Pedophilia How-To Book Removed From Amazon
blogs.wsj.com
blogs.wsj.com
Likewise, I would expect Amazon to keep a philosophical book about terrorism (seen through the eyes of terrorists) amongst its listings. But I don't think they should sell a book on how to create homemade bombs and then board planes with said devices.
People may disagree with their business decision, but I don't see their actions as being contradictory or unreasonable.
On a side note, self-published Kindle books that are morally questionable in nature are far more common and (often) hardcore (e.g., incest, rape, etc...) than mainstream printed books. They also sell well, since the system of digital delivery spares buyers from any form of embarrassment.
I just found one as an example, Be Your Own Undertaker: How To Dispose Of A Dead Body.
If the book was a how to on "How to kill someone and dispose of the body", that might be another matter :)
Not sure if it covers boarding planes, but:
http://www.amazon.com/Anarchist-Cookbook-William-Powell/dp/0...
In the 70s, Abbie Hoffman wrote a book called "Steal this book!" It contains instructions for committing revolutionary acts we would call terrorism today. I went to buy a copy out of nostalgia, and in a stunning act of irony, it was in my bookstore's "American History" section. But at the time it was published, the ideas were radical and heavily disparaged. Should it have been censored? Should it be censored now?
http://www.amazon.com/Steal-This-Book-Abbie-Hoffman/dp/15685...
Likewise, we can find lots of books about smoking and growing Cannabis. Judging by the glee with which the USA incarcerates its citizens for these activities, one would think that Cannabis is considered far, far more dangerous than gunpowder. Should they be censored?
I think we can make judgments about what a business that caters to a broad audience should or shouldn't do. But there's a very difficult freedom of speech issue here. The mere illegality of an activity isn't the litmus test for me, and neither is instructional content.
I cannot, in any way, equate the sexual interest/abuse of children with freedom of speech in an form.
While there are acts one can take against a government/system which one perceives to be oppressive, they cannot parallel sexual interest in children.
Typically [citation needed] pedophilia is a symptom of having been sexually abused as a child.
Regardless of your stance on free speech, this truly is a tragic and disgusting behavior which should not be tolerated. At the same time - it should not be ignored, and all efforts to eradicate and prosecute it should be upheld.
In the same way, say, forcing a child to smoke cannabis would be as abhorrent. Sure, you choosing to smoke it shouldn't affect anyone - but you forcing that desire upon on whom you (as an adult) should be protecting is unacceptable in all instances.
[EDIT: incomplete thoughts.]
Typically [citation needed] pedophilia is a symptom of having been sexually abused as a child.
This is an urban myth. It is not known (but much debated) what causes pedophilia, but I believe current thinking is generally in favour of physical/mental causes. Although there are links to people with low self-esteem and other similar problems there is no actual link to childhood abuse.
Though I still stand by my personal observation that child abuse == stunted/warped/damaged development in the psyche; which can cause [unknown] problems as the child matures.
I'm desperately trying to find a really interesting paper I do remember where the author posited that, actually, people abused in childhood were less likely to manifest as pedophiles in adult life. He claimed this was because "normal" childhood sexual abuse does create an initial emotional attachment (which you would expect to make such relationships acceptable to the subject, Stockholm syndrome style) but that later on in adulthood this usually adapted to dislike and hatred at their treatment.
I think the argument was that abused children were more likely to manifest as sociopaths and take a more violent path, particularly against adults.
The argument was pretty persuasive, and the evidence relatively solid, but I can't find it :(
I agree.
Maybe the GP then need use better analogies than what seemed to me equating the discussing rebellious (terroristic) behavior with sexual molestation/pedophilia.
I fully defend free speech, I do not support condoning abuses.
Why dont we then use the analogy of say "Stalin's guide to torturing political dissidents through the use of mutilation, torture and death" as opposed to "standing up against a government which you feel is oppressive" as a starting point.
If my logic is flawed, I humbly hope to be educated. But I DO feel there need be a line drawn with respect to what could be legal.
I am not saying we should limit free speech, I am saying we need to identify that which is illegal from that which is objectionable.
For example, is it not illegal for one to make mortal threats, implied or otherwise against the president of the US?
It is still speech, and could be said without ever truly being a threat to his person (e.g. on teh internet) -- but illegal nonetheless.
Therefore, I submit that writing about the desire or actions of sexual abuse of children should be illegal.
We protect out (dear) leaders to such a degree, what about our (dear) offspring?
Whats odd, is that the least able to defend themselves (the children) have the greatest need.
