|
A book very similar to this one made its way in leaked form onto another forum site i frequent. While i voted to have it removed from the site I do not believe it should be taken off Amazon. My forum site is an invite only community and the users felt strongly that it was not appropriate for the site. Amazon however is a public vendor, and i believe that while i find the content of this book abhorrent to say the least, that it should not be banned (which does amount to censoring).
I hate to pull out a tired argument but it really is a slippery slope from banning works like this to banning novels and real works of literature for their content. Perhaps a character in a novel molests children and evades the police using realistic techniques. Should this book be banned as well?
I support Amazon in their decision and commend their integrity for standing up for what they think is right despite what im sure will be a massive outcry of public dissent.
|
On November 12 2010 02:41 underscore wrote: Why do some of you want to force a private company to sell certain books? Do you hate freedom? Amazon does not belong to the state and as far as I know the author is not in jail and the book is not banned. Be it neo nazis or a president's excuse to invade a country all use the word freedom for their agenda because it triggers a powerful emotion but you need to look closer. It's never that simple. However it is good to see pedophiles out themselves like DoctorHelvetica or to see for whom pedophilia is just a fetish and the pedophile is actually the victim(!) (KwarK) Can you get banned for calling people pedophiles? I think an exception should be made for just this thread.
|
On November 12 2010 02:41 underscore wrote: Why do some of you want to force a private company to sell certain books? Do you hate freedom? Amazon does not belong to the state and as far as I know the author is not in jail and the book is not banned. Be it neo nazis or a president's excuse to invade a country all use the word freedom for their agenda because it triggers a powerful emotion but you need to look closer. It's never that simple. However it is good to see pedophiles out themselves like DoctorHelvetica or to see for whom pedophilia is just a fetish and the pedophile is actually the victim(!) (KwarK)
How would the pedophile be the victim? Because he is misunderstood, or because of something else?
|
Encourage "countless closet pedos" to act? Conjecture. Advising people how to "secretly rape children"? Supposition. Raising public tolerance of kiddie rape? Astoundingly absurd, baseless supposition. Turn furtive masturbators into actual child rapists? More conjecture.
All of these are unproven opinions. Not only is supposition and conjecture not valid enough reasons to actually lead to legal action, but I can take such logic and then use it against anything that I deem personally offensive.
There are countless video games where you are given a gun in a first-person perspective and then directed to shoot, maim, and kill countless people. The interactive nature of video games contributes to make such games much more psychologically affecting than some poorly-written book. I can say that these games convince "countless closet serial killers" to act by advising them in proper usage of firearms for maximum effect. Many of these games feature criminals as the protagonist, I can thus claim they raise public tolerance of criminals and murderers. Saint's Row 2 for instance is an outrageously unrealistic game involving the mindless killing of police officers, amongst others. Using your baseless logic, with a little bit of unbiased intellect, I can claim it encourages people to go out and kill police officers.
Everything you said is completely wrong, sorry.
The book is an actual manual for child rape. Did you even read the excerpts? It was written with the exclusive intent to instruct people how to rape children. How is that a fucking supposition are you dense? The guy wrote that book with explicit intent, he's not trolling.
And about the raising tolerance part... the mere fact that we are discussing this is already raising the bar up a notch. I bet there are rabid libertarians out there who are contemplating whether pedosmurfing is actually not something we should be slightly more tolerant towards. In fact some guy already posted a link to some crazy bitch who also happens to be a college professor talking about just that. How is that an absurd baseless supposition?
Outside the head of a random frigid hag, there is no logical correlation between a game made for laffs and a lunatic murderer. Also, where I live playing counterstrike doesn't give you real life AK-47 skills.
On the other hand we have a manual written by a pedophile for aspiring pedophiles with the express intent of making their activities easier. There is a pretty plausible link between that and the encouragement of repressed pedophilia is it not?
