Daily Diapers, Amazon.Com And Censorship

[Dougie]

Anyone who acts out sexual fantasies with children, or abuse them need to be shot. One bullet to the head will work.

[Guest]

So let me get this strait, they still print books? and people that are no longer in school read them?

[Repaid1]

Apparently my news station is better than you guys. They had the Author on there and interviewed him. The also stated from the beginning that this was a Ebook, and that Amazon originally posted the message about censorship ect. Then that night had pulled the plug on the book. At the time before hitting the press only one person had bought it, then after hitting main stream 300 had been sold before it was pulled. The Author was a convicted child molester and tried to word his way out of the whole thing trying to make light of the fact that the book was there to help others such as himself learn to cope and adjust to being a pedophile. He also commented that while others think it's all about sex with children that isn't always the case. The whole thing disgusted me so I didn't keep up with it, but it was several days ago that Amazon pulled the thing off their site, and if I remember correctly it was on there for 2 weeks before anyone go wind of it and then only with one sale. So anyway...Nothing to see here...or there as it were!

[Valisia]

Lol DD I don't know whats worth about it. The sign or thats its a measly 2.98

On a side note I wonder if that flat shovel there is an attachment for the 11 foot pole >.>

[Bettypooh]

In allowing that book, if it is as stated, to be sold, Amizon makes itself an accessory to criminal behavior. Nobody has a right to facilitate illegal activity So the governments would be within their rights to prohibit Amazon from selling that book. The rules of Censorship and free discourse do not apply to illegal activities; usually these are connected to force or fraud, because they promote things that are already illegal

I just want to point out something here which you may not have considered-

Both the Bible and the Koran tell you to stone certain people to death- these activities are illegal and now considered wrongful So should the people who print and sell those books also be accessories to those murders when they occur? I'm not trying to start a religion war, just pointing out one line of logic about the subject of censorship and where allowing it could easily lead to. The very same logic could be applied to a textbook about the safe manufacture of dynamite Maybe now you see why I am so torn about the subject of censorship- you can't prove intent and you can't blame someone for what someone else does with information they got from them It's like killing the messenger for the message they gave to say that this book should be banned solely because of it's content Let the people as a whole make these decisions for themselves and let them express their displeasure by whatever other legal means they wish- letters, emails, boycotts, whatever- but don't call for a ban on books or information just because of their content or it will bite you and me in the butt in ways you didn't see

Bettypooh

[Kari]

Well, isn't that just great! so basically any pervert, maniac, psychopath or other POS at the bottom of the heap can write a %$#@! ebook and sell the thing on the internet....lovely.

maybe the Mayan 2012 calender thing is true and that really will be the end of the world..it's already screaming at us with this kind of garbage.

sheesh

Please don't be so critical on us "perverts, maniacs, and psychopaths"

Some of us try to wake up and do the right thing everyday.

And not make OUR problems, others problems.

Sometimes, I will do well for a long time.

And sometimes I fall short for any number of reasons...

I just don't think clearly much of the time anymore.

And I often wonder how many more years I can live alone, drive, etc. (I am only 43)

Even with my higher than average IQ score.

Sometimes, the idea of standing on my second floor deck in just a diaper and t-shirt sounds so liberating.

But I have to remember that it is just not kewl to do to others. End of story.

[Repaid1]

Please don't be so critical on us "perverts, maniacs, and psychopaths"

Some of us try to wake up and do the right thing everyday.

And not make OUR problems, others problems.

Sometimes, I will do well for a long time.

And sometimes I fall short for any number of reasons...

I just don't think clearly much of the time anymore.

And I often wonder how many more years I can live alone, drive, etc. (I am only 43)

Even with my higher than average IQ score.

Sometimes, the idea of standing on my second floor deck in just a diaper and t-shirt sounds so liberating.

But I have to remember that it is just not kewl to do to others. End of story.

Update your Real Age in your profile...

[square_duck]

This is a kind of follow up on what Repaid1 said. The story showed up on earthlink news, if the links doesnt work, I CC'd the story here as well.....if it still matters... I still think this guy is totally loony tunes

http://my.earthlink.net/article/bus?guid=20101112/606a2220-5f30-4d44-b764-63c38b21a2e4

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Colo police investigate, protect pedophilia author

KRISTEN WYATT

From Associated Press

November 12, 2010 1:58 PM EST

DENVER (AP) — Police are investigating whether the author of a guide for pedophiles did anything illegal even as they try to protect him from a threat posted on a local website.

