Amazon pulls pedophilia manual after protest

posted at 1:36 pm on November 11, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Amazon has apparently conducted an about-face over its sales of a book that allegedly promotes pedophilia after a national outcry over its policy. ABC News reports now that the book, while still listed at Amazon, no longer can be purchased through the website after its controversial position was widely criticized by its customers. ABC earlier offered this televised report on the issue:

After defending sales of a self-published book on pedophilia, online retail giant Amazon last night reversed course and pulled the book from its Kindle store.

The electronic book, “The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure: a Child-lover’s Code of Conduct,” by Philip R. Greaves II, went on sale on Oct. 28 and cost $4.79 to download.

“This is my attempt to make pedophile situations safer for those juveniles that find themselves involved in them, by establishing certain rules for these adults to follow,” the author wrote in the product description. “I hope to achieve this by appealing to the better nature of pedosexuals, with hope that their doing so will result in less hatred and perhaps liter [sic] sentences should they ever be caught,” Greaves said in the product description.

The book quickly sparked a massive protest online, with thousands of Twitter users and Amazon customers calling for Amazon to remove the book, and some threatening to boycott the company altogether until it did.

Amazon defended their decision to sell the book, which saw sales skyrocket briefly during the controversy, on 1st Amendment grounds. The online giant claimed that refusing to sell “certain titles” amounted to censorship. They insisted that their position was intended to support the personal choices of their customers.

However, as many critics immediately pointed out, Amazon doesn’t sell everything that gets published. They refuse to sell pornography except of the words-only literary kind, in either printed material or on video, “mainstream” or any other kind. That put Amazon in the remarkable position of banning printed material involving consenting adults while defending the sale of a book that purports to teach adults how to sexually exploit children. Amazon seems to have belatedly realized just how untenable that position was, both intellectually and commercially.

Besides, a refusal to sell a title does not amount to “censorship” or offend the 1st Amendment in any way. No one has a right to publication or distribution, which would involve hijacking someone else’s property to effect as a right. As Amazon so obviously proves with its anti-porn policy, sellers have the freedom to select titles with which they want to associate themselves. Only when government exercises prior restraint to stop speech, publication, or distribution does the 1st Amendment become relevant. And the protest over the policy and sale of the book is a much more apt demonstration free speech and its power than Amazon’s lame defense of the indefensible.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Ha ha. Not even close. But I knew you couldn’t answer it. My question was rhetorical.

I thought you were setting up a thought exercise, my bad. Looks like you were just setting me up. Well played, you must feel better now.

ExPat on November 11, 2010 at 6:09 PM

I was just kidding about you being too old.

I wasn’t sure if you were making some “it’s legal to have sex with 16-year-olds in certain states” exception.

I don’t consider it a complement when people tell me I look like a kid. I’m starting to get old enough to appreciate being carded but not when I go to the movies.

If all other criteria were met, then such issue would come down to what the prosecutors thought they could convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt is a depiction of a minor versus the defense attorneys thinking that they can create reasonable doubt as to whether or not it’s a depiction of a minor.

blink on November 11, 2010 at 6:06 PM

That just seems a bit ridiculous to me. I oppose kiddie porn because it harms children, not because I think it should be illegal to have “personal time” while thinking of children with a visual aid.

Esthier on November 11, 2010 at 6:13 PM

The Constitution doesn’t protect speech that promotes, aids and abets criminal activity.
Nor are we talking about the Constitution protecting Amazon’s right to sell a certain book. – Jenfidel

Actually what is quite astounding, in a very troubling way, about all this is that Americans (and allegedly conservative ones, at that) are even parsing the “right to pedophilia”. Yeah, we’ve come a long way, baby – but obviously not in the right direction.

whatcat on November 11, 2010 at 6:14 PM

Interesting, but is the disclaiming for its customers who might not want to see sex with children depicted or is that a legal issue?

Esthier on November 11, 2010 at 5:59 PM

I think it may be a legal thing, let’s see what Google says… um, yuck, that search just really grossed me out.

ExPat on November 11, 2010 at 6:15 PM

Now we demand the list of people who ordered this book.

portlandon on November 11, 2010 at 1:43 PM

Awesome. Then it’s only a matter of time before liberals start demanding lists of people who buy other books, and passing around blacklists.

MadisonConservative on November 11, 2010 at 1:45 PM

Doesn’t the fact that pedophilia is a crime spoil your analogy?

tom on November 11, 2010 at 6:19 PM

I think it may be a legal thing, let’s see what Google says… um, yuck, that search just really grossed me out.

ExPat on November 11, 2010 at 6:15 PM

Did not know about that case. Some of those mangas are really messed up, but I don’t see the point in sending someone to jail for 15 years because of it. No children were harmed to make them, and if he’s truly not a pedophile, none were harmed because he enjoys them (though as a collector, who knows if he even read the graphic ones).

This book, on the other hand, is far more likely to lead to adults abusing children. We have our priorities wrong.