You need to lay off your irrational fear of people banning shoot-em-ups and get real.
|
On November 12 2010 01:27 Osmoses wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 01:11 Iplaythings wrote:On November 11 2010 22:46 Railxp wrote: free speech absolutely needs to be upheld. Allowing one scenario to compromise it completely demolishes the principle, and shows that you are not only inconsistent, but also irrational in your beliefs and morals. It also shows that you do not understand why people have fought and died for the right of free speech for all, and how it is vital ingredient for a free society.
To those claiming the pedo book should be banned because it teaches you how to break the law, the Anarchist Cookbook is also available on amazon, and that book teaches you how to mix homemade explosives. Lolita is a classic amorous tale also involving pedophilia, also on amazon.
There is PLENTY of crime fiction on murdering and getting away with it, all of which can be used as reference or research material for potential murderers. And yet nobody is getting up in arms about that. OJ Simpson's "If I did it" further grays the border of reality and fiction. And yet nobody is getting their panties in a bunch about cold blooded murder. and yet now you are angry about pedophilia?
Freedom of speech is sacrosanct, if you decide to suppress it when you dont like what is being said, then you are no different than those who persecuted the intellectuals that you now name heroes of human history. Because people cencor one thing, it doesnt mean that next time they will go farther with the "supression" of the law. There is limmits to free speech. Even the book doesnt openly (or maybe it does) encourage pedophilia, but it's the same way that condom commercials encouraged people to have sex, free speech or not it WOULD make more pedophiles. In that case I couldnt care less if some people think their free speech is offended. Know that pedophilia can demolish a childhood. Any sort of promoting, encouraging or even NOT contempting pedophiles has NOTHING to do with free speech, it's about human rights. And there is a HUGE difference between double standards by allowing books with murder and pedophilia involved - in these books the standpoint of the reader youre even disgusted by the offender or the offender is shown as a madman, who people develop contempt for throughout the book / film. If you want a good example of the logic youre using towards this book look at the Muhammed Drawing Crisis. There are no limits to free speech. Yes "there are no limits to free speech". So lying about a company's revenue to drive personal profits isn't fraud because it's within the boundaries of free speech. Asking a hitman to do a kill for you isn't a felony because there are no limits to free speech. Hey, if there are NO LIMITS to free speech then I could shoot you in the head and I would be within my right to free speech! Remember, no limits! If you draw the line anywhere it's no longer free!
Stop running away to semantics to distract from the real subject. None of the above are examples of free speech. Neither is writing a guide to get away with pedophilia. You're free to express your opinion and vocal your concerns of existing problems. That IS free is speech. But you are NOT free to use your voice, writing or anything to influence others to commit a crime. That is NOT free speech.
|
This is inevitable as morality breaks down. Tolerance increases, right and wrong becomes blurred.
|
I don't think this book should be even published.. it's amazing how that guy wrote this book and even got it published!
And of course this doesn't go against freedom of speech because our laws don't accept sex with kids! Altho i think this is a good way to catch those criminals that rape young defenceless children! Just visit anyone that buys this shitty book i bet you would find some pedophile scum!
Everyone can argue that then there shouldnt be books on weed or other criminal activities but COME ON!! we are talking about full grown men raping and wanting to have sex with little children!! it doesn't matter it they have months, 2 or 10 (Actually it does, the younger the worse ofc)!
Guys that would pay for that or trick young minds and if they can't get it that way they will rape and this book tells them how to do it and DON'T GET CAUGHT?? what if it's your young child??
I'm not the violent type but i would for sure beat the crap out of this pedophile writer!
Amazon should not sell this, no one should sell this!! this shit shouldnt even be made!
|
On November 12 2010 02:51 VIB wrote: There are no limits to free speech.Yes "there are no limits to free speech. So lying about a company's revenue to drive personal profits isn't fraud because it's within the boundaries of free speech. Asking a hitman to do a kill for you isn't a felony because there are no limits to free speech. Hey, if there are NO LIMITS to free speech then I could shoot you in the head and I would be within my right to free speech! Remember, no limits! If you draw the line anywhere it's no longer free!
