Freedom of Speech?

[chongyixiong]

http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/10/amazon-defends-pedophile-how-to-guide/

Ouch.

Sample text (not safe for humans):

Show Image

and:

Show Image

and that’s just from the first few pages. No one here could stomach reading any more.

Do you think it was wrong of Amazon to allow the book to be on their site?

Personally I believe that it is the choice of the individual to make the correct decision to either support or not purchase the particular e-book.. if under similiar arguments, the US government, or anyone could partition for Amazon to remove any books that might 'contain sensitive information' for their own good.

[zefrer]

Any attempt to restrict the availability of a book is an infridgement on the writer's human right to freedom of speech. Simple as that.

Obviously there are people that will be offended by its content but they have the option of _not_ reading it. I would question the intelligence of people like the above who, while knowing that the subject matter is offensive to them, willingly went and paid money to get a copy of it. For what? So they can point and say "well this is offensive isn't it?"

Furthermore, there are several books that describe potentially illegal activities for sale, freely, anywhere in the world. For just one example ganja growing books on amazon.

The question then becomes, if it's ok to stop selling that particular book then who's to say it will stop there, like you said.

[Fwiffo]

Freedom of speech means that you can't be stopped from saying or expressing ideas, even if they're offensive to a lot of people (with certain exceptions; shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is not considered protected speech.) On the other hand, nobody is required to provide you a platform for your speech. No publishing company is required to print your manuscript, no radio station is required to give you free air-time, no bookstore is required to sell your book, no search engine is required to show you in its search results.

Amazon, for instance, doesn't sell some books on go that I'd like to buy. That doesn't mean they're censoring go books. It just means that the subject is esoteric and that the books sell in volumes too small to make it worthwhile.

So it wouldn't strictly be censorship for Amazon to not carry this book, or holocaust denial books. It would be censorship if the government, say, shut down the publisher or anyone who sold the book.

On the other hand, I understand the hesitance to block the sale of something based on its content. For example, there are lots of books they carry that could be construed as instruction manuals on how to commit worse crimes, such as murder (mystery books, the anarchist's cookbook, chemistry books that have instructions on how to prepare poisons, drugs or explosives, etc.) Creating a bright-line policy would be difficult.

[quadibloc]

Preventing sexual assaults is more important than playing games.

Freedom of speech does mean that a book advocating that pedophilia be legalized should not be suppressed. But that's different from a how-to manual. In this case, Amazon should share its records with law-enforcement agencies, because doing so may result in some children being saved.

Sexual assault in any form should be treated the same way terrorism is: we wouldn't hesitate or ask questions about the police doing what they have to in order to prevent a bomb going off that would kill thousands of people; we should treat preventing even one sexual assault in exactly the same way.

[zefrer]

I understand what you're saying, Amazon have every right to choose whether or not to carry the book in the first place.

In this case however the book was for sale, people complained about its content, amazon pulled it.

Is this censorship or not? You could argue both ways, amazon can stop selling any product on their site sure. The writer can also sell the ebook via some other site or setup his own website, whatever. On the other hand amazon pulled it based on objections on its content.

[Fwiffo]

And Amazon has yanked the book...

[VentiLator]

in germany, pedophilic texts and drawings (cartoon/hentai) with (imaginary) children involved are against the law. so here, this isn't a question of freedom of speech.
just because you're free to express yourself, it doesn't mean that this freedom can't collide with laws.

[zefrer]

The same in the UK Vent. No one said that there were any drawings in this book tho. Nor is describing pedophilia or discussing it against the law.

[Daniel Beaver]

I would echo what Fwiffo says.

The first amendment is very black and white, and so the government may not take a role in censoring this stuff. However, Amazon has every right to not carry it, and we have the right to lambast the author. And that's the way it should be. A work which society finds questionable should be dealt with by intelligent criticism of it's faults, not by book burning.

[zefrer]

I would echo what Fwiffo says.

The first amendment is very black and white, and so the government may not take a role in censoring this stuff. However, Amazon has every right to not carry it, and we have the right to lambast the author. And that's the way it should be. A work which society finds questionable should be dealt with by intelligent criticism of it's faults, not by book burning.

Exactly. But how is pulling a book that was previously available based solely on its content not akin to book burning?

[keyboardlover]

Exactly. But how is pulling a book that was previously available based solely on its content not akin to book burning?

They're simply making a decision to not sell it. It's not like they're actually destroying it.

[zefrer]

You're right. How is not akin to censorship is what I should have said.

