Wednesday, November 10, 2010

The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure

I have decided to forgo my usual update on my Nanowrimo writing experience, for something of more import.

I will make this short and sweet:

Amazon, when I called them on it during a phone call about an hour ago, refused to take down the book, citing censorship. Shouldn’t there be a line between common censorship, which rests only on the opinion of the public based on subjective taste, and in disseminating information that can be used in the commission of a crime? What the HELL is Jeff Bezos thinking?

You can damn-well bet that if any one of us types “The Anarchist’s Cookbook” into Google, the FBI and about a dozen other government agencies, including INTERPOL will flag our account and we’ll get a nice little visit.

But let a pedophile do a sneaky search for criteria that will bring up this book, and watch how they get by with it. Frosts my weenie, it does.

MSNBC has now picked up the story. And I’ve watched the reviews grow from 880 when I first pulled up the book at 5:00, to 1,323 just 90-minutes later. And now, as I post this, the count is at a staggering 1,418.

Where do we draw the line?


  1. As disgusting as it is, it is a constitutional right for this sicko to speak his mind. We can only hope that the powers that be will put this guy on their radar and that whatever deviant behaviour is is capable of is stopped.

    The problem with this post and the other dozen that I have read today have only made the amazon page that much more accesible to the masses of other deviants out there who may have known nothing about it. Those of us with good intentions have unfortunately led the hounds of hell to the water bowl.

    Bezos has done nothing wrong, he simply did what he established his business to do. If he took this down without a court order or the like, he would be claiming the right to do the same with every book that included rape, incest, etc. Where would he draw the line.

    I would like to think that even though it is still up that Bezos is losing sleep over it and wishing there was no damn constitution. He's right, censorship is what we fight against every day with banned books.

    There is no right answer with this one. We just have to pray that it opens up the eyes of those potentially in harm's way.

  2. There just isn't any way we can sneer down our noses at it, while defending its right to be there. There has to be a line.

    Where Bezos effed up, was when he violated his own Terms of Service:

    "Amazon does not support or promote hatred or criminal acts, however, we do support the right of every individual to make their own purchasing decisions."

    Unless he removes the book, he can be guilty of criminal faciliation, because the book isn't a book about pedophilia, it's clearly about how pedophiles can continue their deplorable acts WITHOUT getting caught. Just read that article I just posted--there is an excerpt from the book in great, sickening detail. Its content lies clearly within the bounds of the laws of criminal facilitation, and because Bezos refuses to remove it, it not only makes the author, but Bezos himself culpable in equal parts.

    We can hide behind the guise of free speech all we want, but let's face it: ANY TIME we publish material clearly meant to INCITE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, we no longer are bound by the same freedoms afforded law-abiding citizens. our country has a lot of "freedoms" but those freedoms are limited to things that can be harmful to others.

    My friend Sarah posted this to another forum, and I'm reposting because I believe and agree with it entirely:

    "For example, we have freedom of speech--but we also have laws to protect people from slander.

    "We have the right to bear arms, but if you have a history of using your gun to hurt others, your "right" is revoked.

    "Our personal rights stop where another person's begins. In this case, 'right to free speech' is making it easier for children to be targeted, hurt, and no one to find out about it. We can't let someone have the right to free speech at the risk of a child's right to avoid being targeted and hurt by a pedophile."

  3. The problem with using the content guidelines is that if he follows those guidelines specifically, he would have to remove every mystery, thriller, or book that explained (often in great detail) how to abuse, murder, rape, etc. All are illegal and incite hatred.

    Let's be clear, I think the book is a disgusting display of evil. I get that. But have you read a Karin Slaughter book? More than a few ways to kill a person with the greatest degree of torture.

    Where DO we draw the line?

  4. Well, I do know that fiction that describes illegal acts in great detail, is considered to be different than non-fiction, such as was the book. And as far as I know, those books are NOT illegal. If they were, then shows like Dexter wouldn't be consistently in production.

    I doubt Karin Slaughter (and no, I've never read her) didn't write a non-fiction book about how to not get caught.