuse.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html

The most significant negative to me is the increased stress on the heart, based on a quick skim.


----------



## Pushka (Oct 30, 2009)

Jack Kilborn said:


> And yet, I've never poisoned anyone, robbed anyone, killed anyone, bombed anyone, or broken into anyone's house.


I dont believe that such books would cause others (like ourselves) to commit the crimes either!

But what I dont like about this book is that it may teach those already committing such crimes, new tricks, or how to better conceal their tracks so they dont get caught.

And from the parts I have read, it teaches tricks about the act, and not simply 'being' a paedohile.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> http://drugabuse.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html
> 
> The most significant negative to me is the increased stress on the heart, based on a quick skim.


Hmm. You know, through the magic of Google, I found a few other things that also increase stress on the heart.

Coffee.
Cigarettes.
Exercise.
Sex.
My books.

Don't you think, with the War on Drugs costing billions of dollars, that if there were a single death that could be directly and conclusively connected to marijuana use that it would be widely known?


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

Pushka said:


> But what I dont like about this book is that it may teach those already committing such crimes, new tricks, or how to better conceal their tracks so they dont get caught.


I don't like it either.

But that doesn't mean it should be banned.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Tricky wording, Jack.  Any study that shows evidence one doesn't like can conveniently be labeled as "biased."


I missed that.

Actually, any study that uses the scientific method properly is unbiased. But, strangely, there aren't any that show pot is harmful.


----------



## R. Doug (Aug 14, 2010)

Jack Kilborn said:


> What law are they breaking, if this is the case? What are they convicted of?


The charge is usually filing a false official report. Try this example, Jack. It's just one of many if you Google "false 911 calls: http://www.news4jax.com/news/19850986/detail.html

Check this out as well: http://firstaid.about.com/od/callingforhelp/f/07_911_Illegal.htm



Jack Kilborn said:


> Again, civil suits are a different matter. The owner of a theater could sue someone for yelling "fire" and damaging his building, or someone could sue for getting trampled if someone falsely shouted "fire", but we're talking about criminal penalties.


I've already posted what the charge would be, and several others have chimed in with the same information. It's reckless endangerment for one.

Quite simply put, Jack, there have _always_ been restrictions on First Amendment Rights. I'm really surprised you don't know this, as people frequently cite the "you can't yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater" as the most famous example. You also can't repeat government secrets to which you are granted access through government-issued security clearance (as yet another example), to which several spies currently spending their time in federal prison can attest.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Jack Kilborn said:


> Hmm. You know, through the magic of Google, I found a few other things that also increase stress on the heart.
> 
> Coffee.
> Cigarettes.
> ...


Oh please. Bringing the War On Drugs into a marijuana discussion is like bringing the Search for an overall Cancer Cure into a discussion about skin cancer. The WOD is about more than marijuana, my friend.

And as a high-blood-pressure/high cholesterol person, I stay away from at least half of the things you listed, LOL  I do have a family history of heart-attacks, which is a bit scary to me.

Also: no exercise, or even sexual activity, increases risk of heart attack by "4.8-fold."

Minimize away, my friend... once such a health risk applies to you personally, it's not so easily done.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Also: no exercise, or even sexual activity, increases risk of heart attack by "4.8-fold."
> 
> Minimize away, my friend... once such a health risk applies to you personally, it's not so easily done.


Are you serious?

I know people--friends and family--who had heart attacks while exercizing (and in one case, having sex.) We all know of cases like that.

Heart attacks while smoking weed? Again, I'd love to see just one.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Jack Kilborn said:


> Are you serious?
> 
> I know people--friends and family--who had heart attacks while exercizing (and in one case, having sex.) We all know of cases like that.
> 
> Heart attacks while smoking weed? Again, I'd love to see just one.


Your dispute is not with me; it's with the source I cited.

Again, as I said, you worded your position cleverly... anyone you disagree with becomes a biased source.


----------



## Steve Silkin (Sep 15, 2010)

Jack Kilborn said:


> I'd love to see an unbiased study that shows this.


this release cites one and links to others.

http://www.senaterepublicans.ct.gov/press/boucher/2009/062309.html


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Again, as I said, you worded your position cleverly... anyone you disagree with becomes a biased source.


That's not true.

Those who don't use the scientific method correctly are biased.

Show me a study in a peer-reviewed science journal. Heck, if "increased heart stress" is the best the official government website on drug abuse could come up with, I'd say that's pretty revealing. Especially since they left out a major point:
_
In the Determinants of Myocardial Infarction Onset Study, we interviewed 3882 patients (1258 women) *with* acute myocardial infarction an average of 4 days after infarction onset.
_

So this study the government cites was done on people who *already had* heart attacks. It also showed that 68% were cigarette smokers, and 43% were obese.