Esthier on November 11, 2010 at 6:22 PM

it’s only a matter of time before liberals start demanding lists of people who buy other books, and passing around blacklists – MadisonConservative

Doesn’t the fact that pedophilia is a crime spoil your analogy?

tom on November 11, 2010 at 6:19 PM

If they’re books on how to make bombs to blow up people the analogy holds. Of course, in both such cases, the buyers should keep in mind it’s a some “liberal” list they should be concerned about since both molestation and blowing up people are crimes.

whatcat on November 11, 2010 at 6:25 PM

it’s not some “liberal” list

whatcat on November 11, 2010 at 6:25 PM

Doesn’t the fact that pedophilia is a crime spoil your analogy?

tom on November 11, 2010 at 6:19 PM

Doesn’t the fact that pedophilia itself is not a crime spoil your question?

MadisonConservative on November 11, 2010 at 6:26 PM

Does that include books that advocate the violent overthrow of the US government?

blink on November 11, 2010 at 6:23 PM

Is violently overthrowing the government illegal?

Esthier on November 11, 2010 at 6:30 PM

Esthier on November 11, 2010 at 6:22 PM

Agreed. How can we prove or disprove that the book would have any more/less of an impact though?

ExPat on November 11, 2010 at 6:32 PM

Personally I’m prepared to risk that rather than join the line of people falling on their sword to defend the rights of perverts who molest children. As far as I’m concerned they don’t have the right to breathe air.

katiejane on November 11, 2010 at 2:00 PM

And some nuts think you don’t have the right to breathe air. Want to set a precedent so they can rummage through your bookshelves to make sure you’re within societal approval?

How long before some people decide that those against gay marriage are “dangerous”? Against abortion? Against big government?

MadisonConservative on November 11, 2010 at 2:05 PM

Anyone who’s watched Sesame Street could see through that claim.

Pedophilia, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, anti-big government

Three of these things
Are just like the others
Three of these things
Are kind of the same

Can you guess which one
Is doing its own thing?

Now it’s time
To play our game…

Bad analogies make for bad arguments

tom on November 11, 2010 at 6:34 PM

Agreed. How can we prove or disprove that the book would have any more/less of an impact though?

ExPat on November 11, 2010 at 6:32 PM

Not sure, though I have read of studies showing a link between porn and a decrease in rape, so maybe you could make the argument that by allowing pedos to view kiddie porn that doesn’t actually involve children, we’re actually making those children safer because the cartoons would satisfy a desire, while the book does not.

I wouldn’t expect that to work though.

Esthier on November 11, 2010 at 6:37 PM

Anyone who’s watched Sesame Street could see through that claim. – tom

Yep, indeed. I believe katiejane provided a – sadly – very rare fount of common sense: “I’m prepared to risk that rather than join the line of people falling on their sword to defend the rights of perverts who molest children.”

whatcat on November 11, 2010 at 6:39 PM

Bad analogies make for bad arguments

tom on November 11, 2010 at 6:34 PM

Most people find pedophilia repellent. Less people find being against gay marriage repellent…but plenty still do. My argument is that when you set a precedent to go after people on a public safety pretense for something that is not a crime, you open the floodgates.

MadisonConservative on November 11, 2010 at 6:39 PM

It’s just as illegal on this continent now as it was in 1776.

blink on November 11, 2010 at 6:32 PM

Maybe the Brits would have had an easier time beating us if we’d not been allowed to pass around treasonous literature.

Regardless, had the Founders been unsuccessful in their endeavor, they would have been executed. Treason is like suicide. It’s only illegal if you fail.

Esthier on November 11, 2010 at 6:40 PM

And Asher just stole my next post – if THIS is so awful, blah blah blah blah blah blah

Dark-Star on November 11, 2010 at 2:08 PM

Just to make a point: if you start off by saying, in effect, “if child molesting is SO AWFUL … ” you probably shouldn’t expect anyone to pay attention to the rest of what you have to say.

Yeah, it’s awful. Awful enough that it overshadows whatever other point you wanted to make.

tom on November 11, 2010 at 6:40 PM

MadisonConservative should read that article.

If anyone could try making the case for a failure to meet the definition of artistic value surely it would have been this guy since he was an avid collector of so many different types of collectibles.

Yet prosecutors went after him anyway.

blink on November 11, 2010 at 6:36 PM

I’m aware of the case. I’m also aware that it is one of a handful of cases that have been prosecuted in a span of seven years. Given the volume, I ask you again: why have there not been more prosecutions? You ignored it before…have you no answer?

MadisonConservative on November 11, 2010 at 6:41 PM

Just to make a point: if you start off by saying, in effect, “if child molesting is SO AWFUL … ” you probably shouldn’t expect anyone to pay attention to the rest of what you have to say.

tom on November 11, 2010 at 6:40 PM

I’m pretty sure he was referring to the BOOK, not to child molestation. Bit of a difference there, pal.

MadisonConservative on November 11, 2010 at 6:42 PM

Wow blink, you do like your Miller test. I see it as a rather up-tight judicial system going a bit too far. Judging the value of ‘art’ in NYC would be much different than in the middle of this country (see: elephant poo boob). I’m not sure such subjectivity belongs in law, which typically sees things very much in black and white.