Phillip Ray Greaves II of Pueblo has drawn national attention because his self-published book for sale on Amazon offers advice to pedophiles on how to make a sexual encounter with a child as safe as possible.

Pueblo police heard news reports about the book and went to Greaves' home Thursday morning to interview him. Pueblo Detective Dustin Taylor described Greaves as cooperative and said he gave detectives a copy of the book when they asked for one.

"He was just a normal man. He didn't seem unnerved by us being there," Taylor said.

Police told Greaves that he'd been threatened on a local website and that they would monitor his home for his safety. Taylor said the author didn't seem fearful. Police would not elaborate on the threat, and the message was removed from the website, Taylor said.

Greaves, 47, has no criminal record and is not a registered sex offender, Taylor said. Taylor said authorities kept the book but don't expect criminal charges at this point.

"At this point we're still reviewing it, though there's still no indication of any crime being committed," Taylor said.

The book, "The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: a Child-lover's Code of Conduct," includes first-person descriptions of such encounters, purportedly written from a child's point of view.

Greaves argues that pedophiles are misunderstood, as the word literally means to love a child. He adds that it is only a crime to act on sexual impulses toward children, and offers advice that purportedly allows pedophiles to abide by the law.

Greaves also self-published other books on Amazon and was a frequent writer to the Pueblo Chieftain editorial page. His letters to the editor were mostly about local matters and the role of government. Last month, Greaves wrote a letter calling for criminal fines to go to "randomly selected charities" instead of the government.

Amazon has declined comment to The Associated Press. Greaves also declined an interview but told The Smoking Gun website on Wednesday that he suffers from depression and that he had sexual contact with children while still a child himself.

The website said that when asked if he had engaged in sexual acts with children as an adult, Greaves first said "could have" before saying that he hadn't. He also said he suffered a mental collapse about three years ago while working as a nursing home aide.

Greaves said he had only sold one book and insisted it doesn't advocate for adults to harm children.

"The best advice I can give a pedophile is, accept that masturbation is your best friend," Greaves told The Smoking Gun.

Ugh!

[KittenAB]

http://www.amazon.com/Jeffrey-Dahmer-Story-American-Nightmare/dp/0312928408 Enough said.

[underwhere]

As despicable as it sounds like this guy is, as despicable as pedophilia is, I have a very hard time justifying censorship of any sort. I particularly find it fascinating that the call for censorship always focuses around ideas or thoughts or actions that people do not approve of.

People have died, even in "the land of the free", simply for expressing a point of view. One very prominent example of this is when workers were trying to organize in Haymarket Square in Chicago, IL. Although the people who were hung were later exonerated for crimes (which they never committed in the first place), their act of courage in standing up to their constitutional rights as Americans to engage in both freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, like many before and since just in the workers' rights movement alone, is worthy of praise.

Similarly, the call for censorship is almost always promulgated by the people in power. Every person in the USA (and possibly elsewhere, but I am less familiar with legalities elsewhere) may have the right to express whatever thoughts, feelings, and ideas they want, but the second you try to "take on the big guys", bad things have a tendency to happen. An example in my local headlines of how people helping the little guys against big business, and attacking the government process which looks out for big business, involved a city counselor of Boston by the name of Chuck Turner. I happen to think he was framed, as do a lot of other people. He probably made a few mistakes also, but it is truly amazing to watch what happens when your Constitutional right to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly happen to piss off some very powerful and wealthy people.

Books, movies, and other expressions of thought have been routinely banned, even in a country which prides itself on freedom. (Salt of the Earth was one such example, because the ideas expressed in the film, if carried to the natural conclusion, could have severely changed the nature of the economy. It is interesting also that a number of pretty serious mining accidents have occurred since the creation of that film, and many of the problems which the film addressed, particularly regarding safety, have still never been implemented. Recent mining accidents in Chile and the USA ought to make that point pretty clear.) What we really have is freedom for those with the economic means to do so to crush everybody else in the process of achieving even more wealth for themselves. Not all wealthy people are evil, and many are not aware of how many people they had to crush to get to the top. But once you get to the top, it becomes a lot easier to crush thoughts and ideas that you don't like.

