Amazon pedophilia author arrested

1. 88

   Stacie Lposted 13 years ago

   ST. PETERSBURG, Florida — Florida officials filed an obscenity charge Monday against the author of a self-published how-to guide for pedophiles that was yanked from Amazon.com last month after it generated online outrage .
   
   Polk County sheriff's deputies arrested Philip Ray Greaves II hundreds of miles away from Florida at his home in Pueblo, Colorado, and charged him with violating Florida's obscenity law.
   
   Polk Sheriff Grady Judd said his office was able to arrest Greaves on Florida charges because Greaves sold and mailed his book, "The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: a Child-lover's Code of Conduct," directly to undercover Polk deputies. Judd says Greaves even signed the book.
   continued....http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40754159/ns/technology_and_science-security

   replyreport
   1. 79

      Tom Cornettposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I wonder how many books sold?  The police should have more patience.  It could have been a good method to locate more pedophiles and lifted the rocks they hide under.
      Freedom of Speech must be protected....even for idiots.

      replyreport
2. 67

   goldenpathposted 13 years ago

   Good!  Sick behavior like this must be met swiftly and with resolute.

   replyreport
3. 88

   Stacie Lposted 13 years ago

   frankly I'm surprised it took so long.I reported this a while ago...

   replyreport
4. 0

   Stevennix2001posted 13 years ago

   If my memory serves me correctly, weren't there a lot of hubbers on here that supported and condoned the author selling this book online?  I could be wrong, but I remember it was a popular forum on here for a while.

   replyreport
   1. 85

      rebekahELLEposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      yes, here is the thread.
      http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/59061
      
      frankly, I can't understand any parent who doesn't have a problem with a book published expressly for pedophiles instructing them with descriptions of how to 'rape' a child, which is what it is.
      let's hope it's never your child.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Stevennix2001posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Actually, I don't have a child, but thanks for the concern and the link to the thread that i was referring to...

         replyreport
         1. 85

            rebekahELLEposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I was simply making a statement to any parent. It wasn't directed to you.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Stevennix2001posted 13 years agoin reply to this

               okay. I gotcha.

               replyreport
      2. 86

         IzzyMposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Exactly. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech and everything to do with child safety which if all pedophiles were taken out of society the minute they offend, would not be a problem.
         These people, men mostly, do not have the right to live amongst normal people, far less have the right to publish books about their experiences or whatever exactly this guy wrote!

         replyreport
5. 70

   sunforgedposted 13 years ago

   Hubbers were not supporting or condoning this specific authors book or beliefs they were supporting the sanctity of free speech..
   
   "They came first for the Communists,
   and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
   
   Then they came for the trade unionists,
   and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
   
   Then they came for the Jews,
   and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
   
   Then they came for me
   and by that time no one was left to speak up."
   
   I would personally deliver a vicious beating to the author of the book but I wouldnt support censorship

   replyreport
   1. 68

      Bill Manningposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with you Sunforged. The problem I have with this charge is that, basically, they are saying the TEXT is obscene. There are no pictures in the book of kids I assume.
      
      So that means that they are saying they can charge him with writing obscene text. I see that as very scary.
      
      How many other thousands of books are out there that talk about bondage, strange fetishes and so on. Can anyone now say "I find that obscene so I'm going to have you arrested"?? 
      
      Hell, the bible has obscene language too, can I sue or arrest anyone that reads it or prints one? I don't think they can make this charge stick, and I hope they can't.
      
      However I am not defending this guy in any way, just they rights we all have.

      replyreport
      1. 74

         Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         He doesnt have THAT right.

         replyreport
   2. 0

      Stevennix2001posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Well Sunforged, you do offer a valid point, and I appreciate you taking the time to enlighten me on the subject. Normally, I wouldn't support censorship either, as I think it can sometimes blind us to the truth at hand.  However, I don't know if a "How to" book on pedophilia is exactly a smart idea to be selling online; particularly in the United States.  The reason why I say that is this, I remember watching a documentary once, where it was shown that statistically car thieves often derive new techniques on how to steal a car from movies.  Yes, I'm quite serious.  Therefore, wouldn't it stand to reason that pedophiles would learn how to become better pedophiles and/or a person would learn to become one themselves with the information this book possibly presents. 
      