Stop running away to semantics to change subjects. None of the above are examples of free speech. Neither is writing a guide to get away with pedophilia. Your free to express your opinion and vocal your concerns of existing problems. That IS free is speech. But you are NOT free to use your voice, writing or anything to influence others to commit a crime. That is NOT free speech.
Actually, it is "The right to hold opinions without interference." You're right that the examples you mentioned above have nothing to do with free speech; Lying to investors, hiring a professional killer, shooting someone in the head... all clearly illegal and none of them have anything to do with having opinions.
A book, well, that's all about having opinions and it's exactly what free speech is about.
|
wow... reading those excerpts made me want to vomit.. I mean I'm all for free speech but this is just too much... it's sooo disgusting and immoral...
I love how these guys don't think they are doing anything wrong. There's a great bit they do on Howard Stern where they play a clip from NAMBLA'S answering machine and the guy is so damn creepy..
|
On November 12 2010 02:48 Kickboxer wrote: The book is an actual manual for child rape. Did you even read the excerpts? It was written with the exclusive intent to instruct people how to rape children. How is that a fucking supposition are you dense? The guy wrote that book with explicit intent, he's not trolling. This has already been gone over in this thread like 12 times. Did you read the excerpts? In the two provided passages he advises you to hide child pornography and teaches proper condom usage for boys. Please quote exactly the part teaching you how to rape children. Now, if you have read the book and found that that was indeed the material, by all means, go ahead and elaborate, but according to other people who have done so, that is not the explicit intent of this book.
And about the raising tolerance part... the mere fact that we are discussing this is already raising the bar up a notch. I bet there are rabid libertarians out there who are contemplating whether pedosmurfing is actually not something we should be slightly more tolerant towards. In fact some guy already posted a link to some crazy bitch who also happens to be a college professor talking about just that. How is that an absurd baseless supposition? Because just because we're talking about it doesn't mean we're tolerating it. People talk about the Holocaust. Does this mean society as a whole tolerates genocide? Stop being dramatic, your emotionally charged hyperbolic rhetoric only undermines your credibility. And you're equating tolerance of pedophiles (and whether that's good or not is certainly debatable) with tolerance of child molesters, when, as many people have pointed out here, the two are not the same.
Outside the head of a random frigid hag, there is no logical correlation between a game made for laffs and a lunatic murderer. Also, where I live playing counterstrike doesn't give you real life AK-47 skills. There is no logical connection between video games and murderers? Oh, trust me, plenty of people would be ready to line up to disagree with you on that. And who decided that? You? Well, since random people on the internet are now the ultimate authority on this, I'm going to go ahead and say there is no logical connection between a book made for educational purposes and a serial child molester.
On the other hand we have a manual written by a pedophile for aspiring pedophiles with the express intent of making their activities easier. There is a pretty plausible link between that and the encouragement of repressed pedophilia is it not? Please quote exactly where the author stated the book was intended for "aspiring pedophiles", and where the author stated it was the intent to make their activities "easier". I believe the author stated the book is intended for children and actual pedophiles, and to make their activities safer. Clear distinctions there, wouldn't you agree? Far leap from that to actually transforming closet pedophiles into hardcore child molesters. And it doesn't matter how plausible you personally believe the link is, what matters is evidence, otherwise your argument is not legally valid.
You need to lay off your irrational fear of people banning shoot-em-ups and get real. Irrational fear? 'Twas merely an example of how your logic could be used in the wrong hands, sir. You need to lay off your moral outrage at pedophilia and get real.
|
Having the fetish is fine.
Acting on it is a different story.
Hate the crime not the fetish.