Nowhere does it state that smoking pot will cause a heart attack.

http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/short/103/23/2805


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

Steve Silkin said:


> this release cites one and links to others.
> 
> http://www.senaterepublicans.ct.gov/press/boucher/2009/062309.html


Hoo boy. As soon as I saw "senaterepublicans" I could guess the bias. And Googling some of the studies they cited it was easy to find plenty of bias.

How about this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis-associated_respiratory_disease


----------



## sherylb (Oct 27, 2008)

FYI
http://www.polksheriff.org/NewsRoom/News%20Releases/Pages/12202010.aspx


----------



## MosesSiregarIII (Jul 15, 2010)

Jack Kilborn said:


> Hmm. You know, through the magic of Google, I found a few other things that also increase stress on the heart.
> 
> Coffee.
> Cigarettes.
> ...


Heh, you should try doing all five at the same time.

I don't mean to brag, of course.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

R. Doug said:


> The charge is usually filing a false official report. Try this example, Jack. It's just one of many if you Google "false 911 calls: http://www.news4jax.com/news/19850986/detail.html
> 
> Check this out as well: http://firstaid.about.com/od/callingforhelp/f/07_911_Illegal.htm
> 
> ...


I'm not sure "filing false reports" or "reckless endangerment" can be called First Amendment issues. If they were, surely some lawyer would have brought it up.

And I believe if you reveal govenrment secrets when you swore an oath to not reveal them isn't a free speech issue either. When given high level security clearance, methinks you waive your right to free speech on classified issues.

Also, let's remember that the government tramples on people's First Amendment rights as it sees fit, but an arrest for one of the above isn't necessarily an indicator that First Amendment Rights are being restricted.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

MosesSiregarIII said:


> Heh, you should try doing all five at the same time.
> 
> I don't mean to brag, of course.


Might I ask where you propped my book?


----------



## MosesSiregarIII (Jul 15, 2010)

Jack Kilborn said:


> Might I ask where you propped my book?


The hardcovers are big, so, you'll need a woman with a strong back. If you go with a Kindle version, then you'll have more options.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

MosesSiregarIII said:


> The hardcovers are big, so, you'll need a woman with a strong back. If you go with a Kindle version, then you'll have more options.


LOL.

The immediate term that comes to mind is "e-gasm."


----------



## Pushka (Oct 30, 2009)

An increase in heart rate should not be the focus of whether Marijuana has an effect.  A link with mental illness is.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

Pushka said:


> An increase in heart rate should not be the focus of whether Marijuana has an effect. A link with mental illness is.


There's a proven link between obesity and heart attacks.

Ergo, heart attacks must make people fat.

Or, to put it differently, perhaps the mentally ill are more likely to self-medicate, hence the link?

It's interesting how a debate about free speech segued 911 and drugs, but I gotta bow out now. It's been fun everyone, but I really need to get some writing done.


----------



## MosesSiregarIII (Jul 15, 2010)

Jack Kilborn said:


> LOL.
> 
> The immediate term that comes to mind is "e-gasm."


Or, in the case of Mac users, an "i-gasm."

Battery life may be a concern for some iPad users, though. They should not read _Endurance_.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Jack,


Would you have preferred Steve link you to senatedemocrats.gov and then maybe you'd have called it unbiased? LOL  jk

Look, I didn't read the gov't site in detail. The heart-stress issue is just one that popped out at me, given my own health issues. Just like a person with allergies will notice peanut references or a person with diabetes will take note of sugars.

But you're getting a bit cutesy with "marijuana causes obesity" ... I'm certain you recognize false logic when you write it. 

I don't have a whole of invested in this pot issue, so from my side, I'm dropping it. It's not important to me that others agree with me on something as trivial as marijuana legality.

I'd rather gab about things we have in common... writing-related stuff.


Best wishes!


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

s0nicfreak said:


> Well everyone has a different idea of excessive, but yes when my kids are playing with other kids I often take pictures. Yes, I organize events for kids that exclude adults as my kids have many friends that I do not want to associate with the parents of, and like to do some things that most adults don't like to do. I do not encourage kids to defy their parents, no.
> 1. I love video games and anime.
> 2. can't think of a specific example for that
> 3. That one is pretty self-explanatory
> ...