      Not that I'm suggesting anything, but it wouldn't surprise me if it did....

      replyreport
6. 0

   Helpful Hannaposted 13 years ago

   Disgusting!

   replyreport
7. 65

   PaulaHenry1posted 13 years ago

   Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, you cannot be punished for writing a book about how to....it is the actual act that gets you in trouble. It's a shame that Amazon agreed to sell this item as it may affect the reputation.

   replyreport
8. 84

   psycheskinnerposted 13 years ago

   ...with a slight undercurrent of 'if you support free speech you don't love your children'.

   replyreport
9. 78

   nell79posted 13 years ago

   Teaching others how to do an illegal activity that infringes on the rights of a more helpless human being isn't a right that should be upheld. It's not even close to being the same thing as someone writing about sexual fetishes between consenting adults. It's not the same thing as standing up for a person's rights to be whatever color, nationality, religion, or other such things. This is a case where the good of the many trump the so-called free speech of a pervert pushing an illegal, harmful agenda.
   
   It's our job to make sure we protect the rights of the children too. I could care less about the free speech of a pedophile teaching others how to rape our babies. Just my two cents.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Stevennix2001posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah, I don't disagree with you there, as I don't think I could've said it better myself.  Plus, it kind of makes me wonder for those same people using the free speech logic to support the author, then my only question to them is would you support a "how to" book on something like "How to be a terrorist?" or "how to rape and/or blackmail a person?"  After all, if your going to argue to the death that this author has constitutional rights to have this book published then by default, you should no problems with the other titles I just mentioned.  Sure, you may not like the authors, but you'd be supporting them because it's free speech, remember? 

      replyreport
      1. 86

         IzzyMposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I'd sooner grant freedom of speech rights to the would-be terrorist or the would-be rapist, than allow the publication of a book which infringes the rights of children.
         Adults, no matter what color or creed can deal with other adults. Childrens' only defense is us. And we are the adults of this world. They are the future - they must be our priority, even if they in turn grow up to become terrorists or worse.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Stevennix2001posted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Izzy, relax. I'm on your side of this argument, as I agree with you whole heartedly.  I think the problem is from reading the majority of statements on the other forum, where many hubbers supported this author's free speech right, fail to understand just how damaging this book can actually be.  Sure, many argue saying how murder depicted in novels are technically the same thing.  However, what they fail to realize is that a "how to" book is vastly different from that of a novel.  For one, unless your a giant moron, you know what your reading in a novel is mostly fiction.  Hell, even books based on real life stories are exaggerated a bit, for dramatic effect (unless you want to bring up biographies).  Therefore, most people know not to take those books seriously.
            
            However, a "how to" book is vastly different as it's exactly what the title implies..."how to (insert whatever action here)"  As I said before, statistics show that people often learn how to steal cars from movies.  Therefore, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to fathom a person learning and using these techniques, depicted by the author, to maliciously harm children as they see fit.

            replyreport
      2. 70

         sunforgedposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Your example is exactly the point of the quote I posted.
         
         You can easily list a bunch of topics that seemingly should be banned. Someone else can add a few more, and then someone else can add a few more.
         
         Many believe we should never allow that ball to start rolling.
         
         
         
         Apparently, you either understand the inviolate nature of free speech or you dont
         
         3 great examples:
         
         If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.  ~Noam Chomsky
         
         I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.  ~Voltaire
         
         
         The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it.  If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth:  if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.  ~John Stuart Mill
         
         Every fiber of my being tingles with a desire to tear the authors scumbag head from his body but that is unrelated to the principle of free speech or expression.
         
         (apparently, I value speech more than non-violence)
         
         Its actually a shame that Americans tend to lack an understanding of why certain rights should be "inalienable"

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Stevennix2001posted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Then does that mean if a guy kills another person, then isn't that technically freedom of expression?   I mean if your going to say that this guy who wrote "How to be a pedophile" is using his constitutional rights of freedom of speech, then by default, you have to say a guy who's a mass murderer is merely exercising his right to freedom of expression.  As he's only exercising his severe anger on that poor victim, am i right?   
            
            edit:  the reality is sunforged, this issue has NOTHING to do with anyone's right to free speech, as it has more to do with the reality of telling people how to do something that's highly illegal.  To say otherwise is hypocritical and morally unjust.

            replyreport
            1. 70

               sunforgedposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Unfortunately, your apparently just not cut out for legal/ethical dialectic.
               
