Amazon.com pulls pedophile e-book after public outcry

[Peppergirl]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20022495-93.html

Title: "The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: a Child-lover's Code of Conduct"

They had originally agreed to let it be sold in downloadable form on Kindle, but have since pulled it after public backlash.

Thoughts?

[Ladeeda]

Unless it's a satire, I'm surprised any place would publish it OR carry it. Doesn't that count as advocating the action? 0o

I'm not one for censorship, so not saying it should be banned, but seriously, who would publish/sell a serious book on molesting children? That's just... just sick! What moron approve it to begin with?

[Plaidman]

Key word is that it wasn't a book on molesting, but strict guidelines of what is and isn't acceptible. He did state strictly that sex wasn't allowed and you cannot do that to a child. He did think kissing was ok, and apperently fondling.

Wasn't given an age deal ether. Would it be fine for say, 21 year old to date a 16 year old girl? The 21 would be declared a pedophile.


If it was however, a guide to flat out grabbing and raping say 4 year olds why shouting that its love? Yeah... ban.

Without more on what the book itself was really stating? I can't make an opinion.

Never judge a book by it's cover. Even if it is a sick cover and horrid wording.

[Lace Neil Singer]

"penetration is out. You can't do that with a child, but kissing and fondling I don't think is that big of a problem."

I think that fondling and kissing with a child is a problem. It still counts as child abuse, and still causes damage to an innocent child.

While it's true that not every single pedophile is a dangerous child molestor (not all pedophiles act on their urges), a book like this is not really advisable in case it falls into the wrong hands.

[Plaidman]

Again, I'd like to know the ages though he talks about. Sometimes when people say child, they immeditly think anyone that is under ten. Yeah, 12-19 is called teenager, but they're also children until 18.

And the kissing to be explainned better. Kiss on forehead or cheek? How is that so bad?

Then again, I'm under the impression that said children know said pedo, and if it isn't a parent, then children also know said pedo and know what activies they do do together.

I'm also under the impression that the children are at least 12. I knew what sex was and wasn't at a far younger age, but most 12 year olds do know what it is, and what they're feeling. Can they be taken advantage of? Likely. But I also did stuff that were far more then kissing and fondling at a far younger age willingly at the time. I hate myself for that, and I can't hate him since I chose too.

[Eisa]

*raises hand* Kissing and fondling is still child molestation and still ends up feeling awful. Although I don't know if he was talking about doing that to 4-year-olds or not.

Either way. It isn't ok to do anything with kids.

[Plaidman]

So, I guess every single parent that kisses their child goodnight is a child molestor?

[Andara Bledin]

The original article is gone, now. Not sure why.

Another article suggested that the author perhaps suffers from Stockholm Syndrome, and based on some of the quotes offered by the author, I'm inclined to agree that he does have some major issues as regards sexuality and his own development for which his pedophilia is merely a symptom.

Since I have no plans to try to read it and reports as to its contents are somewhat conflicting, I have no judgment on whether it should have been available in the first place.

But I also did stuff that were far more then kissing and fondling at a far younger age willingly at the time. I hate myself for that, and I can't hate him since I chose too.
And this is why it's not legal for an older person to interact sexually with someone who is younger. Because the younger person doesn't have the experience necessary to actually make in properly informed decision on the matter.

I lost my virginity before I hit puberty to another minor who was old enough to be in high school. I was not only willing, but quite enthusiastic, but it also had adverse effects on me that it took a long time to even recognize and some of which I can still feel over 30 years later.

^-.-^

[Lace Neil Singer]

So, I guess every single parent that kisses their child goodnight is a child molestor?

Only if they fondle their child as well.

[blas87]

There's nothing wrong with kissing your child/grandchild/nephew/niece/kid brother/sister on the cheek.

Fondling? Like hands down the pants/shirt? WRONG. Not Ok.

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

The problem here is the decision that his book forced us to make. Yes this is illegal. But so are a hell of a lot of things that have books published about them. Assisted Suicide and Marijuana Use (medicinal and otherwise) springs to mind.

Yet no one has an issue with keeping those books on the shelves.

This book forced us to make a decision and I feel that the decision has now left us with a double standard. Why is *this* book on a topic covering illegal actions removed and *that* book on a topic covering another illegal action not?

Now some can argue (and rightly so) that smoking weed is not as abhorrent socially as child molestation. But now that the door marked "we want to ban that book because it is offensive to us" is opened, how much longer before other topics gets pulled. Homosexuality? Sexuality in its various forms and flavors (fetishes, BDSM, etc)?

By pulling this book, did we win a victory? Or did we just bomb Pearl Harbor and awaken the sleeping giant?

Only time will tell.

[Rapscallion]

By pulling this book, did we win a victory? Or did we just bomb Pearl Harbor and awaken the sleeping giant?

Only time will tell.

I don't think it has done. The First Amendment about free speech is the one in question here, and it only states that the government is not going to perform censorship, if memory serves.

This is a private business (possibly publicly owned, whatever) that reacted to the ire of its customers by withdrawing a product it probably didn't even consciously know it had on its shelves.

There's been no legal precedent set.

There are many similar examples. Many businesses restrict entry to those offending against the particular dress code, for example.

Rapscallion

[wolfie]

The problem here is the decision that his book forced us to make. Yes this is illegal. But so are a hell of a lot of things that have books published about them. Assisted Suicide and Marijuana Use (medicinal and otherwise) springs to mind.

Yet no one has an issue with keeping those books on the shelves.

This book forced us to make a decision and I feel that the decision has now left us with a double standard. Why is *this* book on a topic covering illegal actions removed and *that* book on a topic covering another illegal action not?



I'll go with your second example. Although marijuana is illegal, the act of smoking weed won't cause irreparable psychological damage to an innocent third party. As for assisted suicide, so long as it's a case where the person has clearly articulated that they want to die, but they are physically unable to make all the arrangements on their own (as opposed to "in her condition, Grandma's life isn't worth living - let's do her a favour by killing her"), it's between the person and $diety.

[ZedOmega]

I don't think it has done. The First Amendment about free speech is the one in question here, and it only states that the government is not going to perform censorship, if memory serves.

This is a private business (possibly publicly owned, whatever) that reacted to the ire of its customers by withdrawing a product it probably didn't even consciously know it had on its shelves.

There's been no legal precedent set.

There are many similar examples. Many businesses restrict entry to those offending against the particular dress code, for example.

Rapscallion

Maybe, but there's a world of difference between a dress code and a manual for criminal activity. Granted, the book might have had a do's-and-don't's section from what I've read from the posts in this thread, but human nature is going to go straight to the don't's section and do it that way anyway. Basically, the public's reacting to the book the same way they would if they found out that Amazon carries the Anarchist's Handbook. That's all it is.