Ummm, not really. Having the fetish isn't fine, in my opinion. In fact it isn't fine in the majority of people's opinions. I can hate the fact that that is your fetish all I want. Would I ever imprison anyone for having that fetish? No. Would I be wary/think less of them? Yeah, probably.
edit:
to make a point:
Having a fetish where I do girl hanging upside down from a rope is a lot different than having a rape fetish. A lot different. [/QUOTE]
On November 12 2010 02:35 tbrown47 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 02:32 King K. Rool wrote:On November 12 2010 02:14 tbrown47 wrote:Pedophilia isn't the same thing as being a closet gay. Just wanted to repost this since some people seem to be trying to equate the two. edit: On November 11 2010 19:36 KwarK wrote: As a hypothetical, if a friend confessed to you he had an occasional rape fantasy would you think any less of him? He's never raped anyone or done anything to make you think he would and he's a morally decent person who you've known for ages. Would you still let your girlfriend hang out with him? Now they confess pedophilia, same friend who you've still known forever and still know he'd never hurt a child. Would you let him babysit your kids?
If you said yes to the first and no to the second please justify the response. Well, your question is a little biased (in my opinion). You say "oh the occasional rape fantasy" then you say pedophilia, which in my mind means that the person is only sexually attracted to children or is for the most part the only thing he is interested in. The correct question would be: Your friend says I am only attracted to sex by rape or force, or I am a pedophile. Something along those lines. Would I think less of him? Yeah. edit #2: clarity Having the fetish is fine.Acting on it is a different story. Hate the crime not the fetish. Ummm, not really. Having the fetish isn't fine, in my opinion. In fact it isn't fine in the majority of people's opinions. I can hate the fact that that is your fetish all I want. Would I ever imprison anyone for having that fetish? No. Would I be wary/think less of them? Yeah, probably. edit: to make a point: Having a fetish where I do girl hanging upside down from a rope is a lot different than having a rape fetish. A lot different. Why is it not fine? Some people can't help but be attracted to certain things. The fact that it's not a crime makes it "fine" by definition.
As for your point, how does it even refute anything I said? Having a rape fetish is not a crime; both are feelings of attraction towards a specific sexual act anyways - the only difference is legality of the actual act, which is the entire point of what I said, that the crime should be hated, but the fetish, well that's just something people have. Just like how people get angry enough to think about killing people, they have enough control to not actually go kill someone.
If you look down on someone for one feeling of attraction, but don't look down at someone else for another, to me that's nothing but bigotry.
|
On November 12 2010 02:58 Back wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 02:51 VIB wrote: There are no limits to free speech.Yes "there are no limits to free speech. So lying about a company's revenue to drive personal profits isn't fraud because it's within the boundaries of free speech. Asking a hitman to do a kill for you isn't a felony because there are no limits to free speech. Hey, if there are NO LIMITS to free speech then I could shoot you in the head and I would be within my right to free speech! Remember, no limits! If you draw the line anywhere it's no longer free!
Stop running away to semantics to change subjects. None of the above are examples of free speech. Neither is writing a guide to get away with pedophilia. Your free to express your opinion and vocal your concerns of existing problems. That IS free is speech. But you are NOT free to use your voice, writing or anything to influence others to commit a crime. That is NOT free speech.
Actually, it is "The right to hold opinions without interference." You're right that the examples you mentioned above have nothing to do with free speech; Lying to investors, hiring a professional killer, shooting someone in the head... all clearly illegal and none of them have anything to do with having opinions. A book, well, that's all about having opinions and it's exactly what free speech is about. "I think killing is cool" - an opinion, free speech, legal, you could say it or write it on a book, I don't care "Kill that motherfucker" - not an opinion, not free speech, a crime, no matter if you say it aloud or write it in a book
You really cannot differentiate?
|
The sad thing is its happening and we are not doing enough to prevent it and now these people even encourages such despicable acts.
|
On November 12 2010 02:11 Krigwin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 01:50 Kickboxer wrote: It takes just a little bit of unbiased intellect and a short glance at the video interview with the author to realize you are dead wrong, sir.
