Ebook on Amazon.com about pedophilia deleted

Yikes - unbelievable what some people try to get away with these days. Sounds like Amazon will need to screen titles before they get published on their site.

Two theories floating around on the interwebs... that it was a publicity stunt for the author, who also listed two other newly published books on amazon, or that the FBI planted it as bait to catch real pedophiles. I really hope one of those explanations is true...

It does spark an interesting debate - I have worked at many bookstores over the years, starting when I was 16. I remember my first boss explaining to me that I could not let my personal feelings about a book affect my customer service - she used "The Anarchist Cookbook" as an example. She staged two different mock scenarios, one dealing with an irate customer who wanted the book immediately and we didn't have it in stock, and one with a customer who wanted the store shut down because we did have it in stock. It was a very interesting experience, and taught me a lot about perspective... and it was a lesson I needed several times over the years.

The most confrontational customer I ever dealt with was a woman who was irate that the store I worked in placed the "New Age" section right next to the "Christianity" section. She actually said "how dare you?!" and claimed that the new age books would poison the minds of the young Christians, and that she was offended that she had to pass by and look at them while she was searching for a bible. I am not making this up.

So that leads me to the question... even if we find a book morally reprehensible, and even if it promotes illegal activity, do we have the right to ban it? Does that impinge on our (collective) constitutional rights to freedom of speech and freedom of the press? Is it a slippery slope? Is a publisher being brave or stupid to print it? What is the bookseller's role? I think it's a very interesting debate.

He has a right to write whatever he wants. Stores have the right to choose whether or not to carry it. The collective public has the right not to shop at stores that choose to carry it.

I'm looking at it from the perspective that the author is on disability for manic depression. I'm going to guess a manic period after watching an episode of Law & Order SVU was the motive behind it.

I found it so strange that he thought his knowledge would be valuable to someone.

He has a right to write whatever he wants. Stores have the right to choose whether or not to carry it. The collective public has the right not to shop at stores that choose to carry it.

With the marketplace we have today, I agree. This particular manager (in the story I told) was very committed to the idea that booksellers should sell any & every book; it is not the bookseller's place to judge the information and the public has a right to be able to access it. This was before the internet, before self-publishing was so accessible, and there were really no other avenues available to people wanting to distribute information widely.

Please don't get me wrong, a guide to pedophilia crosses even my very tolerant line. I am glad Amazon removed it... but again, it's kind of a slippery slope... what about a legitimate child psychology/physiology textbook that studies sexuality in children? I am sure it would contain information that a pedophile could use to exploit a child. Do we need to limit access to those books? How can a consumer prove their intentions? What is our (society's) responsibility?

I have no answers or agenda here, I just think it is a really interesting discussion topic - keeping information free and flowing vs. aiding criminals in illegal/immoral activities.

As a society we have created government as an entity to benefit our society as a whole. If we can't have a government that can regulate a few things that are harmful to our society then we should go back to living in tribes.

In other words, not only should the author not be allowed to publish it, but there should be some other repercussions for having written it. If we can't protect our children, what can we do? Do we not have any common sense and common decency left?

Let's also allow our government to protect our waters, air, land, and food - actions which also protect us and our children. Roads without potholes are nice also. :lol:

My feeling is that any book that violates any laws that are strictly enforced in every State that impact ones lives so dramatically, should be banned from printing. One is free to write what ever the hell they want, but as far as benefiting from it financially while aiding and abetting criminals, they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, IMHO.
What kind of people would buy a book like that or one called for example, How to Ki ll Someone, or Knock off The Pre sident in 5 minutes? We, as a society must draw lines without allowing criminals to hide behind the First Amendment.

I find it to be a fine line - once you start banning books it's hard to stop.......and quite frankly there are people who are offended by everything and anything.

One example - a local woman who told me she didn't have the Harry Potter books on her living room bookshelves because she was afraid of what people from her church would think.

If Amazon wants to carry this book, they can do it - and face the legal and economic consequences of it. And I hope the FBI goes after anyone who buys it or sells it.

I know what you are trying to say but talking about Harry Potter in a discussion about a pedophile book is the worst kind of liberal BS.

Banning books of this sort would open the door to banning disturbing violent pieces of fiction. Some of these works have some "how to" elements in them for sure.

I hate to break it to you, but the Supreme Court already ruled on the issue of written child por nography. They said it is covered under the First Amendment and while I abhor it, think it's disgusting, and those that act on it should be put to death it is a slippery slope when you start banning books.

Freespace: Written ?depictions? of obscenity?

Then again the fun folks over at the Libertarian party think it should be legal:

During the nomination process at the 2008 Libertarian National Convention, anarcho-capitalist and U.S. Presidential candidate Mary Ruwart came under fire for her comment in her 1998 book, Short answers to the tough questions, in which she stated her opposition not only to laws against possession of child pornography but even against its production, based on her belief that such laws actually encourage such behavior by increasing prices.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_regarding_child_pornography_laws#cite_note-14

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_regarding_child_pornography_laws[/ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_regarding_child_pornography_laws#cite_note-14

Our media has also shown segments of, 'How easy it is to build a bomb.'
I personally am an advocate of banning the book and I couldn't care less about the argument of Freedom of Speech in this regard. However, this is certainly where a boycott will send a very strong message to Amazon.

That woman should come to my church. We actually had some Sunday School classes on the Harry Potter series......I didn't go.....was never interested in the read.

I know what you are trying to say but talking about Harry Potter in a discussion about a pedophile book is the worst kind of liberal BS.

They were running a Harry Potter movie marathon this weekend so it was in my head....................and it's a book series many have tried to ban - even before Harry had the naked out of body experience/dream w/ gay Dumbledore. ;-)

I know what you are trying to say but talking about Harry Potter in a discussion about a pedophile book is the worst kind of liberal BS.

I don't know, some might not see a line between pedophilia and Harry Potter.

Add one more to the list?

List of books banned by governments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The difference here of course is that this book was not banned by government, it was simply pulled from the virtual shelves of Amazon. There's nothing wrong with that.

Remember when small towns would ban a movie because the town people tought it too explicit?

Remember when small towns would ban a movie because the town people tought it too explicit?

No. :lol:

I hate to break it to you, but the Supreme Court already ruled on the issue of written child por nography. They said it is covered under the First Amendment

I don't see where you are getting this from. The major supreme court cases that still hold precedence regarding child pornography are United States V. Williams, Miller V. California, New York V. Ferber and Osborne V. Ohio and Ashcroft V. Free Speech Coalition. All of those cases ruled laws prosecuting child pornography constitutional except for Ashcroft. And Ashcroft dealt with "virtual" child pornography that was computer generated.

The most pertinent case for this specific situation is Miller V. California which ruled that obscenity is not protected by the first amendment.

The controlling opinion instituted the Miller test to determine whether or not material is "obscene".

1. whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards (not national standards, as some prior tests required), would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;

2. Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law; and

3. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."

The material must pass all three prongs in order to be constitutionally banned as "obscene".

So while Harry Potter would likely not pass that test and could not be ruled obscene; from what I have heard about the books in question, they would be classified as obscene and could be banned constitutionally under the first amendment.

Of course, while states and the federal government are not constitutionally mandated to ban obscene materials, they are constitutionally able to do so.