[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
PURE GOLD
[/quote]
[quote]overstand wrote:
PURE GOLD
[/quote]
[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
PURE GOLD
[/quote]
Now thats a proper discussion!
@ TheBodyGuard:
Do you have some sort of news letter or something (twitter maybe?) that I can subscribe to ‘LOL’ because you really know what you are talking about. Great posts!
[quote]anonym wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]KAS wrote:
Funny how everyone talks about the slippery slope of censorship and promtly jumps on an equaly slippery slope towards legitimising pedophilia.[/quote]
no one is legitimizing pedophilia. we’re talking about a book. we’re no more “legitimizing” pedophilia than arguing against the censorship of a book about murder “legitimizes” murder. these are difficult issues and there are no clear answers and we can all agree to disagree. but if you think someone is actually “legitimizing pedophilia” the thread has passed over your head. [/quote]
It is funny how I got personal attacks for saying the exact same thing. It shows that many here have more of a problem with WHO says what instead of what is being said.
No one in this thread that I can tell is FOR pedophilia. Being against censorship does not mean we are FOR everything that could be censored.[/quote]
It’s funny, isn’t it, how some people here manage to avoid derision by writing sensible, intelligent posts that are free from condescension and insults.[/quote]
X 2
[quote]worzel wrote:
Referring to your point, “how often did some of you (incl. me I persume) council suicidal victims, or otherwise try and protect anyone’s kids?” and your point about people only giving a shit about kids getting raped becasue now there is a book about it and not doing something constructive other than advocating the burning of books is some major projection right there! You know nothing of my experience with said topics so dont project your assumptions onto me.
[/quote]
I was making a point. I wasn’t judging you or anyone.
I was more-or-less forcing people to judge themselves.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]worzel wrote:
Referring to your point, “how often did some of you (incl. me I persume) council suicidal victims, or otherwise try and protect anyone’s kids?” and your point about people only giving a shit about kids getting raped becasue now there is a book about it and not doing something constructive other than advocating the burning of books is some major projection right there! You know nothing of my experience with said topics so dont project your assumptions onto me.
[/quote]
I was making a point. I wasn’t judging you or anyone.
I was more-or-less forcing people to judge themselves.[/quote]
Cool!
I think this topic hits on a lot of major issues but I am glad to see some brilliant posts in here. Makes a change from the carnage you see in other threads…
So let me see if I fully understand this…
You guys are so keen on “free speach”, that if I write a book on how to string niggers up from trees if they don’t want to pick my cotton, and than do interviews where I say that my book is to help the master race re-conquer the world by killing as many spear chuckers as possible, that’s ok?
Or if I write a book on how to put jews in ovens, and gas chambers, and than go on a tour of the country making speaches to talk about how those damb jews are trying to rule the world, and we need to weed them all out and take the country back. And give interviews where I say my intent is to rid the world of those gold teethed scum, and I’m recruiting an army?
Or if I write a book about how to build build shoe bombs, and fly jumbo jets into sky scrapers, where my intent is to KILL THE INFIDELS!!! Your gonna make sure I can do that? And that’s so important that when I successfully recruit a bunch of retards to do it your gonna be proud that you enabled me to do so?
Does your country not have any hate crime laws? This shit is rediculous. And all of the bull shit I just typed is nothing compared to pedophilia. Atleast blacks, and jews, and infidels have a good chance to be grown ups who can defend themselves. A 3 year old who’s getting fucked can’t do shit, and this guy is publishing a book so that more people can rape more 3 year olds without getting caught. The intent here is for people to be harmed. It’s not just a speach. It’s not a discussion. It’s an instructive manual on how to fuck kids. The pedophile’s kamasutra. At some point, you have to put a stop to this shit, and sooner rather than later.
And before anyone says that if not for free speach I wouldn’t be able to post what I just typed, we should all be able to agree that intent is what makes the crime, and my intent here is clearly not to have people harmed.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
This really isn’t an issue of censorship. Amazon is not a government and is not forbidding the sale of the book, it is just refusing to be the one who sells it. Which is a smart fucking choice considering that Amazon’s number one priority is to earn profit and that the outcry/boycotts from the general public in response to the continued sale of this pederasty book would certainly cut into that profit.