ExPat on November 11, 2010 at 6:44 PM

blink on November 11, 2010 at 6:44 PM

Hmmm. I apologize. That post isn’t showing up, even when I refresh.

MadisonConservative on November 11, 2010 at 6:50 PM

Islamophobia!

profitsbeard on November 11, 2010 at 6:51 PM

profitsbeard on November 11, 2010 at 6:51 PM

you rock.

ExPat on November 11, 2010 at 6:53 PM

“I’m prepared to risk that rather than join the line of people falling on their sword to defend the rights of perverts who molest children.”

whatcat on November 11, 2010 at 6:39 PM

How far are you willing to go to risk that? Would you support me killing anyone who’s ever been convicted of a sexual crime against a minor?
blink on November 11

Reread, blink and you’ll see I was quoting someone elses uncommon common sense. Some people are just more concerned about the right of children not to be molested or raped. Adults are to protect children, not their attackers.

whatcat on November 11, 2010 at 6:54 PM

Our judiciary system utilizes an authority known as a judge to make many subjective decision. Also, our judiciary system creates legal bodies to make subjective decisions. Those legal bodies are known as juries.

Fair enough, but the actual law itself? You do have me at a disadvantage on this I’m afraid, I haven’t read much (any) case law. I’d imagine it’s the Interpretation of it and application of it may go outside the original intent, especially on a hot-topic issue like this. Like the guy and his comic collection.

blink on November 11, 2010 at 6:54 PM

ExPat on November 11, 2010 at 7:03 PM

Some people are just more concerned about the right of children not to be molested or raped.
whatcat on November 11, 2010 at 6:54 PM

More concerned than whom?
blink

Actually, it should be “More concerned than for what?”. More concerned than for the excuses of those who would assault a child. Once a child is raped all the parsing, rationale, philosophical meanderings, hunts for is-is legal loopholes and excuses just don’t matter a whole lot to some folks.

whatcat on November 11, 2010 at 7:03 PM

Islamophobia!

profitsbeard on November 11, 2010 at 6:51 PM

Amazon already compiling with Sharia?

That would explain it.

Dr Evil on November 11, 2010 at 7:06 PM

Sorry complying

Dr Evil on November 11, 2010 at 7:07 PM

You’re not married and you don’t have children, hence you don’t care.

Jenfidel on November 11, 2010 at 3:39 PM

So anyone who doesn’t have children of their own is completely indifferent to their welfare? Kay. And I’ll be married in eight months, to a woman I’ve been with for longer than many marriages last. It’s a canard because it’s nothing but an argument from authority, of the weakest kind.

MadisonConservative on November 11, 2010 at 3:45 PM

That is a straw man. You’re divorcing the one part you quoted from the context, where she makes a fairly simple argument that parents are more likely to be protective of children, because they tend to think of their own. That’s not so much a canard as an axiom, but one supported by studies that show — especially for women — that having children tends to make women more conservative.

She didn’t say that being childless means you’re indifferent to the welfare of all children. She said that if you had children of your own, you would be more concerned about pedophilia, and if you’re not concerned, it must be due to not having children of your own.

You’re trying to turn a good, if not conclusive, argument into a different argument so you can destroy it. That’s the definition of a straw man argument.

tom on November 11, 2010 at 7:14 PM

it’s only a matter of time before liberals start demanding lists of people who buy other books, and passing around blacklists – MadisonConservative

Doesn’t the fact that pedophilia is a crime spoil your analogy?

tom on November 11, 2010 at 6:19 PM

If they’re books on how to make bombs to blow up people the analogy holds. Of course, in both such cases, the buyers should keep in mind it’s a some “liberal” list they should be concerned about since both molestation and blowing up people are crimes.

whatcat on November 11, 2010 at 6:25 PM

Is there a legitimate purpose to wanting to know how to build a bomb?

Yes. Self defense. It’s a far-fetched case in the current climate, but there are survivalists who spend time worrying about just such scenarios in case of a disaster without any intent of committing a crime.

Now what’s the legitimate purpose for needing to know how to more safely have sex with a child?

tom on November 11, 2010 at 7:18 PM

Doesn’t the fact that pedophilia is a crime spoil your analogy?

tom on November 11, 2010 at 6:19 PM

Doesn’t the fact that pedophilia itself is not a crime spoil your question?

MadisonConservative on November 11, 2010 at 6:26 PM

Pedophilia is a crime. I know what you’re trying to argue, that you can be a pedophile in your mind without committing the acts of a pedophile, but it’s a weak distinction of no practical value. You rely too much on distinguishing what you are and what you do. If you’re reading about pedophilia, you’re obviously not trying to restrain your urges towards it, or you’d not be feeding those urges with a how-to manual.