My real point here is that expression of any sort MUST be allowed (provided that no actual people are involuntarily harmed in the process), because there is always somebody willing to put it down for some reason or another. As a result, I am not willing to go down the slippery slope of deciding what is ok and what is not ok to publish, or what is ok and what is not ok to say. If we disagree with something, even as vile as child pornography or sexual crimes against children, of course we should express our displeasure, and I sincerely hope that everybody will do so. I am just not willing to allow somebody to tell me how I can choose to express myself, and by the same logic, I refuse to judge as unworthy any other person's desire to express his or her self in a manner I happen to disagree with. You can not have freedom if that only means "freedom to do only what I want you to do." I will protest all of the way against expressions I think are wrong, but I will protest equally as strongly for the right of those expressions to be made in the first place, such as occurred in the historical case which took place in Skokie, IL.

I think Amazon made a mistake in pulling the book and bowing to both media and public pressure. A truly principled business, particularly one selling books, should not be in the business of censoring ideas or works of art. Would you want to ban a book that claimed the Holocaust never happened? Several have been written, and all have received a great degree of notoriety, but to ban the expression of ideas just because you disagree with them? If people wish to do that themselves, they are free to not buy the merchandise. Let the market bear that responsibility. Keep the government, business and other very powerful corporate interests out of the censorship game. No censorship is more effective than self-censorship.

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

Your 20,000 word essay was all for naught. This is not censorship. AS I EXPLAINED EARLIER. This book, if it is as presented, is in support of an illegal activity, not merely a question of dispicableness. Now if you want to go on record as supporting the legalization of Pedophilia then do it here and do it now, part of which would be explaining how Pedophilia is not child abuse, Go ahead, make my day.

[Little Faerie]

Your 20,000 word essay was all for naught. This is not censorship. AS I EXPLAINED EARLIER. This book, if it is as presented, is in support of an illegal activity, not merely a question of dispicableness. Now if you want to go on record as supporting the legalization of Pedophilia then do it here and do it now, part of which would be explaining how Pedophilia is not child abuse, Go ahead, make my day.

Christine, none of us supports the legalization of paedophilia. Nor has anyone said they did. Every one of us finds it horrible and disgusting. But, it only becomes abuse when a pedophile actually exploits (as in looks at or supports child porn, etcetera), interacts inappropriately, or molests a child. Those who merely think or fantasize about it and NEVER ACT ON IT, have not done anything illegal, and have not abused a child. The philia or "fetish" itself does not constitute child abuse, until acted upon. Yes, their thoughts are morally wrong and reprehensible, but if they do not act upon them in any way, there is no crime committed. Paedophilia is only abuse when desires are acted upon, the simple desire itself does not qualify as such. It is not a crime to think about anything, no matter how terrible. It is only a crime when you DO an illegal activity you thought about.

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

What problem do you have with what I wrote? My point was that since the publication is in support of an illegal ACTIVITY, then prohibiting the publication or distribution of it is not censorship

"Censorship" has two meanings, one is politcal (In the Aristotelian meaning of Politics as the area of philosopjy dealing with governence) and the other is colloquial

When I wrote that to call the prohibition of that publication censorship, Pedophilia would have to be a legal activity. Since it is not, then the only other alternative would be to support the legalization of Pedophilia. You cannot, in reason hold that Pedophilic activity ought to be illegal but material catering to that activity be legal

It is also wrong to posit that thoughts: ANY thoughts are "morally wrong". There is no rational ethical system that includes the content of thoughts in the moral calculus since thoughts come involuntarily, only actions are subject to moral scrutiny. Although a moral argument can be made about "entertaining [continuing and elaborating on] such thoughts because there is an element of choice

[Repaid1]

Well I assume nobody has read this "book" as such we only have the report of it. As it stands I see no mention of Illegal activity and from what I gather it wasn't criminal at this point. I'm certainly not sticking up for the guy, but as it stands facts are facts. This guy didn't break the law, not before, not now.

Greaves, 47, has no criminal record and is not a registered sex offender, Taylor said. Taylor said authorities kept the book but don't expect criminal charges at this point.

"At this point we're still reviewing it, though there's still no indication of any crime being committed," Taylor said.

The book, "The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: a Child-lover's Code of Conduct," includes first-person descriptions of such encounters, purportedly written from a child's point of view.

Greaves argues that pedophiles are misunderstood, as the word literally means to love a child. He adds that it is only a crime to act on sexual impulses toward children, and offers advice that purportedly allows pedophiles to abide by the law.