               Your examples are so far from any semblance of reason or logic that I am left without response. (but, no that is not technically "expression")
               
               
               
               fortunately, I dont have to type a long drawn out response as the poster above (bworky) has nailed it.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Stevennix2001posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.  As your response only supports my theory that everyone believes only what they want to believe.  my opinion contradicts yours, then that's why you believe my responses are illogical.  However, I still respect your opinion, but I just don't agree with it.  Sorry.

                  replyreport
                  1. 70

                     sunforgedposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Not in this case.
                     
                     Everyone is in agreement that the pedophile is scum and should be removed from society in whatever legal way possible.
                     
                     I only joined in this thread to point out that some were questioning "how" this removal was happening. As you had inaccurately portrayed supporters of free speech to be supporters of the pedophile ...which is glaringly wrong.
                     
                     Now this thread has some interesting dialog about the nature of free speech.
                     
                     Your examples:
                     
                     
                     
                     were you serious? Probably not - if you were ..we wouldnt be agreeing to disagree, you would just be patently wrong.
                     
                     so what is "freedom of expression" (basic synopsis - http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrim … ession.asp)
                     
                     Would you still ask that silly question or make that silly example?
                     
                     we are not agreeing to disagree - you are making illogical associations and I was declining to respond.
                     
                     Censorship is a slippery slope - when we start to afford the right to censor speech or define obscenity then we are opening the door to the policing of our minds.
                     
                     I dont see your distinction between a non fiction"How to" and a fictional account.. it doesnt exist.
                     
                     You want "How to assassinate a president" (although that could be categorized as sedition or treason and is punishable by death IF the facts show that "action" is intended) watch any handful of movies featuring Morgan Freeman or Harrison Ford .. maybe that show "24" or perhaps an academic examination of the Lincoln Assassination or attempted assassination of Reagan?
                     
                     You want "How to rape and Murder" - Seven, 8mm ?
                     
                     You want "A pedophiles guide" ..ever hear of "Lolita"
                     
                     (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolita)

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Stevennix2001posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        I never said anyone who supported the guy was pro-pedophilia.  I just said I merely disagreed with the logic of how anyone can say a book on "How to be a pedophile" can be deemed an act of free speech.  That's all I was saying, but I apologize for not making that clearer.
                        
                        It's the logic of using free speech to support the man's right to publish the book, in the first place, is what I disagree with. I mean no ill offense by it, as I was merely stating an observation.  I know perfectly well everyone is in full agreement that this guy is a scum bag; its the argument that free speech should be confused with this issue is the thing that bothers me.
                        
                        As far as my examples goes, in regards to murder, do you honestly think I was being serious with that question?  Seriously?  I know you probably don't have a high opinion of me, but I'm not some pompous moron that would openly say that murder is part of freedom of expression, as that would be stupid and insane.  Just like saying that a man's right to freedom of speech means that he can write books about how to be a pedophile; using that logic is equally insane and stupid. That was the point of my question.  Granted, it was a bit extreme, and I apologize if you took me seriously.  However, if anyone does think I was being serious with that question, then you obviously misunderstood my point.
                        
                        To each their own, but I make it a point to never ignore the obvious.  After all, my points were no more illogical than one hubber saying that this "how to be a pedophile" book was basically the same as someone publishing a murder/mystery novel.  That's just freaking crazy and insane, as they're not the same thing.  Regardless of how you want to spin it.
                        
                        Your right, in terms of censorship. It is a slippery slope to define, and it can easily go either way.  If you censor society too much, then free speech disappears.  If you don't censor society enough, then anarchy begins as society needs rules and restrictions to keep it from turning on itself.  Where does one define the boundaries?  Where do we start?  How much freedom should we have?
                        
                        It's a very slippery slope to try to define, as I think we're both in full agreement on that.  One that even the United States often has to restructure and assess all the time.
                        
                        as far as you saying that your unable to define the distinctions, your confusing genres and different mediums here.  For one, unlike yourself, I don't associate films with reality.  As I always viewed them as stories to distract us from our daily lives.  Hell, even movies based off real life stories, are often known to be exaggerated.  Or in the case of some like "Hurricane", the production companies often make up fictional characters and events for dramatic purposes.  Therefore, anyone who makes the distinction of confusing reality to movies...then they seriously need to stop watching films.  Trust me, I like movies a lot, but you should never take them seriously up to the point where you confuse the concepts with reality. 
                        
                        In the case of books, a "how to" book is exactly what the title implies. It's an instruction manual to inform the reader how to do something.  It's the same thing as reading an instruction manual on how to program your VCR or Alarm clock.  "How to" books are made to be informative and instruct readers how to carry out the desired task the book refers to.
                        