1) Many adults make this mistake, but video games and anime are not just for kids. In fact, many examples of both forms of media are not only not just for kids, but inappropriate for kids and cover very adult themes / situations. Grand Theft Auto (video game, rated mature) and Wicked City (anime, rated at least R if not worse) come to mind immediately. On this one, I don't think you read the sub-text, specifically: "seem to relate to them (children) better than adults, and prefer their company."
3) Depending on who the adults are, I probably wouldn't fault you on this one 
4) Again, read the sub-text, not just the bolded part. "Pedophiles will surround themselves with childlike things that attract children and encourage friendships. A pedophile will often be the "cool older guy" in town, and you may find that many kids hang out at his house. He will attract kids with his lack of rules and defiance of parental rules and controls."
Having friend on X-Box live that are under 18 doesn't meet the criteria, in and of itself.
5) They flat-out say not to attach any weight to this marker unless you see it in conjunction with other markers.
6) Okay.
7) They don't specify on this, but having read a lot of profiling stuff, I can tell you that they're talking about single kids. Like inviting a child that's not related to you in any way to go camping with you - just the two of you.
 Again, read the sub-text. Excessive and inappropriate. You're taking pics of YOUR kids playing with OTHER kids. You're not by yourself at the park taking pictures of kids you don't know for hours on end, day after day.
9) I think you've listened to too much hype about video games being for kids only  Seriously, though, this is another one that really means nothing if taken by itself. It's only if you see this AND other markers, too.
10) This one is another one you need to read the subtext on: "A pedophile is constantly trying to attract children, and relates to them better than to adults." What they're talking about here would be if your living room looked like the dream bedroom of a child.

-----------
That said, I think people need to ABSORB stuff like this, not just skim it. Your behavior sounds perfectly normal to me. I actually don't think you fit most of the markers. You'd score a two on this. So, no, I don't think they're fear-mongering. In fact, I think most of their markers are pretty on-par. Sorry, Sonic, you failed the perv test


----------



## s0nicfreak (Jun 10, 2010)

The average person is just going to skim it, though. And although I know that not all video games and anime are for children, the majority of people perceive them as such. I have had people think I am a pedophile because of these markers. Heck many people think that just because I support the guy's right to distribute his book I must be a child molester. 

And I do not think the markers are on-par at all; a child molester (note that not all pedophiles are child molesters and not all child molesters are pedophiles) isn't going to be that obvious. It's not the people that show these signs that you must worry about. 

But anyway, I don't think there is a valid reason for censorship - or if we're still finding ways to argue this isn't censorship, arresting someone for distributing a book - not even the pedophile hunt (which has become much like the witch hunt days).


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

s0nicfreak said:


> The average person is just going to skim it, though. And although I know that not all video games and anime are for children, the majority of people perceive them as such. I have had people think I am a pedophile because of these markers. Heck many people think that just because I support the guy's right to distribute his book I must be a child molester.
> 
> And I do not think the markers are on-par at all; a child molester isn't going to be that obvious. It's not the people that show these signs that you must worry about.


Some people are idiots, regarding your first point.

Regarding the rest - I disagree. If a person displays a majority of these markers (truly displays them, not just kinda sorta if you just skim) then I think you have a reason to at least be concerned.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Trouble is, reductionism is what this boils down to. Trying to identify potential for a crime by certain behaviors.

Take that high school bombing in Colorado about a decade ago. Sociologists looked at that pair and made proclamations that "loners who are bullied and play videogames like DOOM" have a higher potential to shoot up their classmates.

In high school, I kept to myself (loner) because of bullies and preferring the company of books to people, and I played lots of videogames... I never came close to shooting up my classmates. I think my Dad took me pheasant hunting once. Once. And I never even took a shot at the pheasants we scared up, let alone a person.

Same goes for how they profile serial killers. Not long ago, the popular profile of a serial killer was that they couldn't form lasting relationships like marriages, would be socially inept and unable to blend into societal norms. Then along comes Dennis Rader as the man who did the BTK killings and he had one marriage that lasted nearly 20 years (until she found out he was BTK), a couple kids, and was president of his church congregation. The fellow behind the Green River killings didn't exactly fit the stereotypical profile either.

Starting to wonder whether these stereotypes are as useful as the so-called experts claim?

Used to be they'd blame "bad parenting" as the reason some kids grow up prone to be in trouble with the law. But the sister I grew up with and I had the same parents and went through all the same stuff... I ended up going to college, holding down decent jobs, building a career, getting married... my sister ended up with barely a high school education, having several out-of-wedlock children, uses illegal substances, is constantly in court (but usually avoids jail somehow), can't hold a steady job for even a year, and has never married any of the men who gave her the four children she has... two of which have been taken from her. Not that the point here is to bad-mouth my sister who's like this, but merely to point out... we had the exact same parents and parenting and couldn't have turned out more differently.

