Amazon selling book for pedophiles

[HOGFAN]

I guess you've all seen that Amazon has pulled the book.

Probably alot of phone calls threatening boycott...

 

[Aristomommy]

I saw an interview with the author and the most alarming thing to me was that he kept using the word "pedosexual". To me this is the next step in trying to normalize pedophiles in associating it with sexual behavior. I hope this disgusting word doesn't catch on because it will only encourage this. I don't know if this guy is a pedophile but I don't know why he would defend this behavior if he wasn't.

 

[hambirg]

I think the words you're looking for are:
"I disagree with the Constitution of the United States of America"

Not true at all. Ever hear of the Miller Test? Let me help you.

The Miller test is the standard used by courts to define obscenity.

It comes from the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling in Miller v. California (1973), in which Chief Justice Warren Burger (writing for the majority) held that obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment. The definition he used went like this:

The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (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.

ETA-I think it's really funny that people don't think the government censors anything. Hate speech is illegal. According to the above ruling, this book would follow under the definition of obscene. . .it's the same as censoring child porn. That IS legally censored here in the US.

If you want to argue that it doesn't fall under the obscene definition set out by the SCOTUS, go ahead. But the idea that ALL speech is protected is simply not true. The things like 1984, and even The Anarchist Cookbook do not fall under that definition. They are not even in the same category.

 

[hambirg]

And Socrates was a pedophile.

Would I want to stop someone from reading his philosophy? No.
Would I want his work to not be published? No.
Do I think Socrates was full of crap? Yes.
YOU have a choice in this country to read him or not read his work.

What does this have to do with anything?

Did Socrates write a how-to guide to pedophilia and then try to sell it on Amazon?

 

[Tinkh]

Apparently, they also have been selling porn pictures in Japan and in the US of nude little girls and boys. They are illegal to distribute here, but they have been doing it without any trouble. I do believe in no censoring, but I draw the line when they are profiting off selling naked kids to pedophiles.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

Why do people keep bringing up the First Amendment? Amazon is not the government.

 

[Dictator]

Not true at all. Ever hear of the Miller Test? Let me help you.

The Miller test is the standard used by courts to define obscenity.

It comes from the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling in Miller v. California (1973), in which Chief Justice Warren Burger (writing for the majority) held that obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment. The definition he used went like this:

The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (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.

ETA-I think it's really funny that people don't think the government censors anything. Hate speech is illegal. According to the above ruling, this book would follow under the definition of obscene. . .it's the same as censoring child porn. That IS legally censored here in the US.

If you want to argue that it doesn't fall under the obscene definition set out by the SCOTUS, go ahead. But the idea that ALL speech is protected is simply not true. The things like 1984, and even The Anarchist Cookbook do not fall under that definition. They are not even in the same category.

If you're going to mention the Miller Test, it's intellectually dishonest of you to omit it's faults and the actual ability of the Court do determine what's obscene and what's not allowed. Even using the "community standards' method of determination have proven to be less than effective.
And I agree, all speech is not allowed. There are many things the SCOTUS has determined to be illegal and outside the scope of the 1st Ammendment, like defamation.
Hate speech is ONLY illegal if there is an imminent threat of violence. I could stand on my roof and shout nasty racial things if I wanted. The gov't could not do anything about it. I could stand in-front of the Capitol with a megaphone and threaten to over-throw the government. That would be allowed also.

You could publish a book of fictional stories about inappropriate conduct with minors. That would be legal. This book, as disgusting as it is, is legal.

The First Amendment draws a distinction between words and deeds, and does not tolerate banning of mere words simply because those words could lead to bad deeds.

 

[S. C.]

I guess you've all seen that Amazon has pulled the book.

Good! Guess they didn't want to lose all those Christmas sales.

 

[cm8]

Why do people keep bringing up the First Amendment? Amazon is not the government.

 

[PaulaSB12]

And Socrates was a pedophile.

Would I want to stop someone from reading his philosophy? No.
Would I want his work to not be published? No.
Do I think Socrates was full of crap? Yes.
YOU have a choice in this country to read him or not read his work.

By the laws of his time Socrates was not a pedophile, he was condemed for inciting rebellian in some young men. Just stop putting todays laws on to ancient times you can not do that. I mean what bits of our lives in 2000 years be considered very illegal? But then again the acient greeks did not find homosexuality a problem either which will bug some people.

 

[LiberalPrincess]

By the laws of his time Socrates was not a pedophile, he was condemed for inciting rebellian in some young men. Just stop putting todays laws on to ancient times you can not do that. I mean what bits of our lives in 2000 years be considered very illegal? But then again the acient greeks did not find homosexuality a problem either which will bug some people.

Laws do not determine whether someone is a pedophile. It is not the fact that pedophilia is illegal that makes it horrifying, it is the act itself. It wouldn't matter if it was legal in all 50 states, it is disgusting and wrong. Spousal rape wasn't illegal in the US until 1975 and still isn't in quite a few other countries. That does not make any spouse raped before that time any less of a victim or the perpetrator any less of a rapist.

