Amazon.com book defending pedophelia sparks boycott call

Amazon.com book defending pedophelia sparks boycott call

news.blogs.cnn.com

An e-book for sale on Amazon.com that appears to defend pedophilia has sparked hundreds of angry user comments and calls for a boycott of the online retailer unless it pulls the title.

The author of "The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: A Child-Lover's Code of Conduct" described the self-published title as "my attempt to make pedophile situations safer for those juveniles that find themselves involved in them, by establishing certian [sic] rules for these adults to follow,"

(visit the link for the full news article)

Does Freedom of Speech justify Amazon offering this e-book for sale?

Should a home-chemist's guide to making drugs or explosives also be offered, for entertainment purposes only, of course?

I don't believe so. I think that any publication that espouses or clearly supports breaking the law does not enjoy protection of the First Amendment.

Some comments at the Amazon site hypothesized that this may all be part of an FBI sting, in collusion with Amazon.com. It's certainly possible, but I don't believe so for the following reasons:

1) This news was sure to break. How many copies have been sold thus far. Any sting is over now that it's news.

2) So close to the Christmas/holiday buying "season"? Not a sound business decision, if so.

3) Do pedophiles actually go to Amazon's site and do a search for books that might act as a training manual (if that's what this e-book is.) or......... if pedophiles search online for their materials, would this come up high in a search string?

I don't know, and I don't care to look. If the book is posted somewhere online, I don't care to read it, to see if my suspicions are correct. I guess I'm just not that open-minded.

Seems to me that the crux of this story is to debate whether the First Amendment allows this publication. Otherwise, we'll just have a series of agreement replies. This is the only area of interest that I can see.

According to CNN (linked above), the official response by Amazon has not been verified as yet.

"I hope to achieve this by appealing to the better nature of pedosexuals, with hope that their doing so will result in less hatred and perhaps liter [sic] sentences should they ever be caught," an author named Phillip R. Greaves II wrote in the Amazon.com listing.

news.blogs.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I agree with you. Free speech is fine, but censorship has its place. This is one of those times where censorship should be used.

It is absolutely disgusting to me but then again people have a right to publish stuff like that. I personally think it is sick beyond belief but whoever the D'bag is that wrote that book has every right to do it. All you can do is spend your money somewhere else and let Amazon know that you are not happy with it and take your money somewhere else. If enough people complain and protest they will crumble. They are driven by the dollar and that is the only way to hurt them. Censorship on any level is a bad idea to me regardless of what is spewing out of someones mouth.

reply to post by argentus


This book is promoting a crime, and thus is NOT protected under freedom of speech. There are limits to that, and when speech harms others, it is not allowed.

In this case, Amazon needs to pull the book, and offer to the police records of all sales, so those buying it can be arrested.

The first amendment may protect this speech (I'm not sure that's the case though), but Amazon (or any other retailer) has absolutely no obligation to carry it. If they wise up and discontinue selling it they'll have no worries of first amendment lawsuits since they're not a government entity.

Check out my thread on this very topic, posted earlier today.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I called amazon, have many quotes from him, including him saying he "could have" molested, and I got a sample of the book from amazon to my pc kondle, and had to hand type the excerpt, in which the author admits he wrote the books so pedos get a liter (his spelling) sentence.

Disgusting. I told Amazon they lost a customer, because we dont count.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


Bang on. When the book Hit Man was used in the commission of a triple murder, a judge said that Paladin Press "aided and abetted" the murderer and could be held liable. The Supreme Court let the ruling stand.
www.splcenter.org...,1

Publishers can and should be held accountable when materials they publish advocate and teach how to commit crimes.

its a book.. don't like it grow up and move on.. who cares what it has to deal with.. its a freedom to to make what ever the hell they want.. people need to grow think skin... every time the world children is uttered every one is up in arms.. be a good mom or dad and teach and watch your kids.. this stops nothing or will hinder it.. bet you ten bucks its already being downloaded some were for free from another site.. this kind of stuff is going to get past if amazon doesn't sell it than some one else will..

I think I read this pervert self published.

what are the chances that people buying this book are going to be logged and put in a file for (potential) future investigation? At the least, run through a database to see if anyone comes up with prior convictions or are parolee's. It's not like customers can pay cash and get it anonymously (through Amazon) there will be a credit card trail. Fools...

Not in defense of pedophilia, but I think it's extraordinarily dangerous to ban books that describe "illegal" activities. This would ban books calling for revolution, would it not, and books describing how to defeat corrupt government? I mean, just because a government calls something "illegal" does not mean it's morally WRONG. It only means that the corrupt government is attempting to protect itself from an increasingly angry citizenry.

Now, that being said, I do not approve of certain acts and practices that ARE morally WRONG. Pedophilia — the sexual abuse of prepubescent children by adults — is SICK and WRONG and should be condemned, not merely made "illegal"... A book that defends or instructs people in prepubescent pedophilia is a sick piece of writing; and, if that's what this book is, I think Amazon should drop it from its inventory.

But, then, we need to determine exactly what IS being called "pedophilia" in this book. Is the author talking about prepubescent children? Or is he talking about teenagers, who are, in fact, sexually mature?

I would hasten to remind you gentle folk that teenagers have been off-limits for sexual activity for only about the last 100 years... Before that, it was common all throughout human history for teens to marry as soon as they were sexually mature (at puberty), or for sexually mature teens to marry much older adults and produce offspring.

