Jump to content
ydoaPs

Pedophiles and Freedom of Speech

Recommended Posts

What was the reason given for the arrest of the guy who was self publishing the pedophile book on Amazon? Is there any evidence that he actually molested any children or attempted to?

 

From the product description of the book:

This is my attempt to make pedophile situations safer for those juveniles that find themselves involved in them, by establishing certain 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 [sic] sentences should they ever be caught

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/amazon-removes-pedophilia-book-store/story?id=12119035&tqkw=&tqshow=

Edited by ydoaPs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

B)

What was the reason given for the arrest of the guy who was self publishing the pedophile book on Amazon? Is there any evidence that he actually molested any children or attempted to?

 

Could you provide a link, Ydoa? :D

Edited by divagreen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<img src='http://www.scienceforums.net/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' />

 

Could you provide a link, Ydoa? :D

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h6P-8nQfOIBm3-Gjr7cTxXGbBDxw?docId=CNG.60eb4047766bf2f855b1e742fd8c9784.a91

 

As far as I can tell, no actual crime was committed. It is NOT child pornography. Child pornography, by virtue of existing implies that a crime occurred, so there is rational warrant for it to be illegal. Occurring to the link above, the 'graphic depictions' were written stories, and thus may not have any basis in factual history.

Edited by ydoaPs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe because people like this will take it to the extreme and see it as a green light? Granted, the article is full of hyperbolic appeals to emotions but I really don't understand the backing of this.

 

I think any type of discussion like this involves a slippery slope of moral perspectives that many will fall on either side of a fine line...censorship is a hot button for some, pedophilia will be so for others.

 

I do not mean to prevaricate here, but I know which side of the mountain I fall on. :)

 

It will be interesting to see what happens with his arrest, since they have a warrant. They will most likely check his computer's history, unless he is careful. So if evidence is found of child pornography or whatever, would that shift the dynamics of the argument concerning censorship? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.google.co...742fd8c9784.a91

 

As far as I can tell, no actual crime was committed. It is NOT child pornography. Child pornography, by virtue of existing implies that a crime occurred, so there is rational warrant for it to be illegal. Occurring to the link above, the 'graphic deceptions' were written stories, and thus may not have any basis in factual history.

 

I believe it was an obscenity law, under which written descriptions could be considered obscene. I'm sure his lawyers will have a good time fighting that one off, though. First amendment and all that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it was an obscenity law, under which written descriptions could be considered obscene. I'm sure his lawyers will have a good time fighting that one off, though. First amendment and all that.

An obscenity law? That sounds a wee bit unconstitutional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An obscenity law? That sounds a wee bit unconstitutional.

 

AFAIK obscenity is not protected speech, and the constitutionality issue tends to fall to the vagueness of the law and how it would restrict free speech that isn't obscene. But an obscenity law is not inherently unconstitutional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AFAIK obscenity is not protected speech, and the constitutionality issue tends to fall to the vagueness of the law and how it would restrict free speech that isn't obscene. But an obscenity law is not inherently unconstitutional.

How do we tell what is obscene? Do we go arresting the executives of HBO for airing Real Sex? AFAICT, he was selling digital copies through Amazon rather than setting up shop in town selling the books. For that, I see no jurisdiction for the locals to arrest him on obscenity laws. From all the sources I've seen, the only hard copy he sold was his own personal volume that he sold because the undercover cop offered him way more than the list price; that seems more like entrapment than a sting.

 

I can see the existence of the book as being justification for a warrant to search for evidence of an actual crime, but arrest based upon the existence of the book alone seems wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AFAIK obscenity is not protected speech

 

what's obscenity? sex-stuff? And, why isn't it protected?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From your link, ydpaPs...

 

"Greaves mailed what he referred to as his own personal copy of his book, signed, after being paid 50 dollars, to an address in Lakeland, Florida, within the jurisdiction of the Polk County Sheriff's Office," it said.

 

"The book contains two graphic stories depicting an adult engaged in sex acts with children," the Sheriff's Office said.

 

"The book also defends, advocates, and trains adults regarding illegal sex acts between adults and children."[/Quote]

 

As far as I can tell, no actual crime was committed. It is NOT child pornography. Child pornography, by virtue of existing implies that a crime occurred, so there is rational warrant for it to be illegal. Occurring to the link above, the 'graphic deceptions' were written stories, and thus may not have any basis in factual history.[/Quote]

 

Without seeing the actual complaint, I'd suggest they involve the use of the US Mail or restrictions for mailing "Obscene Material" into Florida. Where this IS a technicality, under Florida Law and the current sentiment of a jury pool, a prosecutor could stretch this to a felony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Roth test was expanded when the Court decided Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973). Under the Miller test, a work is obscene if:

 

(a)...‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards’ would find the work, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,...(B)...the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c)...the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Obscenity

Edited by Dak
stop (B) and (c) parsing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, from his stated reasons it looks like he could argue his work had 'serious political value' :huh:

 

IMO, there's no reason free speech should protect pervyness, tho 'free speech (except obscenity)' is too close to 'free speech (unless it really offends us)' for my liking.

 

(your (B) and © were doing that btw, if you wonder why I edited your post)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US is rather silly for making pornography a special category of unprotected speech. It would be much more sensible just to apply the usual 'time, manner, place' restrictions to pornographic speech to ensure that people who are offended by it would not be exposed to it against their will, and otherwise to protect it.

