Amazon.com book defending pedophelia sparks boycott call

Originally posted by NoArmsJames
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.

Boycott > Pressure > Force.

The law says to protect freedom of speech, not to let people stomp on it.

Not long ago everyone was angry about how Muslims are stomping on freedom of speech

reply to post by oozyism


The law only protects us from government censorship.

Originally posted by NoArmsJames
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.

This is actually the essence of oppression. People think oppression comes by way of public discourse, the reality is that the arrival of oppression and tyranny is cheered by those it would enslave.
Sure, this book is distasteful, tomorrow it may be your opinion or mine, that is distasteful. Do you really think there was any public outcry when the NAZI's began burning books?

..Ex

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
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.

edit on 10-11-2010 by InvisibleAlbatross because: spelling

Nice find! Maybe you should send that data to Amazon!

I have zero tolerance for child molesters.

reply to post by Reaper2137


If you think it doesn't matter that someone wrote a book talking about molesting kids, then nothing anyone says to you here can help.

reply to post by v3_exceed


I'm sorry but comparing the Nazi book burnings; something orchestrated and carried out by the government, to this is ridiculous.
There is a huge difference between the two. This author is not being censored in any way. Amazon has chosen not to sell the book.
The author is still free to sell this book any number of ways and any other book sellers are free to carry it or not to carry it. No freedoms have been trampled on here, only freedoms exercised.

Originally posted by NoArmsJames
reply to post by oozyism

 

The law only protects us from government censorship.

Interesting.

In that sense, individuals should be allowed to silence other individuals?

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Zesko Whirligan

 

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

Please cite for me the statement wherein I made pedophilia "sound like a crime"... I don't believe I made such a statement, and that wasn't my intent.

What I said was that LAWS are enacted, usually, to protect the government, not to protect the citizenry. We shouldn't ban books that describe illegal activities, PARTICULARLY if those activities concern bringing down a corrupt government.

Regarding pedophilia, I said that we should MORALLY CONDEMN pedophilia with prepubescent children, because it's SICK, and a pedophile who abuses prepubescent children is a sick sonofabitch who should be put down like a mad dog.

See, I have little respect for the law, but my moral compass is intact.

— Zesko Whirligan

Originally posted by Zesko Whirligan
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"...

Sorry I should've been more clear. Your definition is flawed. Pedofilia is not by definition " the sexual abuse of prepubescent children by adults". Molesting/raping/abusing children is a crime. Being a pedo is not.

Originally posted by NoArmsJames
reply to post by v3_exceed

 

I'm sorry but comparing the Nazi book burnings; something orchestrated and carried out by the government, to this is ridiculous.
There is a huge difference between the two. This author is not being censored in any way. Amazon has chosen not to sell the book.
The author is still free to sell this book any number of ways and any other book sellers are free to carry it or not to carry it. No freedoms have been trampled on here, only freedoms exercised.

You couldn't possibly be that blind. Simply reading the posts here promoting the banning of books that teach, is testament to the insanity that some are calling freedom. One poster even suggests arresting everyone who even bought the book.. Talk about ridiculous.

Amazon chose to pull the book based on the pressure of some people shouting out that they should be boycotted.. This is so completely reminiscent of the lynchings of old. This isn't freedom, this is oppression by force any way you cut it. Forcing an action based on the threat of action is coercion.

I have personally never read this book, and really I don't even know what it's about other than what has been posted here. I am appalled at some of the posts, the complete lack of an educated response from some. The freedoms that have been trampled on are the freedoms of any person who would have wanted to buy that book. The freedoms of anyone who wanted to understand the perspective being provided. This doesn't imply anyone reading it would be a pedophile, could be a psychologist, could be anyone. The fact that so many cheer that obvious loss of freedom and do so without even understanding what they are losing is frightening.

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." ~ George Santayana

..Ex

reply to post by oozyism

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.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression

It protects free expression from being abridged by the government; that's it.

He hasn't been silenced. Amazon has chosen not to sell this book. No one has stopped him from selling or distributing it elsewhere.

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
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 blah blah blah blah mumbo jumbo because we must protect this corrupt central government at all costs

Yes, and that decision should be UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I mean, I myself have written books that not only describe but call for violent revolution to bring down a corrupt central government, such as the one currently holding forth in Washington, DC.

Guns + Violence = Freedom

That's a description of both the American Revolutionary War and the Civil War in a nutshell. It's a description of a thousand revolutions in a thousand lands throughout history.

In our case, violent revolution founded our nation. Extreme violence then freed the black man from the shackles of slavery in America. In my estimation, violence is pretty damned good for overthrowing corruption in government, particularly when the government is busily passing laws to criminalize violence and guns and revolution.

— Zesko Whirligan

reply to post by v3_exceed


I didn't realize that Amazon was the only place in the world one could buy books. The author couldn't possibly sell it through his own website, or another online retailer. Certainly there are no self-publishing centers out there.

Guess what guy, we live in a very imperfect world and we are a very imperfect species. If you give a government unlimited power that government is going to decide what you can and can't read. If you limit that governments power than you're going to have the majority of people (mob rule) decide the same. There is no utopia where this doesn't happen. At least in this situation the author hasn't been truly silenced.

reply to post by NoArmsJames


Good enough, survival of the fittest when it comes to speeches.

What if it is not about laws? What if the government doesn't create laws to destroy freedom of speech, but rather use its powers to destroy freedom of speech?

In that sense freedom of speech is an illusion in the back ground with no practical use because the government is using other means to stop speeches it doesn't like, for example murder in the case of Al-Awlaki.

What if the government leave the freedom of speech law intact, but creates other laws which contradicts the freedom of speech laws?

This subject has too many subs which can completely send us to another direction.

The government should have no involvement in the suppression of speech, that means non, that includes pressure, imprisonment etc..

If it does, then people should stop bragging about freedom of speech and move a long, and find the red line/

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Sorry I should've been more clear. Your definition is flawed. Pedofilia is not by definition " the sexual abuse of prepubescent children by adults". Molesting/raping/abusing children is a crime. Being a pedo is not.

Umm, true, if the pedophile never actually touches a child, I wouldn't call him (or her) a molester or criminal. By definition, a pedophile is An adult who is sexually attracted to children. Pedophilia is adult sexual attraction to children and has also been described as a disease, with which I agree.

I was abused as a small child by a sexually mature teenager for 5 years. I know what is sick and I know what should be condemned.

— Zesko Whirligan

reply to post by oozyism


Where has the government done anything to stop this book from being distributed?

reply to post by NoArmsJames


I was wondering why anyone would sell this in amazon in the first place since self publishing is quite easy and straight forward. Then I read that it shot up something like 10.000% in popularity over night because of the outrage it received before being removed. Now he only has to setup his own distribution and he is all set. Free advertising and publicity that would cost a normal book publishers thousands. This boycott has seriously backfired and those who oppose the book have now in fact made it a success.

Originally posted by NoArmsJames
reply to post by oozyism

 

Where has the government done anything to stop this book from being distributed?

The DoD then purchased and destroyed all 9,500 first edition copies citing concerns that it contained classified information which could damage the integrity of U.S. National Security.

en.wikipedia.org...

This book is just an example, in this book the people with loud mouths have stopped it. If sick people want to read sick books, no one should stop them from doing so, that is true freedom of speech. If you want to play survival of the loudest speech then Muslims will win.

Technically that's not censorship. They bought the books and paid for them. If they choose to burn them after that they're free to do so. It would be censorship if they would stop the book from being published or would siege the copies without paying for them.

reply to post by oozyism


Nice try buddy. Stay on topic.

Show me where the government has censored the book cited in the OP.