[wellington1869]

You're right. How is not akin to censorship is what I should have said.

censorship occurs in a context, its not a magic word like abracadabra. If you want to discuss censorship you have to talk about who is censoring, with what overall effect, etc. Censorship is not wrong simply because its censorship, the context matters -- Even "freedom of speech" has limits in our society (cant yelll Fire! in a crowded theatre, to take the classic example). Everything has limits even in a free society, things like speech and censorship are not free simply because they exist; they are free within a liberal context which we define through a deliberative process involving the courts, the constitution, law enforcement, and public opinion, and what we're ultimately relying on is the checks and balances provided by this deliberative process and for that process to occur over time freely.  In some cases (Fire! in a public theatre, or acts of Libel) censorship is GOOD.  The question is does a given situation fall under these limits or not, thats what needs to be debated. Not the simple fact that it was 'censorship'.

In this case I think amazon was wrong to sell the book, and was  right (and within its rights) to pull the book.  Among the many considerations: whether the act being described is violent or non violent (sexual predation is violent). I agree with quad that in this case the same argument applies that might be applied to a terrorism how-to manual, both being violent and predatory, and amazon being within its rights to refuse to sell a book in its bookstore, and the public within their rights to critize amazon if it does.

If you want 'absolute' freedom of speech (or the closest one can get in our society to that) you'll need to go to a college campus (a protected but also contained arena) and discuss/present/publish such a book there. Or some other similarly contained arena.

What gets me about this case of censorship (and here i agree amazon should drop the book), is that often these standards are not consistent and i wish they were more consistent. Example: would amazon 'censor' a book of mohammad cartoons? Even university presses censored that! Even tho cartoons are protected satire (speech) and not directly violent (Its not yelling Fire! in a crowded theatre to print mohammad cartoons -- the analogy is more like yelling "Dont go in there!" in a movie theatre and having the audience kill you because they didnt want to hear that. In that scenario, i blame the audeince, not the yeller). So in other words, i hope amazon has the courage to defend printing mohammad cartoons. Somehow i doubt that, tho.

[keyboardlover]

You're right. How is not akin to censorship is what I should have said.

Well, it's not like they're suppressing the ability of anyone else to distribute it in any way.

[zefrer]

A debate on if this particular censorship was justified or not presumes said censorship occurred. I was asking if that's the case or not (that this is in fact censorship)

[wellington1869]

A debate on if this particular censorship was justified or not presumes said censorship occurred. I was asking if that's the case or not (that this is in fact censorship)

its a case of censorship in the sense that amazon decided to censor a pedophile manual, yes.  Its not "state censorship", its not "church censorship" etc; its corporate censorship, yes.  And I think it was correct to do and that our constitutional system would uphold it, and our public opinion would back it.

[zefrer]

Did you read any quotes? It seems to suggest things that are not illegal and assumes the reader is a pedo. Ie not exactly for everyone. Now why our society chooses to oppose something not directed at the general public while seemingly not hurting anyone, I don't know. Certainly our society has convicted criminal pedos.

[RoboKrikit]

If this guy wants to self-publish a how-to book on "safe" (as in 'do not get caught' safe, apparently) pedophilia, that is his right in the US.  Of course it is our right to ignore him, distrust him, protest against him, or what have you, and certainly it is within Amazon's rights to avoid selling his book.

It is certainly censorship on Amazon's part.  Assuming their usual policy is to put up for sale any new book that is of interest--and this book jumped into their top 100 for sales--discontinuing sales due to the book's content (and media coverage thereof) must be considered censorship.  But we don't have the right to have every book sold to us by Amazon.

If I were in their shoes I might do the same thing.  I wouldn't stand for our government censoring the book.  But if I put his book up for sale in my own shop, and saw a spike in its sales (presumably due to press interest and morbid curiosity), I would have some serious reservations knowing that I was essentially funneling money to a publicly-known pedophile who expresses interest in getting his rocks off with little kids on the down low, and helping others to do the same.

[wellington1869]

If this guy wants to self-publish a how-to book on "safe" (as in 'do not get caught' safe, apparently) pedophilia, that is his right in the US.  

i dont believe thats true. It would make him complicit with a violent crime (aiding and abetting) and i do not believe thats protected under the constitution.

[Daniel Beaver]

Did you read any quotes? It seems to suggest things that are not illegal and assumes the reader is a pedo. Ie not exactly for everyone. Now why our society chooses to oppose something not directed at the general public while seemingly not hurting anyone, I don't know. Certainly our society has convicted criminal pedos.