 

[PaulaSB12]

Laws do not determine whether someone is a pedophile. It is not the fact that pedophilia is illegal that makes it horrifying, it is the act itself. It wouldn't matter if it was legal in all 50 states, it is disgusting and wrong. Spousal rape wasn't illegal in the US until 1975 and still isn't in quite a few other countries. That does not make any spouse raped before that time any less of a victim or the perpetrator any less of a rapist.

Bull, you are being idiotic trying to put the morals of the year 2010 onto a man who died over 2000 years ago. By that logic the dismember who is so proud to be the decent of Henry VII by his daughter is also decended by a pedophile as Margaret Tudor gave birth to Henry VII before she was 13 he wasn't of course because the law didn't exist. You can not rewrite history to fit your views on life.

 

[hambirg]

If you're going to mention the Miller Test, it's intellectually dishonest of you to omit it's faults and the actual ability of the Court do determine what's obscene and what's not allowed. Even using the "community standards' method of determination have proven to be less than effective.
And I agree, all speech is not allowed. There are many things the SCOTUS has determined to be illegal and outside the scope of the 1st Ammendment, like defamation.
Hate speech is ONLY illegal if there is an imminent threat of violence. I could stand on my roof and shout nasty racial things if I wanted. The gov't could not do anything about it. I could stand in-front of the Capitol with a megaphone and threaten to over-throw the government. That would be allowed also.

You could publish a book of fictional stories about inappropriate conduct with minors. That would be legal. This book, as disgusting as it is, is legal.

The First Amendment draws a distinction between words and deeds, and does not tolerate banning of mere words simply because those words could lead to bad deeds.

I disagree. Again, if you want to argue with the SCOTUS, then feel free. I do think that this particular work falls under those three points. If it was a book of fictional stories, then you could argue that it might have some literary value. . .but that's not the case here. It fails under all 3 of the given points to determine whether or not it is obscene. Even the "community standard" issue, while on some things may be very gray, I would argue that this would be one of those times where it is probably the most clear it could possibly be.

Again, none of that matters too much in this case, because what we are actually talking about is a private business. They pulled the book, which is well within their rights. Businesses make decisions about what they will and will not sell everyday. The public exercised their right to protest, and Amazon came to a decision based on what is in the best interest of their company. I think that is a prime example of how our system is intended to work.

 

[luvsJack]

I think the words you're looking for are:
"I disagree with the Constitution of the United States of America"

Yes, because I am sure this is EXACTLY what was meant when the Bill of Rights of written

I am so sick of hearing "its ok if someone SAYS that its ok to rape children, its freedom of speech", "its ok if someone verbally assualts someone until they commit suicide, its freedom of speech" and other such nonsence. And to that I say BS!!!

Our forefathers did not give us freedom of speech in that great piece of paper so that we could destroy each other! They did not foresee that right or any of our freedoms as our moral destruction, but because we are so hellbent on hiding behind our "rights" that is exactly what we are using it for.

Our freedom of speech gives us the right to speak out against the government if we disagree with what is happening. It gives us the right to hold a rally and say "this is happening and it is wrong" whether it is our president, our mayor or our school system that is doing it. It should not give someone the right to publish this garbage.

Can you imagine if some poor child that had been molested read this? How this would make them feel with this book bascially making them think they actually WANTED this to happen??

I am outraged when I hear of school's trying to "ban" books such as Huckleberry Finn or Tom Sawyer, Harry Potter or any work of literature. But, this in NO WAY is even remotely comparable to such books.

And why on earth is anyone talking about Socrates? There were many things that went on in ancient and even more recent history, doesn't make it right. Should we ignore his work? No, not unless he is trying to tell someone that their urge to rape a child is ok. But it doesn't mean we should suddenly say "ok, its ok because Socrates did it". By definition of the word Socrates may have been a pedophile and Henry the IV's father was for having sex with a 13 year old, just because there wasn't a law at that time doesn't make it any less true. I mean seriously, if some idiot decided to do away with the law today, would it make it any less horrendous that someone was having sex with a child?

 

[PaulaSB12]

Yes, because I am sure this is EXACTLY what was meant when the Bill of Rights of written

I am so sick of hearing "its ok if someone SAYS that its ok to rape children, its freedom of speech", "its ok if someone verbally assualts someone until they commit suicide, its freedom of speech" and other such nonsence. And to that I say BS!!!

Our forefathers did not give us freedom of speech in that great piece of paper so that we could destroy each other! They did not foresee that right or any of our freedoms as our moral destruction, but because we are so hellbent on hiding behind our "rights" that is exactly what we are using it for.

Our freedom of speech gives us the right to speak out against the government if we disagree with what is happening. It gives us the right to hold a rally and say "this is happening and it is wrong" whether it is our president, our mayor or our school system that is doing it. It should not give someone the right to publish this garbage.

Can you imagine if some poor child that had been molested read this? How this would make them feel with this book bascially making them think they actually WANTED this to happen??

I am outraged when I hear of school's trying to "ban" books such as Huckleberry Finn or Tom Sawyer, Harry Potter or any work of literature. But, this in NO WAY is even remotely comparable to such books.