                        A fictional novel, on the other hand, is not made for that exact purpose.  No, a fictional novel is an artistic expression by the author, as they try to elaborate and tell a story to their reader.  Serving as somewhat as an escape for the reader, from their trivial lives.  Same thing for movies.  They're made to be an expression of the director and writer's collaboration of a story to entertain it's audience.  Granted, some are marketed to be nothing more than giant media commercials like the live action "Transformers" movies.  However, there are quite a few that represent an artistic expression by the director and writer. 
                        
                        Hence, they're rights are protected by free speech, as they're doing nothing more than telling the audience/reader a story. 
                        
                        Whereas a "how to" book is designed to inform the reader on how to do something.  Not an artistic expression from the author themselves.

                        replyreport
                        1. 78

                           nell79posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           All very valid points. I don't think I could've said it any better.
                           
                           Just thought I'd pop in once more before shutting down the PC for the night. Have a good one!

                           replyreport
10. 93

    habeeposted 13 years ago

    Freedom of speech has its limits. You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, and you can't make damaging false statements about someone - slander and libel.
    
    If people want to publish SM involving ADULTS, that's fine. but these are helpless kids. What if someone wrote a book about how to assassinate the president? Would that fall under "free speech"?

    replyreport
    1. 78

       nell79posted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Very well said!

       replyreport
    2. 0

       Stevennix2001posted 13 years agoin reply to this

       exactly!

       replyreport
    3. 63

       Bworkyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Publishing a book about how to yell "Fire!" in a public theater is not illegal.  The action is illegal, talking about it is not.  That is the essence of free speech.
       
       A "how to" book, as everyone is repeatedly pointing out, does not have any slander or libel in it by definition.  Even if the book is "How to write slander without getting caught."
       
       Writing about "how to" (insert horrible action here, whether involving children or adults) should never be illegal if we want speech to truly be free.  Actions should be illegal.  There are millions of "how to commit the perfect crime" books sold all over the country (USA, since this is a USA specific issues).  Those people are not committing crime, they are writing about it.  How does putting "How to" in the title make this particular book worse than something like "Lolita"?  An individual who buys a "how to" book is no more or less responsible for their actions because they have a book about it.
       
       Obscenity laws in general make me cringe, because they are so easily based upon the generally defined "morality" of the culture in question.  100 years ago writing about an interracial couple would have been considered obscene.  A country that arrests people for writing books based upon violating "obscenity laws" is not a country with free speech.
       
       Amazon should have taken down the book.  It is in their corporate interest to refuse to sell items that violate the socially held rules of common decency.  Just because you have a right to say whatever you wish doesn't mean I have a responsibility to give you a way to say it.  I do believe that jailing that man for producing a book that violates "obscenity laws" is unethical.  If he's actually being jailed for actual crimes against children, then lock him up.  If he's writing about it, choose as an individual to refrain from helping him have a forum to say it.  Boycott his publisher (Amazon in this case) until the book is pulled.  Refuse to print his book and make him do it at home.  Refuse to sell it in your book store.
       
       I do have a child, and I find it offensive how many people rush to say that my willingness to support speech I don't agree with makes me a bad mother.  Like most sane people, I would never let a dangerous person near my daughter intentionally.  This does not mean I want to live in a police state.

       replyreport
11. 79

    LillyGrillzitposted 13 years ago

    A person has the right to speak on anything they like,
    there are times words bare grave consequences.
    In an airport, she yell bomb in jest, she spoke, but now she is under arrest.
    Alchemist cookbook, you may buy, but onto a watch list you go,
    then gun powder and bee bees he goes to buy,
    His speech is made in his actions,
    his need to use these recipes makes him dangerous to all of society.
    In a theater full, yell fire. You may speak to the top of your lungs,
    But the trampled and dead you will have at your pall.
    Free speech is here, but nothing is free.
    Make a difference for good, or for evil, a steep price we all pay

    replyreport
12. 78

    Uninvited Writerposted 13 years ago

    I was on the free speech side. I...and most of the people on that thread, had no idea exactly what the content of the book was. I am never in favour of forming a lynch mob before I know what it is all about.
    
