Author of Pedophile Guide arrested across state

[ZarakiKujata]

buy a copy and find out.

[Ashmada]

For those that think this should be illegal: Do we just ban this book or books like it? What do we ban and how do we regulate whats on that list? Do we ban this because public opinion is against it?

This.
In all seriousness, this book's content do appear to be quite vile, but you can't believe in freedom of speech only when it suits you... is what I clumsily tried to say earlier.

[Jaybar]

The second snippit from the amazon link makes me want to actually read the book. Is this book actually instructing how to get away with stuff, or is this book instructing on how to get away with being a pedophile? (ie: how to act out your urges without involving any real children.) If it's the latter, I'd rather this book be available rather than not- but I can't really decide anything unless I actually know what the book is really about.

Uhh, the first snippit kind of negates your idea (but I'm sure there are chapters on it...)

[miokomioko]

I had no idea we had so many white, middle-aged, Christian mothers on these boards.

[Meian]

buy a copy and find out.

Considering it was stated that it was the last copy when he sent it to the guys under cover, I doubt you can find one. Only 200 were sold and all he had it seems. I wonder if one of those 200 have it torrented but that isn't the type of thing I want to type in search engines lol

[Aristio]

The second snippit from the amazon link makes me want to actually read the book. Is this book actually instructing how to get away with stuff, or is this book instructing on how to get away with being a pedophile? (ie: how to act out your urges without involving any real children.) If it's the latter, I'd rather this book be available rather than not- but I can't really decide anything unless I actually know what the book is really about.

I think it's a bit of both judging from the snippets in the article. I think I remember reading how to go about being a pedophile without actually breaking any laws. So my guess is this book is the definition of "Shades of Grey."

[Yugl]

For those that think this should be illegal: Do we just ban this book or books like it? What do we ban and how do we regulate whats on that list? Do we ban this because public opinion is against it?

1. That's a vague question. Everything is "like" everything else. The book is like a cookbook because they're both book (Exhibit the feature of pages+binds+w/e). The book is like a poster because they're both made of paper. The book is like a giraffe because they're both nouns. The book is like energy because they both have a name. If you want a serious answer, you have to define what parameters determine one thing to be like another.

2. We could throw it up for a vote. The method is ultimately going to be arbitrary, but since it's a value issue, votes aren't that bad.

3. Sure why not? Nothing is inherently bad until it is interpreted as such.

[Deadgye]

Uhh, the first snippit kind of negates your idea (but I'm sure there are chapters on it...)

That part was obviously for priests. :D

[Senoska]

1. That's a vague question. Everything is "like" everything else. The book is like a cookbook because they're both book (Exhibit the feature of pages+binds+w/e). The book is like a poster because they're both made of paper. The book is like a giraffe because they're both nouns. The book is like energy because they both have a name. If you want a serious answer, you have to define what parameters determine one thing to be like another.

Semantics when you're losing an argument always makes your point more valid

2. We could throw it up for a vote. The method is ultimately going to be arbitrary, but since it's a value issue, votes aren't that bad.

Absolutely not, are you fucking crazy?

3. Sure why not? Nothing is inherently bad until it is interpreted as such.

See above. Are you fucking crazy? If we banned things based on public opinion of it being "bad" some of our dearest figures in past, current, and even future history wouldn't exist. You literally cannot be serious.

This country was FOUNDED on the idea of freedom of speech. TOTAL freedom of speech. Absolutely ZERO restrictions, and it was designed that way for a reason.

[Yuri-G]

This country was FOUNDED on the idea of freedom of speech. TOTAL freedom of speech. Absolutely ZERO restrictions, and it was designed that way for a reason.

you know I've normally got your back, but this is not true. there are limits. to use the classic example, you can't shout "FIRE" in a theater without consequence. whether this book qualifies for a limitation on speech is up for debate, though that's hard to do without reading the book.

[Senoska]

you know I've normally got your back, but this is not true. there are limits. to use the classic example, you can't shout "FIRE" in a theater without consequence. whether this book qualifies for a limitation on speech is up for debate, though that's hard to do without reading the book.

Shouting "FIRE!" in a movie theater is nothing close to writing a book like this. Shouting fire invokes a riot which tells people their very lives are at stake, with the sole intention of being malicious and hurting people. It moves beyond free speech because the very act of saying "FIRE" hurts people in the end.