Sure it might not spawn more pedos but it will definitely encourage countless closet pedos to act out, which then results in the rape of children might I remind you.
As this fine young pedosexual explains himself in the video, with much indignation, he is fighting to improve the public image of pedos so that they are not hated and treated as the rapists that they are, so that in turn it effectively becomes easier for them to be a practicing pedosmurf.
The book also contains much advice on how to be a stealthy and efficient pedophalus. If you think advising people how to secretly rape children while also raising the public tolerance of kiddie rape (which might actually take off on the flailing wings of rabid, lunatic libertarians) will not give potential pedomites out there that extra sliver of confidence needed to shift a lifetime of furtive masturbation into an actual act of child rape you are very much mistaken. Are you new to the internet by chance, good sir? I ask because this debate has been had so many times before I cannot honestly comprehend how anyone can bring up this same argument and expect to be taken seriously. Encourage "countless closet pedos" to act? Conjecture. Advising people how to "secretly rape children"? Supposition. Raising public tolerance of kiddie rape? Astoundingly absurd, baseless supposition. Turn furtive masturbators into actual child rapists? More conjecture. All of these are unproven opinions. Not only is supposition and conjecture not valid enough reasons to actually lead to legal action, but I can take such logic and then use it against anything that I deem personally offensive. There are countless video games where you are given a gun in a first-person perspective and then directed to shoot, maim, and kill countless people. The interactive nature of video games contributes to make such games much more psychologically affecting than some poorly-written book. I can say that these games convince "countless closet serial killers" to act by advising them in proper usage of firearms for maximum effect. Many of these games feature criminals as the protagonist, I can thus claim they raise public tolerance of criminals and murderers. Saint's Row 2 for instance is an outrageously unrealistic game involving the mindless killing of police officers, amongst others. Using your baseless logic, with a little bit of unbiased intellect, I can claim it encourages people to go out and kill police officers. Your argument will never be valid nor any similar argument ever taken seriously, ever, until you can come up with definitive evidence that merely the act of reading this book directly causes every reader to become actual child molesters, and from no other cause. Otherwise your argument can be used against anything and freedom of speech ceases to exist, and without it, all of society.
I just have to say your post is full of fallacies.
First of all, he has to demonstrate that JUST reading the book causes EVERY reader to become a child molester? That's absurd and you would have realised it if you weren't trying to make so many loaded statements. Most laws that are like this are written with respect to the majority. It is illegal to drink while intoxicated not because every single drunk person ever will get into an accident, but because driving while intoxicated dramatically increases the probability that one will get into an accident.
Also, a book that details how to commit a crime is very different from a video game in which you play a character that kills people, especially since video games do not involve details that would give insight into the logistics of the actual act. The difference here is the same as the difference between a chemistry book and a book about making bombs. You can use both of those books (well, you might need a little bit more than a chemistry book...) to construct bombs, but the intent of those books is very different.
Furthermore, saying that his arguments are conjectures is meaningless and I assert that they are more than conjectures. Here's why:
Let us consider two classes of pedophiles: pedophiles that dislike their sexuality and pedophiles that don't find anything wrong with it. The former will likely not buy the book, or if they do, will not act on anything anyway. What is stopping the latter from going and seeking sexual fulfilment? Quite clearly, the only thing stopping them would be the law.
Now let us consider two classes of people: people that respect the law even when it conflicts with their desires and people that don't respect the law when it conflicts with their desires. A pedophile that is the former will likely not be driven to do anything after reading that book. A pedophile that is the latter and hasn't done anything yet clearly hasn't done anything because of fear of getting caught.
Thus, a book that describes how to molest children without getting caught will invite that class of pedophile to act.