    I agree there are limits to freedom of speech...take the Westborough Church for example. But I still believe that books are books and not the act itself. And I agree...this guy is scum

    replyreport
    1. 78

       nell79posted 13 years agoin reply to this

       His free speech right goes only so far before it tramples on the rights of other people. What makes his rights more important than our children's rights to not have perverts luring them in and then destroying their innocence? Don't they also have rights? He shouldn't be able to tutor others in the rape of a child. It's illegal. It has nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with protecting our progeny and future generations from becoming victims of a lifechanging, mind-altering, heinous crime.

       replyreport
       1. 74

          Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Yep what I said ,only you said it so much better!

          replyreport
       2. 78

          Uninvited Writerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          I guess you missed most of my post...

          replyreport
          1. 78

             nell79posted 13 years agoin reply to this

             I wasn't just directing that at you. That's just where I happened to be when I hit reply
             
             But really, what it comes down to is why the right to freedom of speech, or any other right we have for that matter, is given. It's a protection from persecution in the practicing of our basic human rights. They only go so far, and not at the expense of another person's rights.

             replyreport
       3. 0

          Stevennix2001posted 13 years agoin reply to this

          i agree.

          replyreport
13. 81

    Rafiniposted 13 years ago

    Most people don't realize Freedom of Speech brings much Responsibility. 
    
    Just because you have the right to speak freely, does that mean you have to?
    
    My family and I agree on this - You don't have to just because you can. 
    
    Whoever printed this material had a moral obligation to report it to the authorities - and failed.  Too bad they can't be charged for being an accomplice to immorality. 

    replyreport
14. 60

    Mike Rogersposted 13 years ago

    The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution relates only to legal or governmental restrictions of free speech. When private companies or citizens make decisions about what to publish or allow they are simply making personal judgements about their reaction as it relates to their own morality or standards.
    
    As such, Amazon not publishing such horrifying material as noted in this discussion relates not one bit to freedom of speech.
    
    It is simply one company making a decision, and the right one.
    
    Mike

    replyreport
    1. 81

       Rafiniposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         According to your post, the guy who published this material shouldn't have been arrested because the government doesn't have the right to infringe upon his freedom of speech - correct?
       
       Well, hopefully the authorities charged him with an appropriate crime so the charges will stick.

       replyreport
15. 78

    Uninvited Writerposted 13 years ago

    I agree...but I do not believe in going off half-cocked before I know the facts.  And I still believe that writing about something is not the same as doing it.

    replyreport
    1. 78

       nell79posted 13 years agoin reply to this

       It depends on your perspective, I guess. I think it has a lot to do with what's being written about and the intent of the author. This man's intent seems pretty clear.
       
       There are so many rights that can be twisted to suit a person who is in all reality, often just trying to get away with something they already know is wrong.
       
       You could say that a person asking another person to kill someone for them is just exercising free speech or freedom of expression. The law would disagree, but one could argue it nonetheless.
       
       Someone could also argue that in robbing another person, they are only pursuing their right to happiness. Haha
       
       It's a hard subject, when discussing the rights we're given. Not everyone is going to agree. But when I look at the intent of our founding fathers when writing the declaration of independence and our bill of rights, I don't think they had this pervert's book in mind....

       replyreport
    2. 93

       habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       I agree with that. I don't know if he should have been arrested or not, but I do believe the book should be pulled.

       replyreport
       1. 78

          nell79posted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Yes, definitetly the book was rightfully pulled. It wasn't a fiction piece made up in the creatively perverted mind of a writer (from the sounds of it). It was a non-fiction how-to with the assault of actual victims being chronicled. How does that happen? The world we live in scares the crap out of me.

          replyreport
          1. 63

             Bworkyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             If the book contained actual, provable chronicled abuse of victims, then it should obviously be pulled to protect the rights of the victims.  At that point, it stops being a free speech issue and becomes a crime against the children in question as readily as the attacks were.

             replyreport
             1. 78

                nell79posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                Based on the information I've heard about this, that's exactly what he did. And you're right, it changes the dynamics of this debate quite a bit.

                replyreport
16. 85

    rebekahELLEposted 13 years ago

    it was a self-published book, and he also self- published it on amazon kindle.
    he is charged with violating a FL obscenity statue in regard to sale or distribution of harmful materials to minors or using minors in the production of material.
    
    "He actually provided a how-to guide to commit sexual battery against children," according to Judd, who said he was shocked and mortified by specific examples and illustrations using 9- and 13-year-old boys.
    
    his book instructs other pedophiles how to violate a child's basic human rights.

    replyreport
    1. 78

       nell79posted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Thank you for your response. It makes it even more clear for me

       replyreport
    2. 63

       Bworkyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       If he's in jail for using physical children for producing his book or intentionally getting his book into the hands of children, then I'm confused why this is up as a free speech issue at all.  Of course he should be in prison if he's actually committing a crime.
       