This book does not. And as far as this goes, it should be free totally unrelinquished freedom of speech.

[Kuya]

You said there were zero restrictions. You were wrong.

[Priran]

He's actually completely right, free speech was unbounded to begin with and concessions have gradually been made. "Language can't create a clear and present danger" wasn't a thing until 1919, when the Supreme Court decided they had the right to prevent supporters of Communism from telling people not to submit to the draft.

Because all of this country's decisions predicated on fear of communism have been for the best, right? Goddamn activist judges.

[Yuri-G]

Shouting "FIRE!" in a movie theater is nothing close to writing a book like this. Shouting fire invokes a riot which tells people their very lives are at stake, with the sole intention of being malicious and hurting people. It moves beyond free speech because the very act of saying "FIRE" hurts people in the end.

This book does not. And as far as this goes, it should be free totally unrelinquished freedom of speech.

what kuya said. I'm not saying this book and shouting "FIRE" are the same thing, just pointing out that freedom of speech does have its limits, and rightfully so. whether or not this book falls into the category of speech that should be limited, that's where the debate lies.

[Day]

Seno is retarded anyways. Why he even bothers typing I'll never know. Although when he trys so hard to sound intelligent it is fairly amusing.

[Yugl]

Semantics when you're losing an argument always makes your point more valid

Semantics is the game you're trying to play though. You're trying to ask us if we should ban things like it. As mentioned, a lot of things are "like" something else. You need to be specific when you ask the question using terms such as "like". Do you mean ban book that give hints as to covering up crimes? Why not? You're trying to get into the conversation of "Geez, well how do we distinguish this case from this case" and that is a semantics argument. I'm just getting you to specify what you mean by like. After all, apples are like oranges because they're both fruits.

Absolutely not, are you fucking crazy?

Give me one rule we have that is not founded on arbitrariness.

See above. Are you fucking crazy? If we banned things based on public opinion of it being "bad" some of our dearest figures in past, current, and even future history wouldn't exist. You literally cannot be serious.

You asked for a method. You didn't ask for a method that produced X results.

This country was FOUNDED on the idea of freedom of speech. TOTAL freedom of speech. Absolutely ZERO restrictions, and it was designed that way for a reason.

1. Who cares what it was founded on? It's ours now.
2. It's been limited and reinterpreted over time (See: Clear and present danger; Dangerous and bad tendency; Preferred position; and Clear and balanced [Balancing doctrine]).
3. If we have to restrict how we shape society because of what it was found on, that makes the founders no better than tyrants. I think adherence to tyranny was a greater concern for the founders; hence, why the American system is conservative in nature (Many veto points) and the concern with national government tyranny (Though historically, it has always been the state government to play the tyrant; ironic?!).

[Priran]

The Incitement Test (Brandenburg)
"The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

the First Amendment allows punishment only of subversive advocacy calculated to produce "imminent lawless action" and which is likely to produce such action...The Court applied its Brandenburg analysis four years later in Hess v Indiana to reverse the conviction of a demonstrator who was overheard by a police officer to say, "We'll take the fucking street later." The Court concluded that Hess's statement, taken in context, was not aimed at producing imminent lawless conduct but rather, at the most, lawless conduct at some indefinite future time.

The Court also failed to find the Brandenburg test satisfied in NAACP v Clairborne Hardware (1982). The Court found First Amendment protection for the NAACP's practice of writing down names of blacks who violated a boycott of certain white businesses, and then reading them aloud at NAACP meetings. The Court also found constitutional protection for the statement, "If we catch any of you going in any of them racist stores, we're going to break your damn neck." The Court said the statement fell short of a direct threat or ratification of violence.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...incitement.htm

tl;dr: Advocacy of illegal activities is not illegal. You have to urge someone to commit a crime for it to be illegal.

I don't see how explaining how to get away with child molestation is urging someone to molest children. At worst, it might end up allowing someone who molests children to get away with it, which is the police's fault, not the constitution's.

[guartz]

pedos are butthurt because society doesn't want them.

still trying to find some legal loophole to justify their need to assault little children. News at 5.

[Senoska]

pedos are butthurt because society doesn't want them.

still trying to find some legal loophole to justify their need to assault little children. News at 5.

The irony of you of all people posting this is fantastic

[guartz]

right cuz anarchy is against society right, herpderp, thats what punk rock thought me, herpderp.