And why on earth is anyone talking about Socrates? There were many things that went on in ancient and even more recent history, doesn't make it right. Should we ignore his work? No, not unless he is trying to tell someone that their urge to rape a child is ok. But it doesn't mean we should suddenly say "ok, its ok because Socrates did it". By definition of the word Socrates may have been a pedophile and Henry the IV's father was for having sex with a 13 year old, just because there wasn't a law at that time doesn't make it any less true. I mean seriously, if some idiot decided to do away with the law today, would it make it any less horrendous that someone was having sex with a child?

It is not true that a man having sex with a 12 year old was a pedophile there was no such thing as pedophile laws and considering most people died very young it was normal to do so. You cannot impose our rules and morals to ancient times, considering how old people in what is now Isreal marrried that would have made Mary between 14 and 15 when her son was born what can we make of that one?

 

[RitaE]

No - I'm pretty sure the ability to express thoughts and ideas on paper is pretty much what the Bill of Rights meant. People don't "hide behind rights," they utilize them.

That illogical rambling pamphlet did not destroy anybody. People commit crimes, not paper.

How would a child have felt? Why would a child be reading it?

 

[luvsJack]

It is not true that a man having sex with a 12 year old was a pedophile there was no such thing as pedophile laws and considering most people died very young it was normal to do so. You cannot impose our rules and morals to ancient times, considering how old people in what is now Isreal marrried that would have made Mary between 14 and 15 when her son was born what can we make of that one?

I could really care less if a man in history was doing what was right or what was moral. Slavery was not against the law once upon a time either, does that make it any less horrendous? Does that make it ok?

Mary was a virgin. Very different.

I am not imposing anything on anyone. But, I know garbage when I see it or hear of it. And this "book" is nothing but garbage. Period. Regadless of what King whoever did whenever. And what "right" this "author" can run and hide behind.

 

[luvsJack]

No - I'm pretty sure the ability to express thoughts and ideas on paper is pretty much what the Bill of Rights meant. People don't "hide behind rights," they utilize them.

That illogical rambling pamphlet did not destroy anybody. People commit crimes, not paper.

How would a child have felt? Why would a child be reading it?

Hmmmm. And kids NEVER read anything they are not supposed to, right? Kids never get a hold of anything meant for adults, right? I would hope it would be unlikely that it would happen but it would be extremely dumb of us to just assume that it never will.

Yes, yes I know. People kill people and people commit crimes. And putting the ability to do so in their hands because it is some idiot's "rights" makes us all responsible for that crime.

Maybe our forefathers thought that future generations would have the common sense to know when our speech was crossing the line. But, sadly, common sense isn't so common anymore. Now we just scream "freedom of speech" no matter who it hurts.

Think about it, some young guy is having these thoughts to touch a child. He hasn't acted on them, knows they are wrong and is thinking of getting help. And then he reads this garbage. It tells him that his feelings are ok! Oh joy. He's normal! So he molestes the next young child he sees. 10 years later this child commits suicide because he can't deal with being molested by this monster. But, by all means let's continue to protect this author/animal's "right" to write this trash.

 

[Nancy]

Hmmmm. And kids NEVER read anything they are not supposed to, right? Kids never get a hold of anything meant for adults, right? I would hope it would be unlikely that it would happen but it would be extremely dumb of us to just assume that it never will.

Yes, yes I know. People kill people and people commit crimes. And putting the ability to do so in their hands because it is some idiot's "rights" makes us all responsible for that crime.

Maybe our forefathers thought that future generations would have the common sense to know when our speech was crossing the line. But, sadly, common sense isn't so common anymore. Now we just scream "freedom of speech" no matter who it hurts.

Think about it, some young guy is having these thoughts to touch a child. He hasn't acted on them, knows they are wrong and is thinking of getting help. And then he reads this garbage. It tells him that his feelings are ok! Oh joy. He's normal! So he molestes the next young child he sees. 10 years later this child commits suicide because he can't deal with being molested by this monster. But, by all means let's continue to protect this author/animal's "right" to write this trash.

This whole scenario (and even the book itself) sounds very similar to a Law and Order SVU plot....but their story involved a guy with an internet site and a young kid that had 'urges'. As I was reading here what the book was about I was thinking it sounded like the author watched that show and just changed things around a bit and added to it.

 

[Planogirl]

Think about it, some young guy is having these thoughts to touch a child. He hasn't acted on them, knows they are wrong and is thinking of getting help. And then he reads this garbage. It tells him that his feelings are ok! Oh joy. He's normal! So he molestes the next young child he sees. 10 years later this child commits suicide because he can't deal with being molested by this monster. But, by all means let's continue to protect this author/animal's "right" to write this trash.

There will always be those on the fringe that say that certain wrong things are OK. They range from the drug pusher to the pimp to goodness knows what else. I personally believe that using a book as justification for an evil act is a pretty flimsy defense. I also believe that a child molester will unfortunately attack children with or without books being out there.

That's not to say that I'm not pleased that Amazon pulled the book. I just don't want any government entities getting involved as distasteful as this subject is.