Just because someone writes it doesn't mean you have to sell it

[Nuclear Unicorn]

Sickness.

NEW YORK — Amazon is selling a self-published book defending pedophiles, sparking discussions about the retailer's obligation to vet items before they are sold in its online stores, and threats of boycott from Amazon customers if the book is not removed.

The book, " The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: a Child-lover's Code of Conduct" by Philip R. Greaves II, offers advice to pedophiles afraid of becoming the center of retaliation. It is an electronic book available for Amazon.com Inc.'s Kindle e-reader.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40112145/?gt1=43001

I would also add no court even comes close to pretending the 1st Amendment covers incitement to criminal activity.

[valerief]

1. Except the Supreme Court and the criminal Citizens United. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. May I ask how a debate on corporate so-called "personhood" relates to the OP?

[valerief]

5. Responding to last line of op. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. CU was a stupid decision but CU wasn't engaged in criminal activity

They were challenging campaign finance law

[valerief]

9. It was criminal to me. We're heading toward becoming Somalia. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

12. Well as long as you say its criminal I suppose that's good enough for the rest of us

seriously?

[haifa lootin]

20. You're implying that simply being a pedophile is criminal, how is that different?

How many other thought crimes should be prosecuted?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

23. Unless a pedo acts out, how would you know?

The book isn't about self-help in curing the pathology of pedophilia. If there was such a book I would applaud its publication and support the application of its techniques.

But that's not what this book is about. It's about instructing people how to victimize children.

[haifa lootin]

32. Unless he acts out, he hasn't done anything illegal or probably even wrong.

Have you read the book? I haven't, of course and all I know about it is what you're saying is in it...are you certain it really is an instruction manual in the very exact way you've described?

There are people who would ban or otherwise suppress books that teach people how to butcher cows or horses or sheep or deer because those activities are anathema and disgusting to them. No, those activities are not illegal but are we certain this book in question promotes illegal actions? Maybe we need some excerpts posted here so we can see...
??

[Cronus Protagonist]

2. Steal This Book

You'll be wanting to ban this book now too, I'm sure. In fact, maybe you ought to sift through Amazon's offerings for others... they could be promoting even more than love and violence!

http://www.amazon.com/Steal-This-Book-Abbie-Hoffman/dp/156858217X

Excerpt: Steal This Book is, in a way, a manual of survival in the prison that is Amerika. It preaches jailbreak. It shows you where exactly how to place the dynamite that will destroy the walls. The first section--SURVIVE!--lays out a potential action program for our new Nation. The chapter headings spell out the demands for a free society. A community where the technology produces goods and services for whoever needs them, come who may. It calls on the Robin Hoods of Santa Barbara Forest to steal from the robber barons who own the castles of capitalism. It implies that the reader already is ideologically set, in that he understands corporate feudalism as the only robbery worthy of being called crime, for it is committed against the people as a whole. Whether the ways it describes to rip-off shit are legal or illegal is irrelevant. The dictionary of law is written by the bosses of order. Our moral dictionary says no heisting from each other. To steal from a brother or sister is evil. To not steal from the institutions that are the pillars of the Pig Empire is equally immoral.

(I hear they also sell the Koran and the Bible, both books of violence and depravity that are also protected by the first amendment)

[Nuclear Unicorn]

6. We're talking about pedophilia

But what I infer from your post is I must also support books that would call for the military to stage violent attacks on Obama and progressives along with detailed instructions.

Is that what YOU are supporting?

[Cronus Protagonist]

11. You are so wrong

Allowing a book to be sold isn't supporting it. George Bush even has one out and I'm certainly not supporting it. I also don't support censorship of any kind, and stand by the first amendment even for unpopular or offensive speech. You, not so much.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

13. So you would support selling the military mutiny of book I described?

Yes?

Or perhaps what I'm saying is: amazon is not legally or ethically obligated to carry the book.

If the sick bastard author wants to write he is free to do so but I question the judgment of any retailer that carries it and if the rest of their customers howl in protest and threaten their sales I'm fine with that.

Think: boycotting FOX advertisers.