/facepalm

tom on November 11, 2010 at 7:24 PM

Now what’s the legitimate purpose for needing to know how to more safely have sex with a child?

tom

Have no idea exactly who/what you’re asking about, tom, but I really discourage folks from blowing up other people and/or raping them. I’d recommend taking up stamp collecting instead.

whatcat on November 11, 2010 at 7:25 PM

It’s not censorship when the majority of your CUSTOMERS feel your material is unobjectionable. It’s free market. It’s not the government telling them to stop it. It’s citizens. They do have a right to sell it but that doesn’t protect them from customers protesting or boycotting their choice of product for sale. They just loose customers. That’ really what they should be concerned with. Censorship is by the governments not by the customers who buy their products. Obviously customers have a sense of morality.

Egfrow on November 11, 2010 at 7:30 PM

tom on November 11, 2010 at 7:18 PM

I understand exactly what you mean.

Dr Evil on November 11, 2010 at 7:31 PM

Bad analogies make for bad arguments

tom on November 11, 2010 at 6:34 PM

Most people find pedophilia repellent. Less people find being against gay marriage repellent…but plenty still do. My argument is that when you set a precedent to go after people on a public safety pretense for something that is not a crime, you open the floodgates.

MadisonConservative on November 11, 2010 at 6:39 PM

Pedophilia is a crime. It involves sexual molestation of a child.

There are good reasons to argue that we shouldn’t be able to get lists of buyers of such a book. Here’s one: we don’t need unrestricted vigilanteism. If the government can’t make a good case for law enforcement needing to know who bought the book, we sure don’t need to be letting just anyone get a list of buyers.

But arguing that people who bought a book about how to abuse children have just as much right to keep it private as those who bought a book opposing same-sex marriage, or abortion, or big government is just ludicrous. It’s easy to make a distinction between pedophilia and those other cases.

tom on November 11, 2010 at 7:36 PM

Amazon seems to have belatedly realized just how untenable that position was, both intellectually and commercially.

It’s only untenable commercially because the wider public found out about it. The glare of publicity was blinding. Intellectually untenable? Ed, companies like Amazon only care about making money. They don’t care about resolving intellectual contradictions.

aengus on November 11, 2010 at 7:42 PM

Pedophilia is a crime. It involves sexual molestation of a child.

He means the psychiatric disorder itself. It may be a Jesuitical splitting of hairs but that’s obviously what he means.

aengus on November 11, 2010 at 7:45 PM

I don’t think I’ve seen a single arguement on this board that says anything condoning child abuse, sexual or otherwise.

ExPat on November 11, 2010 at 4:29 PM

I found one:

In fact, if pedophilia wasn’t socially stigmatized it wouldn’t even be illegal.

blink on November 11, 2010 at 3:06 PM

Jason Coleman on November 11, 2010 at 5:06 PM

I don’t think you understand the definition of condoning.

blink on November 11, 2010 at 5:14 PM

I’ve read your other comments, and I think I’ve got you pegged just fine.

Jason Coleman on November 11, 2010 at 7:56 PM

But arguing that people who bought a book about how to abuse children have just as much right to keep it private as those who bought a book opposing same-sex marriage, or abortion, or big government is just ludicrous. It’s easy to make a distinction between pedophilia and those other cases. – tom

And, as far as I know, there is no “right to privacy” re:what a person buys, public commerce by it’s very nature is…well…public. If someones buying drugs in some alley maybe, lol, but not from a major retailer using tracking numbers, RFID and whatever recordkeeping “order fulfillment” might entail (e.g. CC #s & transaction codes).

A person making such a purchase pretty much “flags” himself, setting himself up for all manner of trouble.

Also anybody victimized by somebody using such how-to guides can probably give Amazon a good run for it’s money in court.

As pointed out, the “it’s the same as somebody getting upset because you have a pro-life book on your coffee table” grasping at a false equivalency doesn’t quite work. While a prolife book on the coffee table may upset someone, it’s just doesn’t have the same effect as some guy leaving books on how to molest children around the place. Very apple and oranges.

whatcat on November 11, 2010 at 8:03 PM

Pedophilia is a crime. It involves sexual molestation of a child.

He means the psychiatric disorder itself. It may be a Jesuitical splitting of hairs but that’s obviously what he means.

aengus on November 11, 2010 at 7:45 PM

That’s definitely what he means, and it is a Jesuitical splitting of hairs, as you say. But in this particular case, it’s even less of a valid distinction. Someone who had a pedophile nature but was determined to not commit pedophile acts would not be reading a how-to manual. There’s effectively no distinction at all.

That’s not so say we should get the list of buyers and throw them in prison. There’s a reason we require actual evidence of a crime, not just of intent. But there is just no good analogy to, say, those buying books arguing against gay marriage.

Whatcat had a better analogy with bomb-building for dummies, but some people do find such things fascinating without any intention of blowing anyone up. That doesn’t compare to child molesting, which has no defense, however far-fetched.

About the only good analogy I could see would be a book like “Serial Killing for Dummies: How to Carve Up your Preferred Victim Group and Bury Them in Jars in your Backyard without Getting Caught.”