       If the children were actual, live children, that needs to be prosecuted as the rape and molestation that it is, with the added crime of distributing child pornography.  If it is words, and no actual victims were involved, then he could be writing about anything in the world and I'd still defend his right to say it.

       replyreport
17. 85

    rebekahELLEposted 13 years ago

    are you saying that those parents who have had their children sexually violated by pedophiles are not sane, caring parents?
    
    we're not talking about a police state. we're talking about protecting those who cannot protect themselves.

    replyreport
    1. 63

       Bworkyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Yes, I am saying that if a parent leaves their child with a child molester if they know that person is a child molester, they need mental health services desperately.  You quoted "intentionally," so I'm going to assume you're just picking a fight.

       replyreport
    2. 63

       Bworkyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       This is why we have laws against child molestation, child pornography, and anything else bad you can think of that includes the word "child."
       
       Having laws against distributing words about something is completely different.  You are not protecting children.  You are protecting adults from making their rational decisions about what other people say.  This is censorship, not "protecting children." 
       
       People have recently begun to allow flagrant abuses of things that we once considered rights under the guise of "protecting children."  You do not protect your children by denying them the rights you grew up with, even if it sometimes means people say things that society and decent people do not like.  When you do that, you hurt the chances your children have of growing up with the freedom that you are currently giving away cheerfully.

       replyreport
18. 78

    nell79posted 13 years ago

    Well, at least we can all agree that this guy is the scum of the earth, right?

    replyreport
19. 79

    Aficionadaposted 13 years ago

    Apparently he broke state laws about distribution of materials harmful to minors.
    
    There's more than one issue on the floor here.  Some people seem to be arguing that that law shouldn't exist.  But at the present time it does, and he broke it.

    replyreport
20. 79

    Aficionadaposted 13 years ago

    Do any of you know the statistics on how child predators select careers where they can be around children?
    
    Several years ago, some researchers ran a study to find out how predators were able to find children and gain their trust and the trust of their parents.  The study consisted of anonymous questionnaires completed by men who were in prison for such crimes.  The fact that they were already in prison and the fact that it was anonymous meant (according to the thinking of the researchers) that they would be free to say things that otherwise might raise red flags against them.
    
    These predators said that they would select careers where they would frequently be in contact with children, careers that usually included a strong element of trust - Scout leaders; church youth directors; teachers; you name it.
    
    This was their MO.  They would find ways to gain the trust of parents who would never intentionally leave their child with anyone that they knew or would suspect to be a predator.  Even the best of parents don't usually run a criminal background check on everyone their child is around.  Plus, if the person has never been arrested of or accused of the crime, even the criminal background check will come up dry.  There's always a first crime.

    replyreport
21. 63

    Bworkyposted 13 years ago

    I don't think anyone here thinks there is some magical way to keep your child away from all pedophiles, or even most.  Since many people who commit these kinds of crimes start at home, even their own children and relatives aren't safe.
    
    To me, the best thing a parent can do is try to make sure your child knows what to watch out for and who to talk to (You, if your lucky) if someone does something that makes them uncomfortable, so you can put a stop to it immediately and keep them from being in that situation as soon as possible.
    
    My daughter is still really young, so I'm not speaking from experience yet, but one of my aunts tried to go for help after being molested as a child and the person she went to basically told her it was her fault.  That attitude, and the attitude of people who think they can protect children from pedophiles by banning a few books are going to get more kids victimized, not less.  Chances are, the pedophile in your child's life is his father, cousin, uncle, brother, mother, sister, aunt... Children aren't frequently molested by complete strangers.  They are molested by the people they already trust.

    replyreport
    1. 78

       nell79posted 13 years agoin reply to this

       I agree with a lot of what you said. Often (though by all means not always) it is someone we trust with our children that perpetrate these crimes. It is so very important that we keep an open dialogue with our children about these things and do our best to protect them from this.
       
       Having gone through this myself as a child (I'm not ashamed to admit it, it wasn't my fault), I've made sure that I do all I can to prevent it from happening to my own children. The key to that is communication.
       