[madmom]

15. Nobody is stopping the guy from writing it, but Amazon is NOT obligated to sell it.

[TexasObserver]

4. They've already disappeared it.

According to a report this morning.

[haifa lootin]

8. And just because someone sells it you don't have to buy it.

Not to defend the 'book', it's the epitome of sleaze but as far as I know there is no such a -crime- as pedophilia although acting on it very well might be illegal (just as acting on homosexual proclivities even among consenting adults was -and still is in some places-).

I heard a lady on some tv show this morning say "yes, it's free speech but it shouldn't be legal to have it widely marketed."

She obviously missed the irony in her own comment.
:shrug:

(disclaimer, I'm gay and vehemently opposed to fiddling around with children)

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10. Why provide tools to people actively seeking to harm others?

BTW - your disclaimer is a travesty. Being gay and being a pedophile have less than absolutely nothing to do with each other. Why would you even say that in the same sentence?

[haifa lootin]

17. The disclaimer was because I had already mentioned how not only doing but being gay

have in certain times and places been considered crimes. I was attempting to make the same point as you just did, in a roundabout way. There are thousands of ways to actively seek to harm others; if you obliterate all references to how it can be accomplished, you might as well just lock everyone in a room and throw away the room.

I seriously doubt that anyone setting out to abuse a child wants or needs an instruction manual...and for what it's worth, I have met a few gay pedophiles; suggesting they don't exist isn't a helpful claim in our quest for equality. I hope you don't think I'm a troll just because I support pretty much all free speech...even that I find abhorrent.

[mainer]

34. Crime novels tell you how to kill people.

There are books for military commandos. There are books about how to disappear from authorities. Any number of books have "dangerous" ideas, or have content that could be used illegally.

Where do we draw the line?

[ArcticFox]

14. First amendment applies only to government

Private companies are free to refuse to sell or print whatever they want.

It's a bullshit argument that Amazon is protecting First Amendment Rights.

Let the guy sell his book on the street corner. That's all the right he has.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

16. thank you

[haifa lootin]

18. Hold on a minute, who decides which books should be relegated to the street corner

as the only means of distribution?
Talk about fascism...
:eyes:

[Toucano]

21. Oh, stop it.

That's not "fascism".

Access to the means of distribution and dissemination are not guaranteed under any democratic principle of a free society.

If your idea or product is unpopular, it's not going to find distribution.

So who decides?

The publisher decides. The retailer decides. If you're the bookstore owner, YOU decide.

The author has plenty of other distribution paths available the he or she controls - there's no way to obligate someone else to disseminate your ideas.

[haifa lootin]

22. Oh, I see. A citizen can write pretty much anything he wants but if some people

don't like it they can stop him from distributing it. Gotta love those "free speech except..." principles. You're right, the publisher and the bookseller should have the right to sell it or refuse to but you seem to want to remove half of those rights in the equation and only when certain specific sensibilities are offended. Sorry, I don't put those kinds of limits on the Bill of Rights...either they mean what they say (within VERY broad limits) or they mean nothing at all.
Sorry.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

26. If no one wants to retail a book for pedos

then what?

[Toucano]

28. If no one wants to retail my book of puppy recipes, what then?

DON'T TREAD ON ME!

:crazy:

[Nuclear Unicorn]

29. Grilling or baking?

:evilgrin:

[Toucano]

36. I can't answer that until I get your $21.95 plus shipping and handling.

But I guarantee you'll have a hard time deciding between the Chihuahua Chipolte and the French Poodle Fricasee.

:toast:

[haifa lootin]

30. Then nobody will sell it, but Amazon DID want to before all the feces impacted

the rotary air mover. Then they were coerced into dropping it by what most of us would under most any other circumstances, call the bluenosed "moral" majority.

The final arbiter ought to be the consumer who has the right to keep his money in his pocket. Interestingly, books about or that promote misanthropy or even genocide are rarely subjected to this kind of scrutiny.

edit, sorry left out a word

[Toucano]

27. That's absurd.

Do you hear yourself?

"...the publisher and the bookseller should have the right to sell it or refuse to..."

That's all.