The only way this can not happen is if there is no such thing as a pedophile that does not respect the law. We know that there are pedophiles and we know that there are people that don't respect the law. Are you really suggesting that there is no intersection of those two sets?
|
On November 12 2010 03:01 Krigwin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 02:48 Kickboxer wrote: The book is an actual manual for child rape. Did you even read the excerpts? It was written with the exclusive intent to instruct people how to rape children. How is that a fucking supposition are you dense? The guy wrote that book with explicit intent, he's not trolling. This has already been gone over in this thread like 12 times. Did you read the excerpts? In the two provided passages he advises you to hide child pornography and teaches proper condom usage for boys. Please quote exactly the part teaching you how to rape children. Now, if you have read the book and found that that was indeed the material, by all means, go ahead and elaborate, but according to other people who have done so, that is not the explicit intent of this book.
ummm you do realize sex with a minor is considered rape regardless if they "consent" or not.. he's suggested what types of condomns to use when having sex with 12 year olds.. so yea he's instructing guys how to rape children.. period.
Anyone defending this guy's book should seriously be ashamed... I mean I love these idealogues who think they have all this integrity because they defend some child rapists right to free speech.. the guy is a goddamn pedophile.. he has sex with 12-13 year old boys... sorry but there's no defense for that and it's disgusting that people are trying to defend this book.
|
I think there's some differences here as to what free speech even is.
I mean, if Amazon decides to not sell the book, that is their right. They are a corporate entity and have the right to chose what they want to sell. However, if they want to sell the book and the government comes in and says that they can't, then we are talking about free speech being violated. Amazon's free choice doesn't really affect free speech one way or another.
Morally, if I was a book seller, I would absolutely refuse to sell, publish, or in any way support such a book. I would however defend anyone who chose to do any of those things as their right to free speech. I would also freaking arrest every single person who tried to do the things in the book. Having sex with children is one of the worst things in our society.
|
On November 12 2010 02:44 TorpedoVegas wrote: A book very similar to this one made its way in leaked form onto another forum site i frequent. While i voted to have it removed from the site I do not believe it should be taken off Amazon. My forum site is an invite only community and the users felt strongly that it was not appropriate for the site. Amazon however is a public vendor, and i believe that while i find the content of this book abhorrent to say the least, that it should not be banned (which does amount to censoring).
I hate to pull out a tired argument but it really is a slippery slope from banning works like this to banning novels and real works of literature for their content. Perhaps a character in a novel molests children and evades the police using realistic techniques. Should this book be banned as well?
I support Amazon in their decision and commend their integrity for standing up for what they think is right despite what im sure will be a massive outcry of public dissent. Argument doesn't apply this guy is encouraging illegal action. I am the most pro-free speech person you will ever find, but even I think this book should be removed. This book encourages the molestation of minors by grown adults, which is unacceptable by societal standards. Allowing this book to be on sale from Amazon is the equivalent of Amazon supporting it. They are making a profit off of it.
|
On November 12 2010 03:06 stk01001 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 03:01 Krigwin wrote:On November 12 2010 02:48 Kickboxer wrote: The book is an actual manual for child rape. Did you even read the excerpts? It was written with the exclusive intent to instruct people how to rape children. How is that a fucking supposition are you dense? The guy wrote that book with explicit intent, he's not trolling. This has already been gone over in this thread like 12 times. Did you read the excerpts? In the two provided passages he advises you to hide child pornography and teaches proper condom usage for boys. Please quote exactly the part teaching you how to rape children. Now, if you have read the book and found that that was indeed the material, by all means, go ahead and elaborate, but according to other people who have done so, that is not the explicit intent of this book. ummm you do realize sex with a minor is considered rape regardless if they "consent" or not.. he's suggested what types of condomns to use when having sex with 12 year olds.. so yea he's instructing guys how to rape children.. period. Anyone defending this guy's book should seriously be ashamed... I mean I love these idealogues who think they have all this integrity because they defend some child rapists right to free speech.. the guy is a goddamn pedophile.. he has sex with 12-13 year old boys... sorry but there's no defense for that and it's disgusting that people are trying to defend this book.
