Pedophilia Guide Author Arrested

As for this mans rights, what rights? He wrote a book that to me doesn't seem much different than the Anarchists Cookbook. Get pulled over by any police department with that book laying in your front seat and see what will happen. We can argue rights all day long, and the most are correct, you have the right to write anything you want or say anything you want. But how far does that truly carry? Go to the White House gates and start screaming some profanities and carrying on, whats gonna happen. You have the right to own a firearm. Stand outside a school holding that weapon and see how long it takes till your sitting in a 4x4 square. And speaking of schools, why don't those of you who disagree with this mans "unlawful" arrest, purchase his book and go read it to a elementary class of students. Hey it's your right.

He sure as hell shouldn't have written the book. I can't believe how stupid some people are. That said, arresting someone for writing a book is one more step toward a slippery slope of this world ending up like the movie "V for Vendetta". The Quran was banned in that, among other literature.

No way am I condoning this kind of...I don't even known what to call it...sickness, I mean, seriously, what a tard.

As someone else said, if there has to be a line drawn then this would have to be it.

reply to post by FREEwoman


There are recognized exceptions to Free Speech, in our laws. This seems to be the most applicable....

(6) Obscenity: In Miller v. California (413 U.S. 14 [1973]) the U.S. Supreme Court established a three-pronged test for obscenity prohibitions which would not violate the First Amendment:

(a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

I'd claim that you could easily argue all 3 prongs are applicable.

a) I think most everyone agrees it is offensive.
b) It does describe illegal acts.
c) I think most everyone would agree it lacks any value.

With this precedent, you could argue that Freedom of Speech is NOT APPLICABLE in this case, because of this standing precedent. Granted, this ruling is constantly debated, but it does exist, and could be used as a counter.

reply to post by FREEwoman


I just wanted to post sometimes its not all the parents fault. For example a true story, A single mother with 2 kids and a dead beat ex husband needs to work so she hires a baby sitter the sitter ends up molesting one of the kids, he had recommendations a police check. But freedoms and such kept him safe, turns out he had a juvenile record, that was erased when he turned 18.

So whose fault is that (don't say the mothers).

Of how about the local priest, or teacher, or doctor, and the list goes on. Pedophile aren't all sleazy guys in white vans.

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by FREEwoman

 

There are recognized exceptions to Free Speech, in our laws. This seems to be the most applicable....

(6) Obscenity: In Miller v. California (413 U.S. 14 [1973]) the U.S. Supreme Court established a three-pronged test for obscenity prohibitions which would not violate the First Amendment:

(a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

I'd claim that you could easily argue all 3 prongs are applicable.

edit on 21-12-2010 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)

Prurient - Inordinately interested in matters of sex; lascivious.

...By these standards, 98% of the ads on TV should not be allowed to run. Cialis should not be manufactured, never mind advertised. And...

NO one should have sex just for fun.

reply to post by Gazrok


None of this is applicable in a jury trial.
Do you guys realize that you can vote however you would like to vote in a jury trial regardless of what the law says or how it is interpreted by the Supreme Court?

This is called jury nullification.

The common citizen has the final veto power over all legislation.
Regardless of what the law says.

That is the entire purpose behind a jury trial.
It was written into the Constitution to protect against tyranny.

It only takes 1...
Let me repeat that....

It only takes 1 person to hang a jury.

reply to post by Xiamara


Freewoman has this idea that, the children that are molested, have parents that didn't teach them not to be "dipsh%ts.. Hmm, who is "small minded?"

Child predators are everywhere... They can be anyone... No amount of protection can stop them all.

The last thing this world needs is a "how to manual" on raping children. The author states "I feel that 9 year olds are able to make sexual decisions" .. We are doomed if we are not able to tweak the current laws to cover situations exactly like this..

If locking this guy up and or castrating him for this book, somehow steps all over our freedom of speech, so be it..

After reading the ignorance in some of these posts, a little less ignorant writings are EXACTLY what this world needs!

The common citizen has the final veto power over all legislation.
Regardless of what the law says.

An important point. However, not all trials meet the criteria for jury trials. I believe his current charges would be administered only by a judge, not by jury.

Originally posted by Gazrok
a) I think most everyone agrees it is offensive.
b) It does describe illegal acts.
c) I think most everyone would agree it lacks any value.

I see Soficrow already covered it, but couldn't those all be argued for the Stephen King book you talked about?

