
Pedophilia How-To Book Removed From Amazon - georgecmu
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/11/11/pedophilia-book-removed-from-amazon-but-others-remain/
======
acangiano
I think the fundamental issue is in the "how-to" nature of this book. I
wouldn't expect Amazon to remove a book that merely discusses pedophilia,
however controversial (or disgusting) the ideas within it are. The outrage in
this case is about a book that appears to be a how-to guide for those wanting
to engage in child molestation (which is a very serious crime).

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.

~~~
raganwald
I think it's important to distinguish between what Amazon books Amazon ought
to sell and what books ought to be allowed to be sold.

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...](http://www.amazon.com/Steal-This-Book-Abbie-
Hoffman/dp/156858217X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1289508930&sr=8-1)

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.

~~~
phlux
I cant take your comment seriously.

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.]

~~~
chc
These books are not sexual abuse of children. We must distinguish between
_talking_ about an act and _committing_ that act. Talking about an act is free
speech, and should be protected even when we find the subject matter abhorrent
— though speech approving of illegal acts walks a blurry line between free
speech and criminal incitement. In fact, offensive speech is pretty much the
only kind that _needs_ protecting. Freedom of speech that only guards
unobjectionable things is like Henry Ford's famous offering of freedom: "Any
customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is
black."

~~~
phlux
>In fact, offensive speech is pretty much the only kind that needs protecting.

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...]

~~~
raganwald
Why do I need better analogies?

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."

------
CallMeV
Not surprised this one got removed. That other book mentioned sounds like a
confessional, almost: the author's attempt to exorcise his demons from what he
has done.

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.

------
anigbrowl
I'm curious about whether this was real or was designed to harvest data about
suspect individuals. I find it hard to imagine that anyone would buy such a
thing online, as opposed to some shady brick & mortar bookstore where they
could pay cash and not leave a record of their purchase. Then again there are
a lot of criminals who are either foolish or oblivious to the social
environment they live in.

~~~
ceejayoz
I just wonder what viewing the listing is going to do to my Amazon
Recommendations...

------
joelmichael
They haven't removed Lolita yet, or Philosophy in the Boudoir? I'm outraged!

~~~
lotusleaf1987
Those are not at all in the same context, those are literature and satire, not
a how guide on how to find condoms for 11 year old boys.

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.

~~~
joelmichael
I don't think they should pull it, because I believe in the principle of
freedom of speech. That concept doesn't apply only to governments, you know.
Obviously they have the legal right to pull it, but I don't think it's the
right thing to do.

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.

~~~
glhaynes
So when is it ever right for a store not to carry a product? Should all stores
carry all products?

~~~
lwhi
I think distasteful publications should be available for sale unless their
publication breaks the law.

I find it difficult to understand how a guide encouraging paedophilia
_doesn't_ break the law in some way.

~~~
philwelch
It doesn't break the law because, generally, it's only illegal to actually
commit crimes, or to make concrete plans to commit a crime; it's not illegal
to write a book about how to commit a crime.

------
jeangenie
I for one am praying this is just a marketing stunt for the Kindle.

------
phlux
The first rule in the "Pedophillia Code of Conduct" book should read:

1\. Stay AWAY from Children.

The End.