       I don't agree with you though that in preventing the publishment of a how-to guide it will make the problem worse. Not acknowledging that the problem exists makes it worse. Thinking that it could never happen to your own children makes it worse. But stopping material that gives the pedophile more ideas on how to rape your child won't make it the problem worse by any means.

       replyreport
       1. 63

          Bworkyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          I'd wonder whether it was really "stopping" the material or just driving it further underground, not keep it from being written.  Completely aside from all of my censorship arguments and the issue about whether or not the book chronicled actual events, determined pedophiles will always be capable of finding ways to talk to each other and exchange ideas, just like anyone else. 
          
          At least when they're buying a book, the mailman sees it being delivered, Amazon's servers get an electronic record that it happened, payment methods get charged, etc.  It may make them easier to prosecute if they're caught.  If they get it from another pedophile, there won't be records.

          replyreport
          1. 78

             nell79posted 13 years agoin reply to this

             You've made some good points. My better sensibilities still rebel at the idea of anyone being able to sell that kind of material though.
             
             Anyway, I'm ducking out too. I don't want to burn dinner! haha Have a good night all!

             replyreport
22. 79

    Aficionadaposted 13 years ago

    What about the state law about distribution of materials harmful to minors?

    replyreport
    1. 63

       Bworkyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Personally, I find those laws to fall solidly into the realm of "censorship" if they [edit: don't] allow a way for materials to be distributed to adults without issue. 
       
       IE:
       
       A rating system with laws on selling adult content to minors should not be considered censorship as long as getting your material rated applies equally across the board and doesn't leave room for leaving things like the book in question permanently tied up in procedure to technically censor it without censoring it.
       
       A policy that won't let materials defined as "adult" be distributed at all is censorship.  In the USA, a good question would be whether or not it should be considered constitutional to allow censorship at a state or local level.  (Currently it is, and we have all sorts of obscenity laws covering many different things).

       replyreport
       1. 79

          Aficionadaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Last sentence of last paragraph - precisely so.
          
          First paragraph - did you actually mean that?  You say that if those laws "allow a way for materials to be distributed to adults without issue" then you "find those laws to fall solidly into the realm of 'censorship'."  Based on your other statements I would have guessed that you meant the opposite.

          replyreport
          1. 63

             Bworkyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             Wow!  No, I meant precicely the opposite: I find those laws to fall solidly into the realm of censorship if they DON'T allow for... etc. 
             
             Thank you for catching that!  I'm going to go back and edit it if possible, then I might duck out for the evening, since I'm apparently getting too tired to successfully proof read.  I never actually intended to sit around debating so long.

             replyreport
23. 40

    xboxps3wowposted 13 years ago

    f-ing pedoes! but what did he do exactly?

    replyreport
24. 79

    Aficionadaposted 13 years ago

    You're welcome!  I'm going to duck out myself.
    
    Good night, everyone.

    replyreport
25. 93

    habeeposted 13 years ago

    I'm usually opposed to censhorship of any books. As a teacher, I know that some excellent books have been censored. This "guide," however, is over the top. I wouldn't want to see a book about how to kill babies or how to torture animals, either. I was just thinking...what if someone wrote and published a book about how to perform home abortions, and some women followed the advice and died as a result? Should the author be held accountable?

    replyreport
26. 95

    wildernessposted 13 years ago

    I don't know the answer to that Habee.  But how far do we go?  If you write a hub on how to fish and someone flips a hook into their eye and loses that eye are you liable? 
    
    Sometimes in this time of liability and sue happy people it would seem that you would be liable for even saying the word "fish", but I just don't know how far it actually goes.

    replyreport
    1. 93

       habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Yeah, this is a tough one.

       replyreport
27. 85

    rebekahELLEposted 13 years ago

    I feel the same, habee. I think part of it is because I've spent most of my career around young children, and have seen and heard some very sad stories. adults are the voice of children and we need to speak up.
    what happens with this case will probably not change a thing.
    but if the judge issued a warrant for his arrest, there must have been enough probable cause to allow for an investigation.
    I'm a very liberal person and believe strongly in the rights of all people, a person is innocent until proven guilty and yet we know there are plenty of innocent people sitting behind bars while the real perpetrators are out on the streets or sitting behind computers.

    replyreport
28. 70

    sunforgedposted 13 years ago

    I wouldnt want to see any how to books for those topics either, but at least when something is published, we can get a better glimpse into how to protect against that "evil"
    
    If the book in question is as it is described by the police officer then every precinct should own a copy and they should offer community education on how to avoid any of the practices explained. The knowledge and info doesnt go away because we censor it - it just becomes harder for the "good" guys to defend against.
    