BTW, I do note with some pride that no agency of the government had to get involved to get Amazon to knock it off. But that’s pride in the American public, not in Amazon. They should have known better.

tom on November 11, 2010 at 8:06 PM

Is there anyone here that you think is more concerned “for the excuses” of those who would assault a child than they are concerned about a child that is assaulted? – blink on November 11

Wouldn’t matter if I did or I did not. I think everyone should buy me free drinks and a steak dinner every night. I think I should be able to fly on the days when my feet get tired. I think I deserve to win the Lotto every night.

whatcat on November 11, 2010 at 8:10 PM

But arguing that people who bought a book about how to abuse children have just as much right to keep it private as those who bought a book opposing same-sex marriage, or abortion, or big government is just ludicrous. It’s easy to make a distinction between pedophilia and those other cases.

tom on November 11, 2010 at 7:36 PM

Why is it ludicrous? Because pedophilia is more reprehensible than [opposing] same-sex marriage, [opposing] abortion, or [opposing] big government?

blink on November 11, 2010 at 8:05 PM

With the emphasized corrections above, yes. It seems rather axiomatic to me that pedophilia is worse than any of the above.

Do you disagree, or are you just making a rhetorical point that things can change?

tom on November 11, 2010 at 8:13 PM

Is there anyone here that you think is more concerned “for the excuses” of those who would assault a child than they are concerned about a child that is assaulted?

blink on November 11, 2010 at 7:56 PM

This comes from the guy who says Pedophilia is only a crime because of social stigma.

I think most of the rest of us are glad it’s a crime because of the heinous sexual assault upon a defenseless child.

Jason Coleman on November 11, 2010 at 8:21 PM

They have a right not to sell it as much as they have a right to sell it. Frankly, I’m surprised they made such a bushleague mistake by carrying this abhorrent material in the first place.

Last I checked, child rape is illegal which, even if Amazon didn’t have a moral compass (which is now questionable), by their own policy they should not have carried this book.

redfoxbluestate on November 11, 2010 at 8:27 PM

Then what the heck are you clamoring about?
blink

You asked a meaningless question that has zero impact on anything, I was kind enough to supply you with answers that are just as meaningful. Like asking people what’s their favorite color. Just so much who-cares bupkis.

whatcat on November 11, 2010 at 8:41 PM

Pedophilia is a crime.

tom on November 11, 2010 at 7:36 PM

You can keep saying that all you like. Not going to redefine the term.

MadisonConservative on November 11, 2010 at 8:42 PM

Amazon, what a bunch of hypocritical blow-hards. They pulled the Obama Joker Mask last year because it was deemed “inappropriate” – but apparently a book on pedophiles seeking love (and, by the same token, anything linking George W Bush to Hitler or sodomy) is okay?

I’ll never understand the Lib/Progressive mentality. I’ll just take comfort in the fact that they got such a smackdown in the election last week, and will be getting another (hopefully bigger) one in 2012.

swanzoid on November 11, 2010 at 5:29 PM

Good catch. I wonder how they handle the mohammed cartoon artists.

slickwillie2001 on November 11, 2010 at 8:42 PM

The latter. If society decided at some point that opposing big government is more reprehensible than pedophilia, then, using your criteria as justification, they could take the actions you’re advocating against those that oppose big government.

blink on November 11, 2010 at 8:30 PM

Sounds like Sparta.

aengus on November 11, 2010 at 8:42 PM

I’m not sure how any of this is relevant. I’ll ask again. Do you think it should be illegal to purchase a book that advocates the violent overthrow of the US government?

blink on November 11, 2010 at 6:49 PM

I answered your question. I wouldn’t have a problem with books advocating that the reader do something illegal.

Esthier on November 11, 2010 at 8:48 PM

Whether your glad it’s a crime or not is immaterial. The fact is that it wouldn’t be a crime if it wasn’t social stigmatized. Do you disagree?

blink on November 11, 2010 at 8:27 PM

There’s a correlation you’re not considering. It will never be legal so long as it’s so socially stigmatized. We didn’t repeal sodomy laws before the pride parades – some weren’t even repealed until this century, long after homosexuality was relatively accepted by society.

So it’s not even completely true in that often social acceptance precedes legality.

Esthier on November 11, 2010 at 8:54 PM

What utter BULLSHIT! The 1st Amendment applies to the GOVERNMENT, not private enterprise accepting or not accepting an item for sale.

GarandFan

They never said otherwise. Their argument was the 1st Amendment gives them the right to sell this book, despite the claims of many of their critics that they don’t have the right, and should be forbidden from doing so.

Censorship is by the governments not by the customers who buy their products.

Egfrow

Censorship isn’t only carried out by the government. Just ask Rush Limbaugh, anyone who plays in the NFL, Juan Williams, or, like him or not, Queef Olbermann.

Amazon’s argument was that they themselves would be guilty of engaging in censorship if they refused to carry the book, which is something they’d rather not do. Sure, it’s an inconsistent argument, because they already censor themselves when it comes to the sale of some other products, but it’s an accurate argument nonetheless.

Now, would I sell it? No, I wouldn’t.

xblade on November 11, 2010 at 8:59 PM

Decency always requires censorship. Look at what our society has become, in the interest of “freedom of expression.” So much vile behavior, perpetrated for the most part by people too ignorant to understand what they are losing.

