Posted on 11/11/2010 10:04:46 AM PST by TheHawksNest
This person is supporting the publishing and sale of books that teach pedophiles how to be more successful pedophiles. He equates such manuals to gunsmithing manuals.
Don’t want to leave you out.
Letting you know, too.
In his world view, pedophilia and gunsmithing are equivalent.
Not in my world view, but yes, in the world view of some.
And if you give the government the power to ban books about subjects that you (and I, for that matter) find objectionable, you are giving the power to ban books that the anti-gun hysterics find objectionable.
Gunsmithing is legal.
Pedophilia is not only illegal but a hideous and disgusting crime that ruins lives.
The idea that books detailing how to commit horrible crimes by those who actually have committed said crimes, as this author has done (was convicted of molesting a child), should be legal, is insane.
Your profile page says that you are a recovering liberal. Maybe you haven’t recovered enough.
Amazon discontinued the sale of book as of today.
Unfortunetly the sinister book that was not selling is now on the top 100 list of book sales due to media exposure to this call for a ban on Amazon.
Pedophilia is illegal. Books on Pedophilia are pornographic. The author of this book spent time in jail for child porn. That you would attempt to defend him and his book on how to sexually use children is outrageous.
Maybe I should write a book for Amazon about how parents can lure, torture and kill a pedophile even before he or she rapes their children. Come to think of it, that might considered a domestic terrorist threat to one of Obama’s Czars, Jan the Man and her TSA homies.
Actually, people with racist views are the new gays.
People thought that about communists, too. They advocate and eat away like termites at constitutional freedom so people wanted to outlaw them from elected positions. The argument went, don’t push the termites underground. So we let them go free to inflitrate an undermine our society. Now we have one in the white house and he’s working like a termmite on steroids and he and his minions and our judges openly laugh about how they have “progressed” beyond the constution.
Taboos work. They can’t go “underground” because they have to surface to try and feed their obsession. Better than letting them run wild until they are in our face and raping our children upon their whim like the communists did to our constutional republic.
Lynch mobs work fine, too.
I don’t know who wrote the book being discussed, but I’d make no assumptions about him, or his motives, or his experience, based on rantings on the internet.
Writing a book on how to commit a crime against children is considered a classroom session to me. I think the victims of pedophiles ought to be permitted to kill them at any time they choose. If they are caught while the child is a minor and can not exact justice, I think it should be legal for any adult in the family to kill the pedophile.
Any concerned citizen, actually.
Pedophiles are the worst scum in the universe.
The idea that there is no book so vile that it should not be permitted to be sold because then innocent books will be banned is an argument only (a) brainless fools or (b) people who like evil scum books could possibly present.
What? You object to the government banning *How to* manuals for molesting children?
Yes, the government should have the power to ban something like that that's a moral issue.
For that matter, the government bans all kinds of things that are moral issues.
It bans murder, rape, theft, perjury, destruction of private property....
If you don't want the government to have the power to ban things that are moral issues, then following your reasoning to its logical conclusion, the government shouldn't have the power to ban all these other things, too. There should be no laws prohibiting them and there should be no penalties for people who murder, rape, steal, etc, and no penalties for those who take vengeance, vigilante style on those who offend them.
Heading right for a nice peaceful eye for an eye, retaliatory society, like the islamists we are, at that rate.
The First Amendment wasn't written to give someone the right to hold the rest of society hostage to their demands. We have freedom of religion in that amendment as well. Is the government wrong for banning animal or child sacrifice? Some religions practice it, you know.
Libertarianism leads to anarchy as libertarians demand ALL restrictions be removed from whatever behavior anyone chooses to engage in, just so they can do what they want with no fear of consequences.
There's a world of difference between limited government in a moral society and limited government in an immoral society. In either case, there's a need for some government for the protection of society as a whole.
By allowing *How to* manuals to be sold to pedophiles, the government is abdicating its responsibility to protect society from deviant, destructive behavior.
Outrage makes for bad policy.
______________________________________________________
You may be right. I’m outraged that Jim Rob lets liberals like you on his site defending pedophilia.
But yet - you’re still here.
Tom O’Carroll
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thomas Victor O’Carroll (born 1945) is a dual nationality Irish/British writer,[1] activist for pedophilia and pedophilia advocacy, and a convicted distributor of child pornography.[2][3] O ‘Carroll is a former chairperson of the now defunct Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) and was at one time a prominent member of IPCE, formerly known as International Paedophile and Child Emancipation.