It has nothing to do with your or my opinion of the CONTENT of the material. The publisher or the retailer has exclusive right to accept or refuse any and all works that THEY publish or sell. They may refuse to publish or sell a white supremacist tome or the Kama Sutra or Playboy or the Bible. It's UP TO THEM.

Unpopular ideas have always and will always find it difficult to gain distribution. That's because they lack...drum roll...POPULARITY. D'uh!

That doesn't mean the publishers and retailers are fascists.

Never in the history of civilization have there existed as many avenues for authors to disseminate their works and ideas as exist today.

This is not a free speech issue and your ridiculous insistence that it is belittles yourself and liberalism

[ArcticFox]

38. The Bill of Rights in my Constitution protects me from Government

The Bill of Rights doesn't say that a private person can't stop you from talking, or that a private person cannot search your home without a search warrant, or force you to tell the truth even if it may incriminate you. There might be laws against a private person doing those things, but there's nothing in the Constitution about any of that.

The Constitution dictates how the government must behave. It seems there are too many people who simply don't understand that. Please take some time to learn.

Thank you.

[haifa lootin]

41. Perhaps, but any time these kinds of 'private' actions become endemic, they eventually get

dragged under the constitutional umbrella for resolution. There are tons of court decisions rendered in response to actions of private citizens (or groups of them with or without actual or quasi governmental sanction) infringing on or abrogating the civil rights of others.

Should the Ku Klux Klan get a pass because it's not a federal government entity?

[ArcticFox]

43. Civil Rights Amendments

I'm not sure which of the 13th, 14th and 15th, but one or more of those amendments apply to private persons in certain situations (at least involving interstate commerce - motels, restaurants, gas stations). These are not a part of the Bill of Rights.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

24. How is it fascism if amazon decides to no longer carry a book?

[TheKentuckian]

19. Living principles without a law to force it is not bullshit

Nothing specifically to do with this case but as a general rule I think companies should work with in the framework we do as a nation. If its good enough for our government it is good enough for Office Max.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

25. Is this the stance we should take when DUers call for boycotts against FOX?

Voting with one's dollar is as much a part of democracy as casting a ballot once every 2 years.

[TheKentuckian]

37. Some apples getting mixed with oranges, I believe.

I defend Fox's right to spout their bullshit so I oppose it and them.

I don't see a correlation. Counter protesting the Klan doesn't mean I am trying to deny their existence or access to a platform.

I need a closer parallel. You should note that democracy is possible without markets so the whole point seems heavily distorted.

[laughingliberal]

31. Lol! I thought this was gonna be another Huffpo bashing thread. nt

[mainer]

33. Does the book break laws? If not, Amazon should sell it.

If there are no pornographic images -- if instead it just has disturbing themes or ideas -- then it's not for me or anyone else to tell Amazon they can't sell it. They sell a lot of books. Many are in poor taste. Many espouse ideas that disgust me. But I would not tell someone else what they're allowed to read, just as I resent someone telling me what I'm allowed to read.

Amazon also sells the Anarchist's Cookbook, which talks about bomb-making. The instructions are disturbing. The content could be used for ill purpose. But no one would argue that it shouldn't be sold. Just as no one should argue that Mein Kampf shouldn't be sold, or Lolita of any number of erotic novels.

[haifa lootin]

42. Has there been any quoting of what is actually in the book?

I'm working from a position of ignorance of what it says and all I have to justify my position of "let free speech prevail" is my understanding of the 1st Amendment and the myriad laws at all levels that devolve from it.

Does it actually suggest or foment illegal acts? If so, I'd be far less inclined to give it the benefit of
constitutional protection, but so far I haven't found any specifics that tell me what was written. shrug.

[lame54]

35. I thought you were talking about the Bush book

[alp227]

39. LOL i was thinking that too.

Book of Bush lies = A-OK

Pedophilia manual = bad bad bad

[alp227]

40. Amazon, a private company, can choose which products it sells.

As for a government ban on publication of such books, that can be challenged in court. As far as I know from a First Amendment standpoint the 2002 case Ashcroft v. ACLU protected "simulated" child pornography. Not sure about speech that advocates sexual/violent crime though.