In the 70′s, when I was coming of age, life was a game of daring, breaking the rules yet not accepting the inevitable slapdowns. Free sex, it’s the revolution, baby! We learned to treat our bodies and emotions as though they had no value.

Therefore, they didn’t.

disa on November 11, 2010 at 9:25 PM

I know this is apples & oranges but Amazon also won’t stop selling illegal animal-fighting videos & magazine, claiming censorship. I have been boycotting them since 2007.

margategop517 on November 11, 2010 at 9:42 PM

Bet our education czar jennings ordered a few for himself and his holiday gift list

Sonosam on November 11, 2010 at 9:45 PM

It seems rather axiomatic to me that pedophilia is worse than any of the above.

Do you disagree, or are you just making a rhetorical point that things can change?

tom on November 11, 2010 at 8:13 PM

The latter. If society decided at some point that opposing big government is more reprehensible than pedophilia, then, using your criteria as justification, they could take the actions you’re advocating against those that oppose big government.

blink on November 11, 2010 at 8:30 PM

Seems like a tautological argument, the equivalent of, “if pedophilia has no more to do with morality than opposing big government, then it could be treated the same.”

It does have a different nature, it is immoral, requiring the victimization of a child, so it is not the same, so the argument fails.

tom on November 11, 2010 at 10:38 PM

Pedophilia is a crime.

tom on November 11, 2010 at 7:36 PM

You can keep saying that all you like. Not going to redefine the term.

MadisonConservative on November 11, 2010 at 8:42 PM

You’ve already redefined the term to exclude behavior and only include the tendency. I reject the distinction, because it’s a hypothetical one. You know someone’s a pedophile because of what he does. You suggest someone could be a pedophile by nature but not do the acts of a pedophile. While theoretically possible, such a person would not be buying a manual on how to do it.

The big problem with your analogy is that you effectively put the crime of sexual molestation on the same level as advocating for a balanced budget amendment. They’re not the same thing.

tom on November 11, 2010 at 10:45 PM

Hmmm I seem to remember a conversation where Allahpundit and others were so offended that any of us would think pedophile and other like behaviors would ever be considered natural and normal… like homosexuality.

They were so offended.

Whose closed minded, the ones who can’t see the direction of the country or the ones who think the current way of think is most correct and will never be re-thought?

Slippery slope.

There will come a day when Allah and Jetboy and the others who were so offended will be called bigots for thinking that way.

I know because that is what happens when you get in the way of a political agenda.

petunia on November 11, 2010 at 11:25 PM

This comes from the guy who says Pedophilia is only a crime because of social stigma.

I think most of the rest of us are glad it’s a crime because of the heinous sexual assault upon a defenseless child.

Jason Coleman on November 11, 2010 at 8:21 PM

Whether your glad it’s a crime or not is immaterial. The fact is that it wouldn’t be a crime if it wasn’t social stigmatized. Do you disagree?

blink on November 11, 2010 at 8:27 PM

Yes, I disagree vehemently, and I understand your little game with language. I call bul1sh*t on it.

It’s a crime for a huge variety of reasons besides the “social stigma”, the social stigma is what makes it a crime of high degree and very difficult to forgive or pay an appropriate price for.

I could cite the economic damage that such a crime can bring to families, organizations and societies in general. I could cite solely the affront to personal liberty or the violence of physical assault that make this a heinous crime. I could go on, but yours is a silly, silly game. I see through it, and you.

Your “it’s only social stigma” is pure BS! Pure NAMBLA tripe!

You asked someone else about if they supported you killing a pedophile upon conviction. Well of course I don’t want YOU doing it, but if the question comes up. . . hell yes, I’ll vote for and advocate for slapping the death penalty for a wide range of sexual crimes against minors and even stricter still sentences for those convicted of crimes against small children.

Now. . . go ahead and tell us all how it’s all about social stigma, all crime etc. etc. and this is just another.

Pedophilia is the type of crime that even playing your phrase game as you are, taints.

Jason Coleman on November 11, 2010 at 11:26 PM

You’ve already redefined the term to exclude behavior and only include the tendency.

tom on November 11, 2010 at 10:45 PM

Nope, sorry. That would be the dictionary that defined the term that way. You’re the only one trying to pretend it includes behavior, dingleberry.

I don’t care if you think it makes your argument, whatever it is, sound better. Philias are attractions, not behaviors. Whether they act on them is something entirely different. People who realize they are ignorant of what words mean, and then compound their ignorance by pretending they still have it right, never cease to astound and bewilder.

MadisonConservative on November 12, 2010 at 12:06 AM

hell yes, I’ll vote for and advocate for slapping the death penalty for a wide range of sexual crimes against minors…

Jason Coleman on November 11, 2010 at 11:26 PM

Awesome. Where do the 18-year-olds now legally considered sex offenders for having sex with their 17-year-old girlfriends fit on Death Row? Near the front? If not, what’s the cutoff age one has to be to count for this marvelous plan of yours?