In 1980 O’Carroll’s book Paedophilia: The Radical Case was published, in which he advocated for the normalization of some adult-child sexual relationships. In the book, O’Carroll states his belief that each stage of the sexual relationship between an adult and child can be ‘negotiated’, with “hints and signals, verbal and non-verbal, by which each indicates to the other what is acceptable and what is not... the man might start by saying what pretty knickers the girl was wearing, and he would be far more likely to proceed to the next stage of negotiation if she seemed pleased by the remark”.[4]
In 1981 he was convicted for “conspiracy to corrupt public morals” over the contact ads section of the PIE magazine and was imprisoned. A barrister in the case, Peter Thornton, now a QC and senior circuit judge, wrote a year later in Rights, the journal of the National Council for Civil Liberties (later Liberty). Thornton was critical of the charges, which he said had been “too remote from any tangible misdemeanour” and that O’Carroll had been convicted on little evidence.[5] In 2002 O’Carroll was again in trouble with the law, this time on charges of evading a prohibition on the importation of indecent photographs of children from Qatar. He was given a nine-month sentence on the basis of three images, a sentence later quashed by the Court of Appeal which held that the trial judge had been overly influenced by O’Carroll’s campaigning. The photos were described in the ruling as having “the quality of indecency in the context in which they were taken, but were of the kind that parents might take of their children entirely innocently”.[6] At the time, O’Carroll was working on a book about the musician Michael Jackson who was later acquitted of charges brought against him regarding indecent behaviour towards a child.
Later, O’Carroll was arrested once more on suspicion of conspiring to distribute indecent photographs of children after supplying an undercover Met police officer who infiltrated the pedophile advocacy groups with a cache of child pornography obtained from his co defendant, Michael John De Clare Studdert’s vault of 50,000 pornographic images.[7][8][9] He was arraigned 1 June 2006 on child porn charges.[10][11] In September 2006, he admitted to two counts of distributing indecent images of children.[10]
In December 20, 2006, he was jailed for 2½ years at London’s Middlesex Crown Court[2][3].
O’Carroll had been a working as a press officer with the Open University in the 1970s when he was told of PIE’s existence after “coming out” as a paedophile to lesbian members of the OU Women’s Group. At that time he was editor of the OU staff newspaper Open House and had been covering a Women’s Group meeting on homosexuality.[12] His subsequent activism with PIE cost him his job there following a blaze of adverse publicity.[13]
O’Carroll was invited in 2000 to speak at the annual meeting in Paris of the International Academy of Sex Research by sexologist Richard Green who also had included O’Carroll’s book as recommended reading for his criminology students at Cambridge University.[14] In 2003 he was a panellist in the TV discussion programme After Dark, chaired by Baroness Helena Kennedy QC. Fellow participant Esther Rantzen proposed on the basis of his views that O’Carroll should be committed to a mental hospital.[15]
You may be right. I’m outraged that Jim Rob lets liberals like you on his site defending pedophilia.
I'm not defending pedophilia, I'm arguing that we should be careful about what powers we give to government.
You object to pedophilia. So do I. You believe that individuals who abuse children should be jailed, or worse. So do I.
But we're talking about a book, not a sexual act upon a child. Writing or publishing or even reading the book didn't harm a child.
Arguments against allowing the book to be published fall into two categories: 1, you find it distasteful, or 2, it may influence individuals to commit crimes they otherwise woudln't have.
As for argument 1, I think it's very bad policy to allow the government the authority to restrict what can be published based on what some group, or even a majority, finds distasteful. As I said in an earlier post, there are a good many folks who are just as sickened by the idea that there are rednecks running around fondling guns as you or I are at the idea that there are perverts abusing children. That you or I or they don't approve of the topic is not sufficient reason to allow the government to ban the publishing of books on the subject.
As for argument 2, it doesn't really matter what the book is, there's some nut out there who'll be influenced by it in a sick and twisted way. There are nuts who blow up federal buildings. Should we ban all books on making explosives? Should we ban all books involving militia groups fighting against an oppressive federal government?
There have been nuts who committed terrible crimes who claimed to have been influenced by "Catcher in the Rye", the Beatles' "Helter Skelter", by Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land", by Robert Altman's "Taxi Driver". To allow the government to ban a book based on concerns that it might someday influence somebody to do something is to allow the government to ban anything.
I'm as outraged by pedophilia as you are. But to try to eliminate it by banning books makes as much sense as trying to eliminate violence by banning guns.
The focus should be on the criminals - the individuals who commit crimes against children. Not against book publishers.
The idea that the Constitution’s freedom of speech protection should cover every single filth is not historical, nor was it intended by the framers or signers of the Constitution, nor generations of Constitutional scholars. Only because of the commie-founded ACLU and porn producers such as Larry Flynt (a real prince among men...) did the leftist SCOTUS force pornography on every state.
Your argument that “if we disallow “Pedophilia for Dummies” than books about guns will be banned too” is not only ill informed and irrational, it’s a tacit promotion of evil.
If you think pedophilia is distasteful, what does it take to rise to the level of annoying?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.