Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Presumably the author has been arrested for being a paedophile rather than an author of a distasteful book.

"You cannot engage or depict children in a harmful relationship," said Polk County, Florida, Sheriff Grady Judd as he described the Florida obscenity statute that officials used to charge Phillip Greaves with distribution of obscene material depicting minors engaged in harmful conduct.

Now it is illegal to write a novel about a bitter divorce battle involving the couple's children.

Kilkrazy wrote:Now it is illegal to write a novel about a bitter divorce battle involving the couple's children.

And the kid sidekick in any book/movie now HAS to survive. Becuase violence only happens to adults.

What's weird is that he's being charged in Florida, despite never having been to Florida, or publishing his book there.

Where can I get this book? And how much?

I want ten.

Shadowbrand wrote:Where can I get this book? And how much?

I want ten.

I've always kind of wanted to have a really horrific book case on prominent display. Mein Kampf next to Protocols of the Elders of Zion next to the Paedophiles Guide and so on.

Peter Wiggin wrote:

"You cannot engage or depict children in a harmful relationship," said Polk County, Florida, Sheriff Grady Judd as he described the Florida obscenity statute that officials used to charge Phillip Greaves with distribution of obscene material depicting minors engaged in harmful conduct.

Wow, better go ahead and find all the people involved in the production of The Professional, Lolita, Lord of the Flies, American Beauty, Interview with a Vampire, etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:
I've always kind of wanted to have a really horrific book case on prominent display. Mein Kampf next to Protocols of the Elders of Zion next to the Paedophiles Guide and so on.

Having read all of those, Protocols is the most distasteful.

The book (Pedophiles Guide) is basically a plea against rape. It absolutely violates our normal standards of the age of consent, but it doesn't really advocate pedophilia so much as accept that there are pedophiles, and that they might act better than they do.

I consider that much better than Protocols, which attributes malice, instead of rebuking it.

Edit: For clarity.

sebster wrote:What's weird is that he's being charged in Florida, despite never having been to Florida, or publishing his book there.

Its clearly a "letter of the law" thing due to the fact that he's a pedophile. Sorry, but I fully endorse discrimination against pedophiles. Call it an arbitrary moral judgment.

He's a pedophile?

I don't know much about this man, I only know that he published a book aimed at pedophiles.

I suppose that might be considered to be pedophilia, but I don't.

It's not actually illegal to be a paedophile, it is illegal to have sex with someone under the age of consent.

Some paedophiles break the law in that respect, and so do some non-paedophiles.

I thought the book, distasteful a topic as it is, was a guide for paedophiles *not* to offend and thus stay on the right side of the law. Much as some people would like all paedophiles to be locked up or lobotomised the fact is that people get locked up for illegal actions, not for having certain thoughts.

The book was picked up by the media as a "how to guide" for paedophiles to abuse children, my understanding from other reporting is that isn't the point of the book but that didn't prevent a moral panic. If I'm wrong about this then I'll be happily corrected, but the book is not a guide for paedophiles to abuse children and get away with it, it's a guide on how not offend.

Now if that was accurate then I think a book supporting paedophiles to prevent them offending isn't actually such a bad idea in itself, though I can't see who would buy such a thing over the counter. Ideally paedophiles should seek medical help and not keep it a secret IMO.

I find it highly contradictory that a book telling paedophiles not to offend and break the law is a massively bad thing, but the many books on Amazon telling parents how to 'straighten out' their gay children are ok. So telling someone not to do something illegal is bad, but telling parents how to 'correct' their children growing up with normal legal feelings isn't worth commenting upon. Hmmm....

sebster wrote:

Shadowbrand wrote:Where can I get this book? And how much?

I want ten.

I've always kind of wanted to have a really horrific book case on prominent display. Mein Kampf next to Protocols of the Elders of Zion next to the Paedophiles Guide and so on.

I've got 'Mein Kampf'. It's dull.

There are depressingly few car-chases.

Howard A Treesong wrote:I thought the book, distasteful a topic as it is, was a guide for paedophiles *not* to offend and thus stay on the right side of the law. Much as some people would like all paedophiles to be locked up or lobotomised the fact is that people get locked up for illegal actions, not for having certain thoughts.

Having read it, yes, that's the case.