12 to 13 is actually outside the range of pedophilia. It'd be hebephilia or ephebophilia, something I'm personally okay with people acting on in the right situation. That's a whole different argument though.
|
On November 12 2010 02:51 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 01:27 Osmoses wrote:On November 12 2010 01:11 Iplaythings wrote:On November 11 2010 22:46 Railxp wrote: free speech absolutely needs to be upheld. Allowing one scenario to compromise it completely demolishes the principle, and shows that you are not only inconsistent, but also irrational in your beliefs and morals. It also shows that you do not understand why people have fought and died for the right of free speech for all, and how it is vital ingredient for a free society.
To those claiming the pedo book should be banned because it teaches you how to break the law, the Anarchist Cookbook is also available on amazon, and that book teaches you how to mix homemade explosives. Lolita is a classic amorous tale also involving pedophilia, also on amazon.
There is PLENTY of crime fiction on murdering and getting away with it, all of which can be used as reference or research material for potential murderers. And yet nobody is getting up in arms about that. OJ Simpson's "If I did it" further grays the border of reality and fiction. And yet nobody is getting their panties in a bunch about cold blooded murder. and yet now you are angry about pedophilia?
Freedom of speech is sacrosanct, if you decide to suppress it when you dont like what is being said, then you are no different than those who persecuted the intellectuals that you now name heroes of human history. Because people cencor one thing, it doesnt mean that next time they will go farther with the "supression" of the law. There is limmits to free speech. Even the book doesnt openly (or maybe it does) encourage pedophilia, but it's the same way that condom commercials encouraged people to have sex, free speech or not it WOULD make more pedophiles. In that case I couldnt care less if some people think their free speech is offended. Know that pedophilia can demolish a childhood. Any sort of promoting, encouraging or even NOT contempting pedophiles has NOTHING to do with free speech, it's about human rights. And there is a HUGE difference between double standards by allowing books with murder and pedophilia involved - in these books the standpoint of the reader youre even disgusted by the offender or the offender is shown as a madman, who people develop contempt for throughout the book / film. If you want a good example of the logic youre using towards this book look at the Muhammed Drawing Crisis. There are no limits to free speech. Yes "there are no limits to free speech". So lying about a company's revenue to drive personal profits isn't fraud because it's within the boundaries of free speech. Asking a hitman to do a kill for you isn't a felony because there are no limits to free speech. Hey, if there are NO LIMITS to free speech then I could shoot you in the head and I would be within my right to free speech! Remember, no limits! If you draw the line anywhere it's no longer free! Stop running away to semantics to distract from the real subject. None of the above are examples of free speech. Neither is writing a guide to get away with pedophilia. You're free to express your opinion and vocal your concerns of existing problems. That IS free is speech. But you are NOT free to use your voice, writing or anything to influence others to commit a crime. That is NOT free speech.
This twisted-sicko is thumbing his nose at society in a very taboo fashion , children are our most valuable resource , and I truly believe someone that takes pleasure in abusing them in anyway , is not even human on some level , as protecting children is one of the most basic instincts for primates , That being said this is one can of worms that I am not sure I want a part of , but here it goes . As far as I could tell after reading some various case law , and supreme court precedence , I came to this following conclusion : As much as it sux complete and total ass , this book is covered under the authors first amendment rights ( in the USA at least ) becuase it is not inciting toward a specific or personal immediate threat . meaning he is not targeting a specific kid or target in the immediate future , he is merely waxing pseudo-intellectual ( albeit very warped intellect ) As far as child porn is concerned , their are very specific precedents , either pictures of , or very specific details about a naked child and various interactions must be described in an erotic fashion , from what I have looked at ( which was not something I enjoyed ) as too actually gather an accurate opinion to the content of this travesty of literature ,this book has no such references . As much as this is shocking to me in every aspect , at the moment he is not breaking any laws in the USA ,
|
No matter what its called its morally wrong
|
|
|
|