I have an idea for a book, someone needs to read this guy`s book and make a book for parents so they know what kind of simple things they can do to protect their child... "...keep your enemies closer." Someone`s gotta get in these sicko`s minds. Preferably a cop or some law enforcement who wont be too shocked by the material to think straight. Man I can`t believe Amazon let this be sold on their site but not wikilieaks! Freedom of Speech? Yeah they draw the line whenever and wherever they please. Get used to it, it`s up to us to make a difference...


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by OutlanderHuman24
What are we supposed to do, wait until the guy rapes some little kid then act?

Yes, generally.

It's that or lock people up based on what they say, think, how creepy they look, what they are thinking, etc.
This is the way freedom works. This is the way that only the truly guilty are convicted.

Originally posted by Resurrectio
I now see why our world is doomed.. You people are basically saying, we as humans are too dumb to correct this problem, without destroying all of our rights.

If the world was completely devoid of corruption then we could make flexible laws that could be interpreted in different ways as needed. But then, a world completely devoid of corruption wouldn't need laws at all.

reply to post by Josephus23


I don't want him to have a jury trial.. I want him to be released into general population. I want him to experience all of the bad things that he seems to advocate and facilitate a safer way of achieving.

You know what happens to sickos in prison.. Jeffery Dahmer / Leslie Allen Williams -- prisoners like to take the moral high ground with sickos..

I will post a celebration thread when i find out this guy died a violent and painful death!

reply to post by Resurrectio


I agree I say they should rule to make him hold a sign saying " I wrote the how to guide to pedophilia" Since hey we can all write what ever we want. You know what maybe someone should write a how to guide to kill and torture pedophiles that using my freedom of speech.

It disgusts me that people think the stereotypical cause to pedophilia is parents not teaching their kids to be smarter. Now I have no hope for America.

reply to post by Gazrok


If he is charged with a criminal violation then it is HIS choice whether or not to have a bench trial or a jury trial.

If he were charged in any criminal manner then the Bill of Rights guarantees him a jury trial.
That would be a GROSS violation of habeas corpus to make this a bench trial.

Because the laws are so entangled, this could just be yet another false flag to take away our rights.

Thomas Jefferson in grave. Spins until dead again.

regardless of what his topic is, he got arrested for using his constitutional rights, unacceptable...

reply to post by Resurrectio


Innocent until proven guilty mate!!!

Man you'd think that someone actually drew blood on this board the way the vultures are circling.

freedom and responsibility.

yes, you are free to write or speak as you wish, even in cases like this.


but its also your responsibility to respond for yourself when you feel somebody is out of line.


how about confronting the man yourself and giving him a piece of your mind if its so important? or organizing some type of social resistance? stop crying to your governments to annex your responsibilities. YOU are your own authority and if your so hip on enjoying freedom then you better start being responsible.

stop being lazy ass's and taking the easy cowardly route.

sometimes you all act like we are completely incapable of functioning without absolute governance, even in morally obvious situations.

if you dont feel its worth the time effort and money to track the individual down and solve the issue, then perhaps you shouldnt hold such a complex opinion on the matter.

put up or shut up.

that is freedom

I am sick of parents demanding that the world needs to enact laws that spit on everyone elses' rights, to protect their children. It is such a stupid argument. I don't have kids, but I do have two young nieces who I adore, and see them often enough that they might as well be my own. It is the parent's and family's responsibility to protect the kids, not the government or society. My sister is naive like a lot of parents, who think kids need to be shielded and coddled and kept in the dark about everything. Good thing they have an uncle like me to talk to them, and explain to them the uncomfortable things that parents should be telling their children.

reply to post by Josephus23


This is all I need.. The video was NOT edited.. You can clearly see that.

Pedophile Author : "I have met 9 year olds and 4 years olds that have "allot upstairs"...
Reporter: "Do you think children of these ages can make sexual decisions like this?"
Pedophile Author: YES I DO!!!

Reporter "What should the punishment be for these actions?"
Sicko: "Maybe a couple of years in jail or a fine"

Guilty.. Kill him instantly!

Originally posted by TKDRL
I am sick of parents demanding that the world needs to enact laws that spit on everyone elses' rights, to protect their children.

Totally agree! It's the parents' job to protect their kids from the 'evils' of the world. People on here scream about freedom and government interference in our lives, but then turn to the government like suckling babies when they become uncomfortable with someone else exercising THEIR freedom.