He needs a bullet to the head, on national TV.

Better yet, lets tie it in to the American foot ball thread. Put him on the 50 yard line in a game between the Steelers and the Raiders. He's the ball. Every body part in the end zone counts as a touchdown.

Consider my ticketS BOUGHT!

Peter Wiggin wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:No excuse for buggering little boys. Sorry, not gonna bend or break on that one.

I don't think anyone was arguing for that. We are talking about limits of free speech and all that junk though.

The free speech ends when you advocate child molestation.

Exactly. Its not judst advocacy. Its a how to manual.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:What's weird is that he's being charged in Florida, despite never having been to Florida, or publishing his book there.

He sent the book to a detective in Florida. In the words of the immortal bard: BAM!

Kilkrazy wrote:It's not actually illegal to be a paedophile, it is illegal to have sex with someone under the age of consent.

Some paedophiles break the law in that respect, and so do some non-paedophiles.

Also illegal to have kiddie porn, and the reason that this book skirts legality is because it is a how to guide on the actions of child molestation (a crime).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:I thought the book, distasteful a topic as it is, was a guide for paedophiles *not* to offend and thus stay on the right side of the law. Much as some people would like all paedophiles to be locked up or lobotomised the fact is that people get locked up for illegal actions, not for having certain thoughts.

Having read it, yes, that's the case.

I've only read exerpts, but the premise of "I want to seduce children" and "NEVER HURT THE KIDS" are NOT compatible. Putting it inside a little kid is harmful no matter how you slice it. I practice "harm no one".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:He needs a bullet to the head, on national TV.

Better yet, lets tie it in to the American foot ball thread. Put him on the 50 yard line in a game between the Steelers and the Raiders. He's the ball. Every body part in the end zone counts as a touchdown.

The Nation would take care of him so's they'd never find the body.

I find myself somewhat conflicted here, on one hand I strongly advocate free speech,even in the cases of speech others find extremely offensive or objectionable.
On the other hand,I honestly believe that anyone who would willfully harm a child should be crucified in the actual sense of the word.

FITZZ wrote:On the other hand,I honestly believe that anyone who would willfully harm a child should be crucified in the actual sense of the word.

Slow clap.

We don't crucify enough people anymore.

As a side note, I find myself constantly saying "Don't ya like CLOWNS? Ain't we fething funny?

Monster Rain wrote:

FITZZ wrote:On the other hand,I honestly believe that anyone who would willfully harm a child should be crucified in the actual sense of the word.

Slow clap.

We don't crucify enough people anymore.

As a side note, I find myself constantly saying "Don't ya like CLOWNS? Ain't we fething funny?

I see the good Captain has left an impression.

dogma wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:

"You cannot engage or depict children in a harmful relationship," said Polk County, Florida, Sheriff Grady Judd as he described the Florida obscenity statute that officials used to charge Phillip Greaves with distribution of obscene material depicting minors engaged in harmful conduct.

Wow, better go ahead and find all the people involved in the production of The Professional, Lolita, Lord of the Flies, American Beauty, Interview with a Vampire, etc.

As well as Alan Moore, for depicting Batgirl being crippled by the Joker, and also whoever was responsible for the death of Tim Drake.
Of course, this was in a comic series, and depicted fictional characters. Arguably a guide to paedophilia is in a bit of a different league in terms of "harm to children."

All the discussion about the cover of the book being hard to understand made me think of a possible alternative.

He's giving us the V's! That jerk!

Frazzled wrote:
Exactly. Its not judst advocacy. Its a how to manual.

Have you read it? Because it doesn't advocate pedophilia at all. Its basically a book about how to cope with one's destructive urges.

The title is provocative by intention, as the author wanted to attract attention to what he basically views as a disability.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
I've only read exerpts, but the premise of "I want to seduce children" and "NEVER HURT THE KIDS" are NOT compatible. Putting it inside a little kid is harmful no matter how you slice it. I practice "harm no one".

Sure they are. Wanting to do something does not entail believing that a thing should be done, or actually doing the thing in question.

One can want to do violence against someone, and still recognize that doing so would be wrong or bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Arguably a guide to paedophilia is in a bit of a different league in terms of "harm to children."

Not when it comes to mere depiction.

dogma wrote:Having read all of those, Protocols is the most distasteful.