So basically as I have read and heard the book is to help these people help themselves with this affliction as it were, not a guide on how to be a child molester. It seems once again the media has blown this out of proportion. Not that it didn't have to be brought up to the public, but...well you get the just of it.

BTW paedophilia is actually spelled pedophilia It still gives me the ebie jeebies to just say it.

[underwhere]

Your 20,000 word essay was all for naught. This is not censorship. AS I EXPLAINED EARLIER. This book, if it is as presented, is in support of an illegal activity, not merely a question of dispicableness. Now if you want to go on record as supporting the legalization of Pedophilia then do it here and do it now, part of which would be explaining how Pedophilia is not child abuse, Go ahead, make my day.

In some jurisdictions, online gambling is an illegal activity. Does that mean that all books about online gambling should be banned because, in some places, the activity itself about which the books are written is illegal? What if I buy such a book where it is a legal activity and attempt to resell the same book in a locality where the activity is illegal?

What about books which describe a murder? Should we ban all murder mysteries or nonfiction work about murders from the past simply because committing murder is illegal?

Where does one draw the line here?

[Little Faerie]

Repaid, either spelling is acceptable and both are found in the dictionary . The ae combination is actually a singular character which my keyboard refuses to do . And at this point, I'm done debating all parts of the topic, because everybody thinks they are right, and I'm not going to argue with people who seem to do so for the sake of argument . Nobody wins. It's pointless and I'm bored of discussing it. See y'all in the next thread.

[Yvhuce]

I hope Amazon learns from this and institutes a review policy...

I also hope that whoever put that book (or e-book or whatever) out there is tracked down, and "disappeared". For those not familiar with conspiracy nut terminology, it implies that a person is taken (usually by the CIA) and tortured to death and that their body is disposed of in such a way as that it could never again be recognized as human remains...

There are limits to freedoms. Points at which those freedoms become harmful to others, or break the rules by which our society needs to abide in order to maintain stability. Defending whoever made this abomination is no different than defending a cult leader who inspires their followers to kill others, or themselves. Or someone who takes their gun and starts shooting up the town.

To those raging against censorship: Shame on you. You've become pawns... Without some forms of censorship, we would have no control over what we're essentially forced to be subjected to. Dig as far as you need to into the depths of your hearts and minds and imagine something that disgusts you to the very core of your being. Now, imagine having to deal with that being forced into your daily life, many times every day, because your crusade against censorship means that you can't rid yourself of its prevalence, regardless of how horrible it is... Is that really something you want? Is someone else's freedom of expression worth so much that you're willing to give up your own freedom of privacy so that they can force this horror upon you whenever they want? If you answer "yes", then I advise you to seek a good shrink. And if you're already seeing a shrink, find a better one...

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

This is why I worote things like "if it is as we understand [or appears]"

Murder mysteries or fact based crime-anatiomy are either fiction or about historical acts about whcih there is very little confusion.

The use of "Love and Pleasure", espeically in the context of Pedophilia can be viewed by reasonable persons as sexually relevant and can be treated with suspicion by the authorities. It is certainly provocative, and therefore provokes and the seriousness with which the subject matter is treated demands a response, if for no other reason, clarity

If it is intended as therapeutic, then it belongs outside the public purview as a specialty item

You can be booked on Suspicion and also criminal intent

There is alos common sense. If you press the envelope, it often presses back, especially in a highly charged area, so the guy certainly deserves a klunk on the head for: Pick one : 1) stupidity 2) having his head up his ass or 3) deliberate provocation. Read, in all three cases, DUMB and deserves no sympathy and if he gets rousted by the authorities, well, if you pull the cat's tail and it claws you, my gums bleed for you; you got what you deserve. If you have the right to be dumb you also have the right to take what you get for it. In the case of a publication, reasonable persons can presume that all involved weree 1) grownups, 2) sane and 3) know the lay of the land. If you hear hoofbeats do you think of horses or zebras? If we have to parse everything we come to down to the last nanobyte, we will be so busy parsing nanobytes that we will never get to the microbyte,, centibyte or even decibyte and the world will have been, gone and come around for a second round before we even wonder about the first word of the warning. It is calle "paralysis by analysis".

Context also plays a big part. The famous Clintonism "It all depends on what 'is' is" was said in a legal context and too often taken out of that context.