    I remember getting a "knowledge is Power" pin for reading bunches of books for a Pizza Hut book report program 20 ish years ago .. it is still true.
    
    Of course no one should be liable (home abortion example) for writing a book - its our responsibility as readers to check our sources and use common sense,
    
    As a kid, someone in my friend group had a copy of The Anarchist Cookbook that they had printed off of AOL (I think) -
    
    many of the explosives described in that book are very likely to kill anyone who tries to make them. They are not "professional" recipes - the author was not a scientist or trained demolitions expert.
    
    You can find that book on Amazon right now : http://www.amazon.com/Anarchist-Cookboo … amp;sr=8-1
    
    The related books may interest you also: http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&tag … lla-search
    
    Is "how to Terrorist" available - yes, of course it is (see above). And I would hope every one of those books has been analyzed by some Government spook somewhere.
    
    
    whats interesting about the anarchist cookbook (in relation to this thread), is that the Author would love for it to go away and the legal publisher discontinued it because it lacked "social value" (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anarchist_Cookbook ) - that used to be a level of protection, a publishers reputation, with self publishing and the internet - there are no  limits - if you can think it, someone has written it and you can find it somewhere.
    
    know your enemy and all that jazz
    
    "So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss.
    If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you may win or may lose.
    If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will always endanger yourself."
    
    
    Should we be censoring left and right? hell no, we should be educating our children and ourselves on how to avoid and protect against anything imaginable.
    
    
    
    
    I couldnt ever get my mind into the head of a pedophile - which means I could never best prepare my daughter on how to combat such advances. I couldnt imagine it. I know schools and parents teach "stranger danger" and "private spaces" - but the molesters are usually family members - so Stranger Danger is of no use - and if some guy has written about his slimy tricks to get to children - the tricks should all be common knowledge so we can educate on how to defend against them.
    
    Thats how i see it at least - gritty and real, these people exist, a book is not making them exist or act, but it may enlighten the rest if us on how to look out and defend against them.

    replyreport
    1. 78

       nell79posted 13 years agoin reply to this

       
       
       You've made some good points. I do think though if we did nothing about this kind of garbage, it would send the message to the perverts that it's become acceptable in society. It's scary enough that this stuff happens everyday in hundreds of homes, but it's even more horrifying to realize that they're teaching each other how to do it more effectively in a public forum. Then again, I do see what you're saying about using what they put out there to defend ourselves. It's a very hard line here.
       
       I just wanted to say, you can protect your children as well as anyone without reading one of these books to get inside their heads. Just know that really, you can't exempt anyone from being capable of this kind of behavior. Let your children know that you will believe them no matter who it is that has violated them. Teach them how to get away (yelling, kicking and biting are not just for kidnap victims). Let them know that you will love them no matter what happens in their lives. Let them know if it happens, it's not their fault. Let them know that they can say no to something that makes them uncomfortable no matter who is doing the asking/touching. Let them know that even people we trust can lie and make threats. Let them know that those threats are empty and only issued because the perpetrator knows that if they are caught they will go to prison, so they'll do say anything to scare their victims into silence. Keep the communication open. Love them. Talk to them continuously. This is the best protection.
       
       Just my two cents based on my own experience.

       replyreport
29. 85

    rebekahELLEposted 13 years ago

    you bring up some very valid, reasonable points. I couldn't agree more with your words, knowing the enemy is essential. educating our children is our responsibility and yet there are plenty of parents who hand that job over to the schools.
    teachers and administrators do what they can and still are blamed for not doing enough.
    
    the issue with this kind of book is that it is written about minors, how to violate their rights. it has a specific audience and a specific target, children.
    
    hell yeah, knowledge is power, in the hands of a mad man or a brilliant scientist, a politician, the mom who stays at home, a child. it's how we use it that makes the difference.
    
    an issue worth being concerned about.

    replyreport
30. 85

    rebekahELLEposted 13 years ago

    they are not always relatives, but often they are involved in the child's life in some way and gain trust in the community.
    most have been abused sexually as a child.
    it's not an easy subject when teaching stranger danger and a teacher has to be very careful in how it's communicated.  part of the instruction involves discussing family members touching, etc. it can certainly help if done age appropriately with parents knowledge that it's been discussed. the best tool is observation, watch your child closely as there will generally be subtle if not overt signs of abuse, but some older children learn to hide it well out of fear.

    replyreport