MadisonConservative on November 12, 2010 at 12:08 AM

MadisonConservative on November 12, 2010 at 12:08 AM

Nice try. Notice I didn’t say “all”.

We can start with this one:

Adult (21) sexually penetrates a minor under 13? I have absolutely no problem with ole sparky being on the table come sentencing.

Jason Coleman on November 12, 2010 at 12:19 AM

Jason Coleman on November 12, 2010 at 12:19 AM

How about if the minor is 13? 14? 15? How about if the adult is 20? 19?

Who decides the thresholds?

MadisonConservative on November 12, 2010 at 12:23 AM

Who decides the thresholds?

MadisonConservative on November 12, 2010 at 12:23 AM

You’re playing a silly game.

Just like all other laws, you write a bill with parameters, you debate said bill, you put bill to vote, bill passes, repeat, President signs, bill becomes law.

As I said: I’ll vote for and advocate for slapping the death penalty for a wide range of sexual crimes against minors and even stricter still sentences for those convicted of crimes against small children.

So I gave you an example, I’ll give you another.

Any sexual crime against a minor concurrent with the crime of kindnapping 1st deg. I’d be fine with ole sparky on the table.

We could play this game all day. I support the death penalty for a wide range of crimes against minors. I support the death penalty for a number of crimes outside of homicide. Treason, I’m fond of that one too.

We could go through all the parameters, ad infinitum, but your game is boring.

Jason Coleman on November 12, 2010 at 12:34 AM

I’ll vote for and advocate for slapping the death penalty for a wide range of sexual crimes against minors and even stricter still sentences for those convicted of crimes against small children.

Jason Coleman on November 12, 2010 at 12:34 AM

Can I ask what a stricter punishment is than, um, death?

MadisonConservative on November 12, 2010 at 12:41 AM

Sure.

6 months in general population then a ride on sparky.

/end your silly game, unless you want to try again with my grammar

Jason Coleman on November 12, 2010 at 12:48 AM

Jason Coleman on November 12, 2010 at 12:48 AM

Excuse me. I didn’t know that questioning your completely defocused and vague criminal justice policy of “I want the death penalty for a lot more stuff” was a game. Forgive me for questioning your quite intricately laid out plan for prison reform, noting your continued misuse of the word “pedophilia” to represent something it’s not, and wondering exactly what is a stricter sentence than “death”.

I see blink is also playing a “game” by noting the fact that you’re just emoting rather than providing a rational argument. Everyone around you seems to be playing “games”. Or, just maybe, is it possible that some people might want to address the issue rationally, rather than rage out about how much they hate pedophiles and lots of other people and wish the state would kill them?

MadisonConservative on November 12, 2010 at 12:55 AM

…Amazon’s argument was that they themselves would be guilty of engaging in censorship if they refused to carry the book,…

xblade on November 11, 2010 at 8:59 PM

They are a private enterprise, If a proprietor refuses to sell a certain product because in order not to attract a specific type of proprietary then they make a free choice. Some may call it specialization or an ethical stance. Their main customers will appreciate it. Amazon wants to be everything to everyone and that’s impossible. You either cater to the immoral products, such as rape, incest, serial killer instruction manuals, anarchists cook books, or you don’t. They can’t have their cake and eat it too. They are trying to be Amoral and it won’t work in the long run. You will alienate one side or the other eventually. You have to make a choice who of who your customer base is.

Egfrow on November 12, 2010 at 1:18 AM

You’ve already redefined the term to exclude behavior and only include the tendency.

tom on November 11, 2010 at 10:45 PM

Nope, sorry. That would be the dictionary that defined the term that way. You’re the only one trying to pretend it includes behavior, dingleberry.

I don’t care if you think it makes your argument, whatever it is, sound better. Philias are attractions, not behaviors. Whether they act on them is something entirely different. People who realize they are ignorant of what words mean, and then compound their ignorance by pretending they still have it right, never cease to astound and bewilder.

MadisonConservative on November 12, 2010 at 12:06 AM

Is the book about how to be sexually attracted to children? Or about how to have sex with children?

Your nattering about dictionary definition of pedophilia is absurd. The very thing the book is really about — the actions of a pedophile, and how to do it “safely” — are the very things you’re dismissing as irrelevant to being a pedophile.

All because the word Pedophile is in the title of the book. But the book is not about being attracted to children, but about having sex with them.

How absurd then to claim that the book is not about a crime!

tom on November 12, 2010 at 2:06 AM

BTW, from the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

pedophilia: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object

And from the Collaborative International Dictionary of English:

pedophilia: A sexual perversion in which children rather than adults most strongly excite sexual desire, and are used as sexual partners.

Even in dictionaries, and removed from the actual context of a book about how to have sex with children, there is not quite the bright line between inclination and behavior that you imply. But then, that’s typical for sexual perversions.

tom on November 12, 2010 at 2:42 AM

Forgive me for questioning your quite intricately laid out plan for prison reform, noting your continued misuse of the word “pedophilia” to represent something it’s not, and wondering exactly what is a stricter sentence than “death”.