People who primarily knew me thought my parents did a great job. People who primarily knew my sis thought they were complete incompetants. They are the same parents with the same rules for both of us and she and I had all the same life stimuli...

There are no "easy answers" where you can point to a half-dozen symptoms and say, "Look for this and you've got the makings of Troublemaker X."


----------



## R. Doug (Aug 14, 2010)

Just ask Richard Jewell how accurate these "profiles" are.  Hero to Zero because the FBI not only blew the investigation, but also because somebody in the Bureau intentionally leaked his name during that investigation.

I always thought the leaker should have been fired, if not prosecuted for leaking information in the course of an active investigation.


----------



## s0nicfreak (Jun 10, 2010)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Trouble is, reductionism is what this boils down to. Trying to identify potential for a crime by certain behaviors.


Yes. IMO all it does is make people that have the behaviors but aren't criminals be looked at as and treated like criminals, and takes attention away from actual criminals.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Trouble is, reductionism is what this boils down to. Trying to identify potential for a crime by certain behaviors.
> 
> Take that high school bombing in Colorado about a decade ago. Sociologists looked at that pair and made proclamations that "loners who are bullied and play videogames like DOOM" have a higher potential to shoot up their classmates.
> 
> ...


No offense, but I don't think you know much about profiling. Seriously. There is no "stereotypical" profile. About the only thing I can think of that even comes close is the "homicidal triad", and there are EXCELLENT reasons for why that particular set of traits points to sociopathy. As another note, you've got it backwards. Profiling isn't about identifying potential for future crimes, it's about figuring out the type of person who might have done a particular crime and identifying a way to catch them (or prosecute them).


----------



## Guest (Dec 22, 2010)

Arkali said:


> No offense, but I don't think you know much about profiling. Seriously. There is no "stereotypical" profile. About the only thing I can think of that even comes close is the "homicidal triad", and there are EXCELLENT reasons for why that particular set of traits points to sociopathy. As another note, you've got it backwards. Profiling isn't about identifying potential for future crimes, it's about figuring out the type of person who might have done a particular crime and identifying a way to catch them (or prosecute them).


I think some people don't quite get the use of the word "profiling." There is racial or stereotypical profiling, which is based on fear and ignorance, and then there is criminal profiling, which is based on research of criminal behavior. When criminologists use the word profiling, they aren't saying the same thing as some blogger screaming about profiling being used to violate civil rights. In a way, it's like having an argument over whether or not evolution is "just a theory." Well, scientifically, OF COURSE it is a theory, but in the scientific community the word theory has a whole different meaning that how it is used in common conversation. It's a case of people using the same words, but not sharing the a common definition.


----------



## Pushka (Oct 30, 2009)

s0nicfreak said:


> not even the pedophile hunt (which has become much like the witch hunt days).


The witches didnt do anything wrong.


----------



## s0nicfreak (Jun 10, 2010)

Pushka said:


> The witches didnt do anything wrong.


And neither did the pedophiles. It is the _child molesters_ that did something wrong.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Arkali said:


> No offense, but I don't think you know much about profiling. Seriously. There is no "stereotypical" profile. About the only thing I can think of that even comes close is the "homicidal triad", and there are EXCELLENT reasons for why that particular set of traits points to sociopathy. As another note, you've got it backwards. Profiling isn't about identifying potential for future crimes, it's about figuring out the type of person who might have done a particular crime and identifying a way to catch them (or prosecute them).


None taken, but you don't know enough about my background to make that accusation. Was I perhaps a bit sloppy in what I wrote above? Perhaps. But I do understand profiling. In fact, I've done some research in my time into the dawn of the science of criminal profiling, which actually was started in London when one of the coroner's on the Jack the Ripper case attempted to build a profile of how one might match a suspect to the JTR crimes.

Unfortunately, none of what he came up with led to a correct arrest and conviction (that we know of) and yet many of the cliches he came up with survive in profiling serial killers to this day, such as some of the indicators I mentioned above. And their existance and persistence can actually lead investigators to look past actual guilty parties. Dennis Rader never fit the profiles built of the BTK suspect. That's just the truth of the matter, and I have email interviewed the chief detective on the BTK case in Wichita and he confirmed that. (I was working on an article I never got around to finishing yet, on JTR and BTK comparisons for a Ripper journal.)

But yes, I do understand the difference between criminal profiling and other stuff that's called profiling but isn't, or is a based on a misunderstanding of criminal profiling, or is a political reaction to certain aspects that make up a profile... race being the most controversial.


----------



## R. Doug (Aug 14, 2010)

Odd you should mention the Ripper case, Craig.  Those killings play a pivotal role in the book on which I'm currently working.  I'm quickly becoming a Ripper expert of sorts.


----------