If the government bans it, that’s a whole new issue. I personally am against censorship of any kind. The 120 Days of Sodom is about as disgusting and malicious as anything that has ever been put to paper, but I would defend it against censorship to the end. Its easy to talk about freedom and rights when its The Catcher in the Rye that’s being discussed, but its books like this pedophile one that really test our belief in the Bill of Rights. I say choose principle over gut reaction and let the book be what it is: a disgusting piece of shit written by some halfwit that can’t even spell. It may appeal to some of the sick-and-twisted pedophile crowd, but its not like its going to start winning over converts or anything. Ultimately it will censor itself.[/quote]
very good post. agreed.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]FutureGL wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
[quote]KAS wrote:
Again, this is a very good argument from an academic point of view. But now you have a Victim in the mix. A real, living, breathing child. No amount of civil action is going to change anything for that person or their family.[/quote]
“True Crime” accounts often give very detailed and accurate information about how crimes were committed, investigated, and solved/unsolved. Certainly they “legitimize” murder, rape, or other violent crimes to some extent and, in some ways, can be seen as “instruction manuals” of sorts, although they are certainly not intended to do so.
Should they be banned as well? Legitimate question, because I’m not sure there are really right or wrong answers to this stuff.
Although I will say, please don’t give me the “living, breathing, child” argument like I don’t abhor pedophilia. Get off your fucking high horse. I think anybody who writes a “how to” manual on making love to little boys deserves to get buttraped for eternity. However, I recognize that society isn’t constructed around what I personally think is right or wrong, and legal decisions in one area can have drastic ripple effects elsewhere.
Liberty is not something to be taken lightly.[/quote]
Well said. I am a little tired of the moral heroics in this thread as if anyone who isn’t for burning this book somehow supports pedophilia.[/quote]
I don’t like your use of the phrase “moral heroics.” I consider myself a moral heroic and still defend free speech and the dissemination of this book.[/quote]
Then you misunderstand my use of the word. I am referring to people who consider themselves superior to others based on what they personally choose to defend…like the guy above who, on the issue of age of consent, considers those with a lesser age than 18 “savages” even though some states in this country allow the age of consent at an earlier age.
I am also referring to those who act as if denying censorship means you are about to throw a pedophile parade.
[/quote]
Most states I believe are under 18.
[quote]worzel wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
PURE GOLD
[/quote]
[quote]overstand wrote:
PURE GOLD
[/quote]
[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
PURE GOLD
[/quote]
Now thats a proper discussion!
@ TheBodyGuard:
Do you have some sort of news letter or something (twitter maybe?) that I can subscribe to ‘LOL’ because you really know what you are talking about. Great posts!
[/quote]
LOL thank you. I try…but mostly I’m just an opinionated asshole. I have an opinion on most things, just ask. LOL
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
So let me see if I fully understand this…
You guys are so keen on “free speach”, that if I write a book on how to string niggers up from trees if they don’t want to pick my cotton, and than do interviews where I say that my book is to help the master race re-conquer the world by killing as many spear chuckers as possible, that’s ok?
Or if I write a book on how to put jews in ovens, and gas chambers, and than go on a tour of the country making speaches to talk about how those damb jews are trying to rule the world, and we need to weed them all out and take the country back. And give interviews where I say my intent is to rid the world of those gold teethed scum, and I’m recruiting an army?
Or if I write a book about how to build build shoe bombs, and fly jumbo jets into sky scrapers, where my intent is to KILL THE INFIDELS!!! Your gonna make sure I can do that? And that’s so important that when I successfully recruit a bunch of retards to do it your gonna be proud that you enabled me to do so?
