I was on Twitter, as I usually am, and saw someone RT a link to a book being sold on Amazon. The book is called: The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure and its description says:
This is my attempt to make pedophile situations safer for those juveniles that find themselves involved in them, by establishing certian rules for these adults to follow. 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 sentences should they ever be caught.
My first reaction was that of revulsion and I not only RT the link with a “I have no words” attached to it, I also wrote and I admit it, without thinking about what I was saying:
Seriously @Amazon? YOU NEED TO REMOVE THIS FROM YOUR SITE http://amzn.to/9SKcJi
Which is of course an attempt at book banning.
Needless to say, madness ensued and we got hundreds of @ replies who shared the feelings of disgust and who retweeted the request to pull the book off Amazon.
There were also quite a few replies who questioned the request on the grounds that censorship should never be encouraged even if the content of a book is disgusting and reprehensible. The ensuing conversation was not only interesting but also eye opening. Because I have always, always seen myself as someone who would never EVER condone book banning or censorship on any grounds, there I was facing a very uncomfortable truth about myself: a line I never ever thought I would cross and yet I did, in a heartbeat.
And it is something REALLY hard for me to reconcile with. On one hand, I think that Amazon should be able to sell the book, even in its incredibly bad taste (to put it very mildly). Because the problem is that objecting to the book based on content is dangerous ground and it sets a precedent. Amazon isn’t an arbiter of taste. They aren’t judging and vetting everything; they simply are a platform. If we start saying certain books can’t be sold because of their content, why wouldn’t people be able to ban books about homosexuality, for example? Because to some people, it’s unnatural and disgusting and morally reprehensible, just like this book is to me.
On the other hand, I consider this book to be not only offensive but also criminally so. It says right there in the description itself: it teaches people to get around doing something that is against the law. And against children. How can I not see red when I read this? How can I not want to remove this book from the shelves and deny its very existence?
And here is yet another problem: I have not actually read the book in question, only its description of content. I am doing exactly what I MOST hate about book banners who want to discuss without even having the FULL information on what they want to ban.
This book is NOT pretty. But neither is my reaction to it.
Loading ...
Aiding child rape/abuse/porn is reprehensible and should be BANNED. Actually, it already is banned in America.
To think for a second that we shouldn’t “ban” child rape/abuse/porn is perverted and sick.
You have been deleted from my favorites.
Interesting post. I have several thoughts about all of this. First of all, our right to freedom of speech IS limited in certain situations (one cannot yell “Fire” in a crowded theater for example, nor can we make terrorist threats against others, whether that be verbally or in writing)…and so supporting a removal of a book from Amazon because its content includes illegal acts (and how to get around prosecution…or in the author’s words: “get a lighter sentence” for a crime)is not something I think anyone should be apologizing for.
I have one HUGE problem with this book – that it appears to make pedophile sound “normal”…that somehow, wishing to have sex (and actually having sex) with a child is somehow okay. Having worked with victims of child sexual abuse, I have a very, very low tolerance for this type of crime. And it is a crime, despite how the author twists his words to make it sound “normal.” I don’t support book banning just because someone has a moral objection to the content of a book – but this book goes beyond that…it supports criminal acts against children.
I’m glad Amazon removed it from their shelves…and I hope the authorities decide to investigate its author who apparently not only has been forcibly committed to a mental institution at one time, but who also did not deny (at first) having committed sexual acts with children as an adult.
I also should add to my comment above – I am not a member of the “radical right”…in fact, my political affiliation is Democrat and I have always been fairly socially liberal when it comes to a person’s rights…I draw the line when someone’s behavior is criminal, especially when the criminal act involves children.
99% of the time, I am adamantly against banning or restricting books but to me this is SO vile an exception can and should be made. This isn’t the same as saying a book offends me so no one can read it. And it’s not like this book is about growing your own marijuana plants. This is about committing and evading punishment for sexual crimes against children. It’s not even banning. He can still produce and sell it. But Amazon shouldn’t enable him to distribute and profit from it period.
[...] So THAT was a surprise. But not as surprising as being caught on a shit storm of my own making. On Thursday I was minding my own business on Twitter, then I got wind of this really nasty book being sold on Amazon (a manual on how to be a better paedophile) and without thinking I tweeted that Amazon should remove the book from its site and then all of a sudden BOOM, I am a Book Banner. I then wrote a post about that, examining my reaction, trying to come to terms with it. It is now one of our top posts in terms of hits and the comments are AWESOME, the discussion is fascinating and I love how people were thoughtful and respectful when discussing the limits (or not) of free speech. It is well worth a read. [...]
So are books that tell you how to grow pot on your balcony or how to cover up your tracks on the internet.
That’s not on the same scale, given, but the same basic rules apply.
However, Amazon is age free platform and should therefore by rights not openly sell or market anything that isn’t suitable for minors. An age rating for books would certainly be needed, that and an FBI auto tracking of everybody who bought this book.
That’s not the same scale, though I hazard to say that you needn’d
To everyone who wants the purchase of this book monitored by the FBI – are you saying that it’s ok for the FBI to monitor you as well? Because while the dissolution of rights always starts off sounding very reasonable, “Lets watch known criminals to be sure they don’t commit any more crimes,” it eventually becomes, “Lets watch everyone to be sure they don’t commit any crimes.”
In your broad statements about criminals and safety you have considered those people who purchased in order to determine what the book was really about, and in so doing provide some truth and context for the public? Are these people automatically criminals who should be monitored by the government?
Because if you are saying that the entire Bill of Rights is less important then your personal safety, I would ask that you take some responsibility for yourself rather then trying to get the government to take responsibility for you.
We shouldn’t forget that absolute power corrupts absolutely – and in giving the government the power to take away your rights, you provide the means of their corruption. You ultimately become less safe because now you have two enemies to worry about – the original bad guy, and the government.
You may be willing to give up your rights for the illusion of safety but I’m not. The Government CANNOT prevent crime – they can only punish those who commit crime after it’s done. The Government cannot keep you safe.
The world is inherently unsafe. People all over the world will die today in order to secure freedoms for themselves and take freedoms away from others. We speak easily here because our battles were fought long ago and we have grown accustomed to our rights and take them for granted.
It sounds like many of you would throw away your right to discuss these issues in the name of safety while others die to protect their right to choose their religion, and practice how they see fit.
Am I misunderstanding you?