The book (Pedophiles Guide) is basically a plea against rape. It absolutely violates our normal standards of the age of consent, but it doesn't really advocate pedophilia so much as accept that there are pedophiles, and that they might act better than they do.

I consider that much better than Protocols, which attributes malice, instead of rebuking it.

Edit: For clarity.

I haven't read Protocols (although I did see it for sale in a bookstore in Brunei, but that's a whole other story) but I did read Mein Kampf, which is mostly just boring and incoherent. And doesn't have enough car chases.

I didn't know you'd read the Paedophile's Guide, or the actual content of the book. Thanks for the insight.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peter Wiggin wrote:Its clearly a "letter of the law" thing due to the fact that he's a pedophile. Sorry, but I fully endorse discrimination against pedophiles. Call it an arbitrary moral judgment.

Arbitrary moral judgements and the law are an extremely bad combination. Indeed, the reason we embrace the the law is to protect us from the arbitrary moral judgements of others.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:He sent the book to a detective in Florida. In the words of the immortal bard: BAM!

Well, yeah, which is why all I said was that it was interesting, not that it was not a legal thing.

And when I say interesting, I mean it is interesting to consider exactly what would and wouldn't be illegal in other circumstances. What if the book was given to a warehouse for distribution, and they distributed it to a guy in Florida on his behalf, who's breaking the law then?

Kilkrazy wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

A Black Ram wrote:Lets also make a book on how to make bombs, and hide them from your parents!

They did, then they made it illegal. See "Jolly Roger's Cookbook" and "Anarchists Handbook". I remember when you could buy them at chain bookstores. Now you can't, cause they are illegal.


Actually, they may not be illegal per-say...but certainly difficult to find. Same deal with The Turner Diaries, although that book certainly doesn't directly incite any criminal behavior. Still......I hope that makes more sense to you than it does to me.

There is a subtle but important distinction between a book having been banned by the government, and a book being difficult to find because Amazon won't stock it.

I have no idea what the content of this alleged paedophile book may be. It probably can be defended on free speech grounds. It is very difficult to find legitimate grounds to ban a book, however as Ahtman said it needs to go through the trial process.

Presumably the author has been arrested for being a paedophile rather than an author of a distasteful book.

Would be nice if the charges were in the OPs post.

Monster Rain wrote:All the discussion about the cover of the book being hard to understand made me think of a possible alternative.

Spoiler:

BWUAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

irl spew chow mein laughing

Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

dogma wrote:Having read all of those, Protocols is the most distasteful.

The book (Pedophiles Guide) is basically a plea against rape. It absolutely violates our normal standards of the age of consent, but it doesn't really advocate pedophilia so much as accept that there are pedophiles, and that they might act better than they do.

I consider that much better than Protocols, which attributes malice, instead of rebuking it.

Edit: For clarity.

I haven't read Protocols (although I did see it for sale in a bookstore in Brunei, but that's a whole other story) but I did read Mein Kampf, which is mostly just boring and incoherent. And doesn't have enough car chases.

I didn't know you'd read the Paedophile's Guide, or the actual content of the book. Thanks for the insight.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peter Wiggin wrote:Its clearly a "letter of the law" thing due to the fact that he's a pedophile. Sorry, but I fully endorse discrimination against pedophiles. Call it an arbitrary moral judgment.

Arbitrary moral judgements and the law are an extremely bad combination. Indeed, the reason we embrace the the law is to protect us from the arbitrary moral judgements of others.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:He sent the book to a detective in Florida. In the words of the immortal bard: BAM!

Well, yeah, which is why all I said was that it was interesting, not that it was not a legal thing.

And when I say interesting, I mean it is interesting to consider exactly what would and wouldn't be illegal in other circumstances. What if the book was given to a warehouse for distribution, and they distributed it to a guy in Florida on his behalf, who's breaking the law then?

He was clearly the target of a police operation based on the fact that HE WROTE A HOW TO BOOK ON MOLESTING KIDS!!!!! I think that the legal foundation is pretty secure. Florida is in the belt of states that will and do prosecute obscenity laws. Too bad, so sad.

Your free speech ends when it harms another citizen. Poli Sci 101 noobfarts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Exactly. Its not judst advocacy. Its a how to manual.