Does your country not have any hate crime laws? This shit is rediculous. And all of the bull shit I just typed is nothing compared to pedophilia. Atleast blacks, and jews, and infidels have a good chance to be grown ups who can defend themselves. A 3 year old who’s getting fucked can’t do shit, and this guy is publishing a book so that more people can rape more 3 year olds without getting caught. The intent here is for people to be harmed. It’s not just a speach. It’s not a discussion. It’s an instructive manual on how to fuck kids. The pedophile’s kamasutra. At some point, you have to put a stop to this shit, and sooner rather than later.
And before anyone says that if not for free speach I wouldn’t be able to post what I just typed, we should all be able to agree that intent is what makes the crime, and my intent here is clearly not to have people harmed.[/quote]
Your post is just filled with emotion and short on logic. Nothing wrong with that when we are discussing pedo’s, because as I said earlier - and I fucking meant it, I’d have your hole dug already when I took you for a walk in the woods. I’m as serious as a fucking heart attack that if you molested my young son, I would not even contact the authorities. I’d decide where your final resting place would be, prepare it for you, and then plot on the time and means I’d deliver you there. So, I get your emotional response. But let’s return to logic and our laws for a moment while I reply to your post 
First, the material that you believe you are referring to in some outrageous context in which you desire to shock for the purposes of making a point - DOES EXIST.
There IS racist literature, web sites, and other media - all protected by free speech. Some of the media even talks of the coming inevitable race war and how to prepare for it. And their hatred extends to jews. If you read any account, historical or otherwise, of the holocaust, you ARE reading a manual of “how to put jews in ovens”. There is existing media that instructs how to make bombs - “for entertainment purposes only”. The news accounts of the trade center tragedy IS a “how to” for a large scale terrorism strike. All of what you mention exists. Now onto your “questions”.
When you “successfully recruit a bunch of retards” to commit a crime, you have crossed from the land of “media” and free speech, to an intent to commit a criminal act, including conspiracy. You can WRITE just about anything, but once you put into action - even planning, you are committing a crime.
Yes, we have hate laws. And in my opinion they are pretty misguided. There is a kid from NYC that is doing 15 years or so hard time for a fight where he uttered the word “nigga”. There was much legal consternation over whether he uttered “nigga” or “nigger”. Does the kid deserve to go to jail for the assault? Yes. Does he deserve 15 years because the government is trying to tell people what to think? NO. It’s a miscarriage of justice and a prime example of the government reacting with more laws that don’t address a problem. Assault is assault. I don’t care WHY you committed it. Either the punishment for assault is just, or it is not. We don’t need enhancements for “hate crimes”. The nature of assaulting someone is a form of “hatred” itself. But I digress
There is a difference between free speech and the intent to commit a crime. The author, by writing and publishing this disgusting material, is not showing an intent to commit a crime. Whoever purchases it, might be placing themselves under suspicion and like I said earlier, are probably “self reporting” themselves to law enforcement. That’s a good thing in my opinion.
At the end of the day, you probably have a point - that there is no redeeming quality to this publication and it should just be summarily banned. And that analysis would probably hold whether this was the 1500’s or, no matter what country. But you do realize, that people protested against, and called for the banning of many things that today are mainstream, and they did so with the same emotion and fervor that you have done above. Porn. Rock music. Rap music. Nudes. Literature. You could literally insert any of the foregoing into your above rants, and they were arguing against all this material with the same emotion and logic you were. Now, I’m not here saying that times will change and it will EVER be socially “okay” to engage in pedophilia (as the term is properly defined - sex with prepubescent children - the age of consent may be a moving target, but fucking outright children never will in my opinion). My point? Once you allow someone to draw a line - even when the line is clear (like in the case of this disgusting material), they now have a “magic” marker in their hand and once you let them use it, they aren’t likely to put that magic marker away. And once we allow this, then they DO have license and authority to take that magic marker and take away other forms of expression, including things like music, art, porn, etc. They will want to use it again…and that’s when they then stand on that slippery slope many of us have referred to.