Oh stuff it you sanctimonious idiot. Yes, idiot, because only idiots play the game of definitions that you are. Yes, it’s a game, it’s a well recognized internet game where you use only one limited form of one definition, then push any other use of the term out of context and then ridicule the poster based on your highly selective and dare I say “nuanced” definition, that while totally true, leaves much to be desired and loses much meaning do to your intentional limiting. So yeah, it’s a game, one that’s quite popular on the internet. Your false ignorance here is not charming.

I’m sorry, I’m not going to play by your highly limited and very limited specific set of terms and definitions and elaborate in great detail the specifics and technical names for each and every act I’m referring to. I’m going to use pedophile in the exact context that almost all here recognize it for. To list out each possible act each time the concept is mentioned is ridiculous, but arguing over definitions rather than content is your strategy, I see it, others see it. We’re just not going to play for you.

Your “questioning” wasn’t serious and had no merit, it was junior high debate, and if you have no concept of a fate worse than death. . . . well, if you want to say that you don’t understand that, I’ll just call you an intellectual dishonest player in your own game.

You go right ahead and keep on supporting the “condition” or the “concept” of pedophilia while decrying the acts associated therewith. I’m going to stick to calling them all bad and deserving of harsh punishment.

Jason Coleman on November 12, 2010 at 5:31 AM

How about if the minor is 13? 14? 15? How about if the adult is 20? 19?

Who decides the thresholds?

MadisonConservative on November 12, 2010 at 12:23 AM

I see the conversation got far more interesting after I went home last night.

As you plainly see, the issue is far more complex than some would admit (I’m talking about actual criminal conduct, not pedophilia, which – as you correctly note – is not the same).

Many years ago, I prosecuted a case that highlights the complexities. The girl was 15 and the man was 23 – and married.

By all accounts, the girl – who looked at least 25 – initiated all of the acts. In open court, she bragged about seducing the married man. He was unaware (he claimed anyway) of her true age, and – by all accounts – he resisted her advances for some time.

But she was 15. He was 23. We sent him to state prison for two years. The girl laughed out loud at the sentence, giggling with her friends as it was read.

It helped that the guy was a douche in other ways. But he had a kid who lost her father.

It would be so very easy to say: execute him. Throw away the key. Whatever.

But its just not that simple. And that case always bothered me.

Somebody rapes a 4-year old, that’s easy. But its not the easy cases that make the law. And that is troubling.

The age of consent in this country varies from 18 all the way down to 13 or 14, depending on where you happen to be. In some other countries, it goes all the way down to 12.

In our country, in many states, you can legally marry before 18. If you do so, and take sexual pictures on your honeymoon – of each other – you just created child pornography.

There are many, many movies that have featured nude and/or sexual scenes with underage actresses. Thora Birch in American Pie, the scene at the window? She was not 18. Brooke Shields was all of 10 in Pretty Baby.

So where is the consistency?

A woman can launch a hardcore porn career at 18 years of age. One day earlier, and people are going to prison.

Do we execute them?

Anybody who owns that famous Penthouse issue with Vanessa Williams in it owns child pornography. Traci Lords was 15 or 16 at the time and shes in it.

Any couple in high school who has sex and takes pictures may go to prison. I’m lucky they didn’t have digital photography back in my day.

The bottom line is its not as simple as some would like it to be.

But unfortunately, you making that point with the simpletons is going to get you nowhere at all.

Because its far too easy to stick with the simple.

Professor Blather on November 12, 2010 at 8:21 AM

Wonder how they would feel about a book actively promoting genocide? Oh wait, they do have Margaret Sanger’s biography!

pgrossjr on November 12, 2010 at 8:42 AM

You go right ahead and keep on supporting the “condition” or the “concept” of pedophilia

Jason Coleman on November 12, 2010 at 5:31 AM

I never have done so, but thanks for the slander.

MadisonConservative on November 12, 2010 at 8:48 AM

Because its far too easy to stick with the simple.

Professor Blather on November 12, 2010 at 8:21 AM

An intellectual sin usually practiced by liberals, but occasionally also by social conservatives when their emotions on a topic are high.

MadisonConservative on November 12, 2010 at 8:51 AM

Can I ask what a stricter punishment is than, um, death?

MadisonConservative on November 12, 2010 at 12:41 AM

General Population in Prison, with the other inmates informed what offense they were sentenced for. Law of the Jungle, isn’t pretty but it does cull out undesirables from the human population.

Dr Evil on November 12, 2010 at 9:02 AM

The argument that any private company (Amazon) would violate the 1st Ammendment by refusing to sell a product is hogwash. The 1st Ammendment applies to the government and says that the government cannot enact any laws which infringe on freedom of speech. Any private company or organization can restrict the speech or conduct of its employees or contributors and it is not a violation of the 1st Ammendment. Obnoxious and offensive posters here on Hot Air are frequently banned by Ed and Allah for exercising their free speech rights. 1st Ammendment violation? Not at all…Hot Air is not the government.

Trafalgar on November 12, 2010 at 9:09 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5