Have you read it? Because it doesn't advocate pedophilia at all. Its basically a book about how to cope with one's destructive urges.

The title is provocative by intention, as the author wanted to attract attention to what he basically views as a disability.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
I've only read exerpts, but the premise of "I want to seduce children" and "NEVER HURT THE KIDS" are NOT compatible. Putting it inside a little kid is harmful no matter how you slice it. I practice "harm no one".

Sure they are. Wanting to do something does not entail believing that a thing should be done, or actually doing the thing in question.

One can want to do violence against someone, and still recognize that doing so would be wrong or bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Arguably a guide to paedophilia is in a bit of a different league in terms of "harm to children."

Not when it comes to mere depiction.

So you argue from the stance that this is protected under free speech? Fine, send it to the courts!


Bolded your own comments. Statutory rape is rape. Thats a crime. It advocates breakign the legal age of consent, there by it advocates rape. Go ahead and point out the logical fallacy if you want.

Peter Wiggin wrote:He was clearly the target of a police operation based on the fact that HE WROTE A HOW TO BOOK ON MOLESTING KIDS!!!!! I think that the legal foundation is pretty secure. Florida is in the belt of states that will and do prosecute obscenity laws. Too bad, so sad.

What the hell are you doing? Why are you pretending that I'm in any way defending this guy, his book or his right to publish his book. I was commenting that the law matters more than your (self admitted) arbitrary moral judgements.

But you seem to have formed the debate approach of 'paedophiles are bad, everything else is detail, now to start a flame war'.

Your free speech ends when it harms another citizen. Poli Sci 101 noobfarts.

Well, fething duh. Seriously, just, fething duh. What you've posted is incredibly obvious, incredibly simplistic, and you did it in a pointlessly rude way. Why are you trying to sink your own thread?

sebster wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:He was clearly the target of a police operation based on the fact that HE WROTE A HOW TO BOOK ON MOLESTING KIDS!!!!! I think that the legal foundation is pretty secure. Florida is in the belt of states that will and do prosecute obscenity laws. Too bad, so sad.

What the hell are you doing? Why are you pretending that I'm in any way defending this guy, his book or his right to publish his book. I was commenting that the law matters more than your (self admitted) arbitrary moral judgements.

But you seem to have formed the debate approach of 'paedophiles are bad, everything else is detail, now to start a flame war'.

Your free speech ends when it harms another citizen. Poli Sci 101 noobfarts.

Well, fething duh. Seriously, just, fething duh. What you've posted is incredibly obvious, incredibly simplistic, and you did it in a pointlessly rude way. Why are you trying to sink your own thread?

No, I just formulated the stance that this guy is a sick puppy that broke the law. Now he gets to go through the process.

Sorry if I was rude, honestly didn't intend for it to be. Went back and edited it 3 times to try and make it NOT rude. Apparently I fail at internet. Edit: Actually 5 times

I do think that this is a seperate issue from free speech, thats all I'm saying. Fair enough?

Peter Wiggin wrote:
He was clearly the target of a police operation based on the fact that HE WROTE A HOW TO BOOK ON MOLESTING KIDS!!!!!

No, he wrote a how-to book about living your life as a pedophile. There are pedophiles that do not molest children, just as there are gay men that do not have sex with men, and heterosexual men that do not have sex with women.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
So you argue from the stance that this is protected under free speech? Fine, send it to the courts!

Not really, I'm arguing that what everyone here thinks is in the book is not actually in the book, because I've read the book; unlike, I'm guessing, every other commentator here.

I'm also tacitly arguing that the book is protected by Free Speech, but not because I'm arguing that people should be able to advocate pedophilia.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Bolded your own comments. Statutory rape is rape. Thats a crime. It advocates breakign the legal age of consent, there by it advocates rape. Go ahead and point out the logical fallacy if you want.

No, no it doesn't, and that's what the comments that you placed in bold are about. I realize that, for many people, this is a difficult issue to look at dispassionately but the book that's being discussed here really has nothing at all to do with statutory rape or its advocacy. In fact, it explicitly demonizes statutory rape, and then goes on to give advice about how to cope with the desire to commit it.

The legal age of consent has no bearing on being attracted to someone who is not of majority. If it did, the movie Mean Girls would have sent millions of American men to jail.