So what do we do? We tolerate this disgusting material in exchange for all the liberties we enjoy. There is a cost to liberty, it does not come free or without making some people uncomfortable. We believe its your inalienable right to be an asshole - and it is. I don’t want to make this a thread about constitutional law, but the roots of defending this sick material (and the other material you mentioned), is grounded in our constitution.
If you know of a way to ban this book, but guarantee other material, I would like to hear it. Actually, I think that is the best means to discuss this topic going forward for the “dissenters” here. Tell us exactly how you would ban this book, but at the same time, guarantee my liberties. “Ban the book” is too easy. Tell us HOW to ban the book while guaranteeing free speech. Let me tell you where you’ll end up: You’ll be right where our Justices are now with respect to “indecency”. You know where we are and have been with that? “I know it when I see it”. Our Courts still wrangle with indecency - whether its porn, radio broadcast, movies, TV, etc. Are you starting to understand the futility with censorship???
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Once it is “publicly ok” for people to raise hell until this book is pulled, everyone with any axe to grind will be calling for the same thing.
[/quote]
I’ve re read this post a few times and am confused by this sentence. Could you please explain what you mean by it cause it seems like you are saying that it shouldnt be publicly ok for people to raise hell until this book is pulled?
oh yeah and pedophiles are bad mmmkay.
last time i checked, there was some exceptions to freedom of speech in the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
one of them is “incitement to crime”.
now, i wonder how “The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure” could possibly NOT be an incitement to crime, since this book is explicitly intended for a pedophile audience.
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
So let me see if I fully understand this…
You guys are so keen on “free speach”, that if I write a book on how to string niggers up from trees if they don’t want to pick my cotton, and than do interviews where I say that my book is to help the master race re-conquer the world by killing as many spear chuckers as possible, that’s ok?
Or if I write a book on how to put jews in ovens, and gas chambers, and than go on a tour of the country making speaches to talk about how those damb jews are trying to rule the world, and we need to weed them all out and take the country back. And give interviews where I say my intent is to rid the world of those gold teethed scum, and I’m recruiting an army?
Or if I write a book about how to build build shoe bombs, and fly jumbo jets into sky scrapers, where my intent is to KILL THE INFIDELS!!! Your gonna make sure I can do that? And that’s so important that when I successfully recruit a bunch of retards to do it your gonna be proud that you enabled me to do so?
Does your country not have any hate crime laws? This shit is rediculous. And all of the bull shit I just typed is nothing compared to pedophilia. Atleast blacks, and jews, and infidels have a good chance to be grown ups who can defend themselves. A 3 year old who’s getting fucked can’t do shit, and this guy is publishing a book so that more people can rape more 3 year olds without getting caught. The intent here is for people to be harmed. It’s not just a speach. It’s not a discussion. It’s an instructive manual on how to fuck kids. The pedophile’s kamasutra. At some point, you have to put a stop to this shit, and sooner rather than later.
And before anyone says that if not for free speach I wouldn’t be able to post what I just typed, we should all be able to agree that intent is what makes the crime, and my intent here is clearly not to have people harmed.[/quote]
are you trying to mimic the Pedo book Authors writing style by having type-o’s all over your post?
[quote]kamui wrote:
last time i checked, there was some exceptions to freedom of speech in the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
one of them is “incitement to crime”.
now, i wonder how “The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure” could possibly NOT be an incitement to crime, since this book is explicitly intended for a pedophile audience.[/quote]
Something I cut and paste from a web page. It seems that publishing the material is not necessarily an incitement to crime, any more than the various cop killing rap songs.
(4) Incitement to crime: It is a crime to incite someone else to commit a crime, and such speech is not protected by the First Amendment.
Discussion QuestionsIf a budding rap group proposes to perform a work which includes the exhortation to “kill whitie” or “kill the cops” or “rape the babe,” could that be incitement to a crime? Such records have been sold by commercial organizations, of course, yet there are no reported arrests of those artists or record companies for incitement to a crime. Should such rap lyrics be considered incitement to crime or is the causal relationship to any actual murders or rapes too tenuous?