Another concept, and this is what I am thinking of is "accessory" to a crime. Again the question is one of reasonability for suspicion. I imagine that one can take THE THREE LITTLE PIGS and use it as part of a criminal conspiracy. but that is farfetched, but if you have a HANDBOOK TO BLOW UP BUILDINGS IN THE NAME OF ALLAH AND WHY YOU SHOULD as a serious publication and it is as it seems with detailed instructions to procure materials, construction and use of IED's, and find it in the posession of Al Q'Boum and Abdul Hasan Atta-Toud, then what? Posession of burglary tools is an arrestable offense (which is pretty good because I could not tell a burglary tool ffrom an avant-garde tiara).

Many NAMBLA publications also had first-person testimony from children

So, with all of this in mind and under the aegis of "if it looks like, walks like and quacks like a duck, guess what: It is a freaking duck and not a bleeping canary", I stand on my claim that if this item is as we understand, or understood, it to be, then there is no censorship involved here. If it is not, well someobody pulled the cat's tail and got the mauling they deserve

Show me where I am wrong without being overly technical since I am dealing in the context of a reasonable and reasonably informed lay person

[Total Trash]

Another concept, and this is what I am thinking of is "accessory" to a crime. Again the question is one of reasonability for suspicion. I imagine that one can take THE THREE LITTLE PIGS and use it as part of a criminal conspiracy. but that is farfetched, but if you have a HANDBOOK TO BLOW UP BUILDINGS IN THE NAME OF ALLAH AND WHY YOU SHOULD as a serious publication and it is as it seems with detailed instructions to procure materials, construction and use of IED's, and find it in the posession of Al Q'Boum and Abdul Hasan Atta-Toud, then what?

http://www.amazon.com/Anarchist-Cookbook-William-Powell/dp/0974458902

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

Either that book, or some like it, have been around forever. Paladin Press is known for that. However, they were never in conjunction with illegal activities but came around during "apocolyptic" crises when it was percieved that the government was threatening our freedom or economic soundness and sold as defensive or retaliatory against a dictatroship, or were viewed as curiosities

The fact is, that prior to the Mau Mau. terrorism was practiced against targets (property) and not persons. The old IRA used to clear out a place that was to be bombed when the British occupied all of Ireland. It was African, Middle Eastern and Marxist terrorists that targetted civilian peoples. Bill Ayers made it a point to do as much as he could so that his bombings did not take lives. When the Jews attacked the King David hotel, it was being used to quarter soldiers during the Israeli war of independence. Terrorism has always been part of War and accepted as such, as in the case of the Dolittle raid on Tokyo. The only reaosn that the attack on Pearl Harbor was a "sneak attack" was that the full text of the Japanese document was not rendered in English in time. Many Japanese fighter pilots on that raid had severe misgivings about the way it went, following a "script" and anticipated a stiff resistance, but that operation was underway before the failure to render the document into Engiish was known and the participants could not be recalled or the operation cancelled. As to the Japanise atrocities, those were real and the result of a severely distorted implementation of the Samurai Code by those who did not understand it at all.

[Marcuss]

wile i think this book is a bad idea and i would not support any type of pedophilia and wish the worst things on anyone who would. Also if i had a store i would not sell that. But it can not be censored. All arguments for censoring anything work both ways. For example ban the bible it has caused more violence death dismay depression and pain than any other book that has been or probably will be.

on a side note it would be nice if everyone who bought that book had their names and addresses accidentally leaked to the government.

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

What basically illegal activity is the Bible connected with other than in the hands of a few universally acknowledged lunatics or the like? That constitutes a MISUSE of the Bible (and I am atheistic in my beliefs and worldview). The last I knew, Judaism and Christianity were legal

For the third time banning something that is predictably part and parcel of illegal activity is NOT censorship

If you do noth think governemtn action is called for, why do you want the names of those buying the book to be "leaked" to, (sneakily given to) the government? If there is nothing actionable about the book, then there is nothing actionable about buying it or owning it or reading it.

Seems to me you want it both ways. When that is done knowingly, it is hypocrisy, if done not knowingly then it is self-ignorance and dangerous and should be addressed. What if the person buying, owning or reading it is doing so as part of a legitimate psychological activity such as cataloguing Pedophilic ideas or thoughts?

[Marcuss]

i do not want to start some religious argument but to clarify what i meant is the bible is said to be the word of god and more evil has been done in the name of god than anything.