The president of the US has hundreds of millions of dollars on personal security detail, as well as the weight of the entire US military behind his defense so I would say has less-so of a need to be protected from threatening speech online or otherwise. e.g. those that would threaten the president are far less likely to be able to carry it out as those who have easy access to be able to harm kids.
---
[EDIT: disclaimer, I have not read the books in question, nor do I intend too. If that keeps me more ignorant so be it - but I will not seek out the contents of such material...]
My point is that talking about illegal things is not in and of itself sufficient grounds for censorship, and my point of view is that "Steal this book" is an important book and an excellent argument for freedom of speech. A how-to manual for paedophelia is not an excellent argument for freedom of speech.
I picked that example to show that talking about illegal activities or even about how to do illegal things is not a good test for censorship. That doesn't mean I am in favour of the book in question, just that I am in favour of picking a different set of criteria other than "Explains how to break the law."
If you need a less challenging example, think about a book discussing how to break cryptosystems. That information can be used to circumvent DMCA. The reason I don't use such an easy example is that it leads us to saying "I/We should allow books that explain how to break the laws we personally don't like." I don't like that criteria either, which is why I didn't use it as an example.
I like the laws that prohibit the destruction of property with explosives, which is why allowing "Steal this book!" to be distributed is an excellent argument for me to ponder.
Update: The TL;DR is that I'm not equating the two books, the criterium "how-to for breaking the law" equates the two books. If you find equating "Steal this book" with paedophelia an abhorrent comparison, I suggest the flaw here is in the argument that "how-to manuals for crime are wrong."
But this book encourages its readers, assuming the readers belong to its target readership, to engage in conduct which could be construed as an attempt to slip through the law and evade a deserved sentence for child rape.
I felt my gorge rise when I saw the title of the book listed in the news articles, and found myself wondering how in sanity someone could write such a book in the first place, unless he wrote it to justify child molestation. Unbelievable.
Imagine if the book had instead covered the topic of how to get away with date rape at parties, or how to get away with beating one's spouse regularly, or how to evade the law and become some sort of anti-Semitic race killer or gay basher or stalker. I doubt that any such book should remain on Amazon's shelves for long. I can't praise the gall of the man who thought to post this book on Amazon in the first place.
Nonetheless, despite its despicable content, I doubt that removing this ebook from Amazon's shelves will stamp it out of existence. From email attachments to sneakernet and passing around on memory sticks, this pernicious-sounding book will likely find itself distributed hither and yon.
And I find that thought discomfiting and sad, but for the fact that those pirated copies would not yield one penny of royalties to the author. And I can't see much wrong in that.
This is not a 1st amendment issue at all. Amazon, as a private corporation, has every right to sell whatever they want and conversely, not sell whatever they want. Why should Amazon help out this disgusting pedophile author? If RackSpace were hosting NAMBLA do you think they would pull it? Yes they would. Why? It's a business decision, the same reason Wal-Mart doesn't sell porn or sex toys.
Philosophy in the Boudoir was not a work of satire. And I disapproved of RackSpace pulling that preacher, too. I have lost respect for Amazon for buckling to pressure by book banners.
I find it difficult to understand how a guide encouraging paedophilia _doesn't_ break the law in some way.
Also, this is not a 1st amendment issue at all. Amazon is not obligated by any means to sell/distribute the book. The issue is entirely economical.
And I agree it's a little bit unfair to compare the two: One is a bunch of ignorant people talking about how they don't believe in mating outside their race and the other is a guide to raping children. I don't think the distinction works favor of your argument, though.
One minor benefit of this work being published, albeit an unintentional one if it is genuine, is that it will give investigators and mental health professionals a better insight into the methods and motivations of paedophilia than they might be able to obtain within the criminal justice system - that is, the author who feels free to express himself may be more informative than the one attempting to justify or explain himself to an interlocutor. It will find its most diligent readers at the FBI and among forensic psychologists.
Freedom of speech is a fundamental and inviolate right of the individual. If I wanted to hold the belief that people with the name tom are spawn of the devil and deserve 100 lashings every day, then, that is an inviolate right.
However if I publish my thoughts in a book there is no moral or legal onus for any publisher or retailer to touch it. (Of course; if a retailer makes a habit of suppressing marginal books such as those, it will get a bad name, so social pressure might force them to be less restrictive.)
I see no problem for Amazon to make either a moral or business decision not to carry this book; a book which contains unacceptable thinking to a large majority of the populace. If to carry it means negative publicity and possibly lost sales they have a duty to their shareholders to mitigate that.
1. Stay AWAY from Children.
The End.