Frankly, I see no problem with sexually mature teens engaging in sex and even having children. It's perfectly natural. We're the only species that forcibly prohibits our offspring from reproducing as soon as they are able.

THAT is unnatural.

The only reason we have laws about teen sex is because of our Industrial Age social engineering, designed to brainwash us into assembly line labor — that's why we have 12 years of utterly pointless public schooling to preoccupy our teenagers through their most sexually active years, brainwashing them into working 8 hour days, on the clock, with a brief lunch break and a stupid punishment/reward system for adhering to the schedule.

Our public schooling is Assembly Line indoctrination, not a matter of education. Additionally, our laws prohibiting teen sex are unnatural laws enacted by an antiquated Industrial Age society, and they should be repealed.

Now, all of that being said, I am completely opposed to adults copulating or otherwise sexually abusing young, prepubescent children. Adult sexual activity with little kids before puberty is sick as hell, and has been condemned all throughout recorded human history.

Jesus Christ had a good recommendation for adults who corrupted young children: It would be better that you had a millstone tied around your neck and be dropped in the deepest part of the ocean.

I am inclined to agree wholeheartedly.

— Zesko Whirligan

reply to post by Zesko Whirligan


Brandenberg v. Ohio has already settled this part of it.

Measured by this test, Ohio's Criminal Syndicalism Act cannot be sustained. The Act punishes persons who "advocate or teach the duty, necessity, or propriety" of violence "as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform"; or who publish or circulate or display any book or paper containing such advocacy; or who "justify" the commission of violent acts "with intent to exemplify, spread or advocate the propriety of the doctrines of criminal syndicalism"; or who "voluntarily assemble" with a group formed "to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism." Neither the indictment nor the trial judge's instructions to the jury in any way refined the statute's bald definition of the crime [449] in terms of mere advocacy not distinguished from incitement to imminent lawless action. [note 3]

Accordingly, we are here confronted with a statute which, by its own words and as applied, purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of action. [note 4] Such a statute falls within the condemnation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The contrary teaching of Whitney v. California, supra, cannot be supported, and that decision is therefore overruled.

www.oyez.org...

Originally posted by argentus
Does Freedom of Speech justify Amazon offering this e-book for sale?

Freedom of Speech is the freedom to speak and formulate your own opinions without the government interfering, censoring, or passing laws against those opinions. Amazon.com, being a company and not in any way affiliated with the United States government, has the right to pull this book if it deems it necessary to do so.

Originally posted by argentus
I think that any publication that espouses or clearly supports breaking the law does not enjoy protection of the First Amendment.

This is dangerous ground you are treading on. Here is why:

Say a revolt against the United States government becomes necessary (it is already, but for the sake of my point, lets pretend it's not), and protests spring up across the nation calling for a revolt. All the United States government has to do (and they would do it) is label anyone who supports the revolt a terrorist.

Now suddenly what you have here is a sticky situation if we go with the "anything that supports breaking the law does not enjoy protection under the First Amendment" argument. That means that all the United States government has to do is deem something illegal, and any speech in support of that "illegal" act can be silenced.

If this were to ever become the case, the First Amendment would effectively be null and void.

We can't allow our emotions to get the better of us. If you want to boycott a book, boycott the website where the book is being sold, or petition or protest the book or the website... fine. But to support or call for action to be taken by the United States government in situations like this virtually ensures the further deterioration of EVERYONE'S First Amendment rights, not just the person in question.

reply to post by Zesko Whirligan


Just to clarify being a pedofile is not a crime. You make it sound like it is.

It appears the book has been taken down.

reply to post by argentus


In TV they show you how to kill, how to torture, how to kidnap, how to rob a bank, how rape...

Don't blame a book, that is just miserable. I'm starting to like the word "miserable", it comes in handy

What ever happened to:
" I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it?"
~Voltaire, Evelyn Beatrice Hall

“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably. The first time any man’s freedom is trodden on, we’re all damaged.”
~Jean-Luc Picard Star trek TNG.

For a country so proud of your "Freedoms" you are quick to strip others of those same freedoms. It's no wonder that the USSA is so close to ruins. I am not a proponent of child molestation, or pedophilia, I am a proponent of freedom. Freedom has two sides that are equally important. The one where we are free to enjoy our lives, and the flip side of that coin is that others are free to enjoy their own lives even if we don't agree with them. Today it's ban this book because it is distasteful, tomorrow it's ban that book because it inflames, later it will just be "ban that book".

Sigh
..Ex

Here's one:

Forgive Me For Raping You

Forgive Me For Raping You: In this extreme sexploitation horror shocker, a psychotic priest travels through a seemingly idyllic suburban landscape and uses his collar to secure the trust of a series of beautiful young women before subjecting these poor beauties to increasingly sadistic bouts of sexual assault. Director Bill Zebub has trimmed all of the filler from the standard serial killer movie and replaced it with a near constant barrage of depraved sexual horror. "Most serial killer films favor soap opera dialogue and speculation-depictions of the killer doing anything but the vile deeds for which he became famous. This movie shows ONLY the deranged part of the serial killer's story."

www.letmewatchthis.com... oggedin=0

reply to post by v3_exceed


People boycotting Amazon and Amazon responding by taking the book down is actually the essence of a truly free market system. The government did not censor him in any way. No ones freedoms were infringed upon here. This was by the people for the people.