Discussion QuestionsA novel criminal defense has arisen, claiming that such music somehow compelled the defendant to commit the crime. In Austin, Texas, Ronald Ray Howard, charged with the capital murder of a state trooper, claimed in his defense that ". . . he learned to hate police officers from years of listening to rap music with violent anti-police themes. . . . "(3) Is this an acceptable defense? Why or why not? (The jury convicted him, reaching a verdict in 35 minutes.)
Discussion Questions The recent attention to violence on television is largely a debate over whether such televised violence is a cause of actual violence, such that persons who exhibit violent shows should be held responsible. If society wants to discourage violence on television, is it because such depicted violence is clearly a cause of actual violence? Are there other reasons why society might still feel justified in restricting this depiction?
Discussion QuestionsIt is easy to imagine highly unpalatable projects which arguably could be considered an incitement to crime. What if a fundamentalist religious extremist group publishes a guidebook in this country on how to commit terrorism in the United States, with detailed instructions on making bombs, maps showing the homes and offices of government officials, and so forth. Instructions alone would not seem to constitute incitement, so assume that the book will also include a statement from the religion’s most revered leader urging that the guaranteed path to eternal bliss is following the instructions in the book. Given the presumed audience, might this be incitement to crime?
If freedom is really such a fetish, let’s do away with all anti-discrimination laws. If employers flat out do not want to hire or serve blacks, hispanics, or jews, so be it. FREEEEEEEDOOOOOM!
[quote]kamui wrote:
to all the “freedom of speech” defenders here :
if this book is ok, what about the first “pedo pride” crossing YOUR street ?
[/quote]
Sounds like a march that people would cheer on with molotov cocktails (myself probably included).
I don’t think this book is going to really cause any more cases of child molestation, simply because anyone that already aknowledges that they’re a pedophile (shown by them buying the book) more than likely either acts on the urges or doesn’t already. I can’t see a poorly written book spurring any people that are wondering if they’re truly pedophiles to action.
[quote]Sounds like a march that people would cheer on with molotov cocktails (myself probably included).
I don’t think this book is going to really cause any more cases of child molestation, simply because anyone that already aknowledges that they’re a pedophile (shown by them buying the book) more than likely either acts on the urges or doesn’t already. I can’t see a poorly written book spurring any people that are wondering if they’re truly pedophiles to action. [/quote]
i don’t know how many pedophiles actively refrains from acting out, and could be convinced to do it by such a book.
and i don’t think any of us know it.
but in this particular cases, it doesn’t matter.
the author explicitly intends to encourage pedophiles to indulge their oh-so-romantic tendencies and to help them to do it with impunity.
this is criminal in itself, even if it does NOT cause any more cases of child molestation.
if you really think this book should be defended for the sake of freedom of speech, you should be ready to pay with tax money the policemen who will be needed to protect the first “pedo pride” legally organized by NAMBLA.
it’s only a matter of time.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Something I cut and paste from a web page. It seems that publishing the material is not necessarily an incitement to crime, any more than the various cop killing rap songs.
[/quote]
i think it depends on the author’s intent and the audience of the “speech”.
the cop killing rap songs are usually not specifically headed for a cop killers audience.
not sure they would be legal if they were.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
If freedom is really such a fetish, let’s do away with all anti-discrimination laws. If employers flat out do not want to hire or serve blacks, hispanics, or jews, so be it. FREEEEEEEDOOOOOM!
[/quote]
Absolutely.
Glad that you finally see the light.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
Can I make a book OUT of pedophiles and then sell it? Like run them through a meat grinder, dry out the mush that comes out the other end, bleach it and bake it in a kiln? Then I could just fill every page with the same saying over and over “fuck you pedophile! Now you ARE a book you asshole!” and I think it might be a best cellar too!
V[/quote]
I would buy that!
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
If freedom is really such a fetish, let’s do away with all anti-discrimination laws. If employers flat out do not want to hire or serve blacks, hispanics, or jews, so be it. FREEEEEEEDOOOOOM!
[/quote]
Absolutely.
Glad that you finally see the light.[/quote]
lulz