 

Almost all speech is delivered so that it can have some effect, and some of the effect of speech on some people will be to cause them to commit crimes. But I find it interesting that while the society becomes hysterical over the fear that pornographic free speech will cause sex crimes, no one seemed very much concerned when the fellow who shot at the city council members on television last week indicated that he had been directly inspired by the 'Vengeance' movie. That was only violence inciting violent behavior, not pornography, so its potentially lethal effects need not inspire any moves toward censorship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is interesting from a free speech perspective. There are many erotic literature sites, some do not stipulate that all characters must be of legal age but some do. Then there is the digital videos, digitally you can come pretty close to making what appears to be live action but no actors were used in it's making but if underage people are portrayed digitally on film in sex acts it's illegal, they might be able to slip this guy into jail based on the idea that digital Child Porn is already illegal, writing about it seems less harmful than making sexual cartoons or digital films....

 

I am against censorship but this is hard to defend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am against censorship but this is hard to defend.

The censorship is perfectly fine. Amazon decided to pull the books, not the government. Arrest for writing fictional stories in attempt to make the world safer isn't.

 

Let's break this down:

1)The guy lived in Colorado.

2)He was selling e-books through Amazon.

3)Amazon is based in Washington.

4)Florida undercover police contacted the guy to buy his personal hard copy for $50.

5)The guy was arrested under an obscenity law in Polk County Florida.

6)The book arguably doesn't even fall under the definition of obscenity.

 

Yeah, this sounds like a clear cut case of entrapment. If he has a decent lawyer at all, he should be able to get out of it and then sue the Polk County police.

 

As I said before, I see justification for a search warrant, but none for arrest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I said before, I see justification for a search warrant, but none for arrest.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with this, Ydoa.

 

I have a bias concerning pedophilia in general, but I do, indeed, see that you are making an excellent distinction.

 

Form the article that you presented:

 

In a description of the book, the author framed it as an attempt "to make pedophile situations safer for those juveniles that find themselves involved in them, by establishing certain 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 (sic) sentences should they ever be caught," Greaves said.

 

I have not read the book, so I am not sure what the "establishing certain rules for these adults to follow" means...is the book written from a non-fiction perspective or is it fictional memoirs and was advertised as such?

 

Isn't pedophilia illegal? For a reason? (An obvious power differential comes to mind, as well as psychological impressionism.)

 

Here is a thought...maybe by putting this in the papers, they are opening windows for victims to step forth. (Power of sensationalism.) I find this kind of maneuvering intellectually appalling...but! And it is a big "but"...do the ends justify the means? I have thought so in the past at times, but now I am not so sure, so---------> going to recalibrate my moral compass. :D

Edited by divagreen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't pedophilia illegal? For a reason? (An obvious power differential comes to mind, as well as psychological impressionism.)

 

 

It's important to get definitions correct; paedophilia is an aberrant state of mind, a mental illness, an affliction - and as such cannot be illegal under any sensible system of law. Acting on those deviant desires is rightly illegal - sex with a minor is automatically rape (no consent can ever be given by a minor), distribution of pornography (visual or verbal) will be covered by obscenity laws or specially enacted laws, and I presume that any form of encouragement of others would be prosecuted under conspiracy, joint enterprise, or specific laws covering promotion of illegal acts.

 

 

On this individual case it seems that ydoaps has a very good point - and it is a shame that more care wasn't taken to avoid procedural problems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'll just hope that when the government decides to make the people their subjects, that they're not smart enough to label the opposition movement as obscene. It seems everyone has some magical line in the sand for freedom of speech that seems to hinge on a lack of imagination by corruption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really, but he is still in Colorado, has a 15K Bond set (don't know if paid), however under Colorado Law, "Distribution of Obscene Material".

 

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/12/21/1983678/author-of-pedophilia-guide-in.html

 

As explained a couple post back, being a pedophile, tendency toward being sexually attracted to

children (most States, under 12-14yo), is not illegal and only actions on those feelings are....Obscenity, the distribution of is another issue and lately been used to void the 1st Amendment.

Edited by jackson33

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As explained a couple post back, being a pedophile, tendency toward being sexually attracted to

children (most States, under 12-14yo), is not illegal and only actions on those feelings are....Obscenity, the distribution of is another issue and lately been used to void the 1st Amendment.

 

Lately? This is not a new thing. Purported obscenity has been one of the reasons that first amendment freedoms have been expanded. You couldn't distribute Lady Chatterly's Lover, Tropic of Cancer and Fanny Hill until some court cases were won ca. 1960. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Rembar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lately? This is not a new thing. Purported obscenity has been one of the reasons that first amendment freedoms have been expanded. You couldn't distribute Lady Chatterly's Lover, Tropic of Cancer and Fanny Hill until some court cases were won ca. 1960.

http://en.wikipedia..../Charles_Rembar [/Quote]

 

swansont; I am aware of what 'has been' limited and for the variety of reasons they have been. However the culture has changed over the years, we no longer hang suspected witches or consider many things taboo that were and the 1st A, has been given new life over the past 30-50 years, especially what's permitted to exist on the private WWW.

 

What constitutes obscenity, even today, is different in every culture or in segments of a society. Trying to impose a technicality on the total to express viewpoints of others in the US, is simply not illegal. This I don't think we disagree on so I'll hold there, noting you can find a copy of all your suggested material, in Libraries or over the web today and that some may still feel it represents obscenity.

 

To the thread; If you recall my first post, I mentioned US Mail, Florida and Colorado, which makes this a case for the current Justice Department. As with Wikileaks or the Arizona Immigration Law, I'm waiting for a Government response, which won't be acceptable in this country, IMO....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.