It doesn't matter if he is describing illegal acts, or if he is defending pedophilia. He can write whatever he damn well pleases, no exceptions. Now, if he were to go out and start practicing what he preaches, then he would rightfully deserve to be arrested and jailed. That's the crucial difference: in this country, we criminalize actions, not ideas.

I would rather Amazon didn't pull stuff that was controversial. Like Welly said, where do you draw the line? I don't want a corporation deciding what is "acceptable" in our society, and I fear a slippery slope effect. Though, worst case scenario, there is the internet.

i dont believe thats true. It would make him complicit with a violent crime (aiding and abetting) and i do not believe thats protected under the constitution.

The law is a bit fuzzy in that regard. If he directly encourages and enables violent crime, then you could make some case about it. Still, I would think you would have to make the case that the author was more involved with the crime than simply writing a book about it. I wonder if anyone else has more say about the law behind this? Even the first amendment has limits; for example, you can't just start sending people death threats or other such lunacy.

[wellington1869]

It doesn't matter if he is describing illegal acts, or if he is defending pedophilia. He can write whatever he damn well pleases, no exceptions.

this may be your point of view, but it is not the current state of law in the US or any of the liberal democracies, every democracy has limits on speech, as far as I know. I also happen to agree with those limits, but thats besides the point.  There is such a thing as libel, there is such a thing as incitement. To say otherwise is to ignore the obvious fact that those things exist and are harmful, and that words -- in certain situations, like yelling Fire! -- or saying "I do" at a wedding -- are in fact *acts*, and are recognized as acts by our law courts.

 Now, if he were to go out and start practicing what he preaches, then he would rightfully deserve to be arrested and jailed. That's the crucial difference: in this country, we criminalize actions, not ideas.

again, not entirely true because words have consequences and our courts, in certain situations like the above, recognize this.

[wellington1869]

it reminds me of the recent case against the islamist who threatened the lives of the south park creators when they wanted to air that show in which mohammad appears as a bear. (the show was pulled, self-censored by comedy central, out of fear of their lives basically).  The islamist basically said, on an islamist website, that what he believs will happen is that the creators of south park would be butchered in the street, and he gave out some private home information about them. This was basically a threat on their lives as well as incitement to do violence against them.

When the authorities showed up, the islamist "argued" that all he had done was "describe what would probably happen" and that therefore merely 'free speech'.

Thankfully, a federal judge decided that wasnt the whole story and i beleive he was eventually convicted of threatening the south park creators lives and of incitement.

limits are good, even in a liberal democracy, otherwise 'free speech' can have some of the most stifling oppressive effects ON freedom and free speech (in this case, the free speech legitimate satire rights of the south park creators, which was stifled).

[Lanx]

Amazon, for instance, doesn't sell some books on go that I'd like to buy. That doesn't mean they're censoring go books. It just means that the subject is esoteric and that the books sell in volumes too small to make it worthwhile.

http://www.hulu.com/search?query=hikaru&st=1
if you haven't watched it already, i'm sure you have since you actually want to find books about go, but not only do i believe it's one of the top5 anime available, it's the best sports anime too(and i've watched anime since the mid 80's on VHS and i'm not a white guy! that's a bonus when it comes to anime critique).

[Lanx]

btw this isn't limiting freedom of speech, this is strictly Amazon's company view and values. Just recently i think a rapper prolly kanye couldn't get his cd in walmart cuz there was a naked something. Walmart is all about family values and does not sell a lot of things that the company finds objectionable. So kanye did what anyone would do if they wanted to have walmart distribute their stuffs, he made a censored version of his album cover for walmart.

company's cannot be accused of limitied/suppressing freedom of speech, if you own a high class restaurant and you come walking in with tennis shoes expecting a table by voicing your freedom of speech to be a slacker, they can refuse you service and call the cops if they have to and be entirely in their right.

[godly_music]

Threats like those made against the South Park creators have little to do with free speech and everything to do with suppressing it. When our liberal platform collides with fundamentalists and threats to our freedom of speech and freedom of expression are made, then that is an attack on freedom and an exploitation of our comfortable mindset and passivity. What Comedy Central did is cave in, and what caving in means in this context is that we forfeit our powerful foundation of freedom and letting fear win. Freedom cannot be defined in times of peace and prosperity, it is defined when it is uncomfortable to uphold.

A book hinting at pedophilia is an uncomfortable situation just as the Mohammed comic was. You can find the book despicable, but you must if necessary FIGHT for its right to exist. Not to be published, that distinction has already been made. Setting precedents is what it's all about.

I know it is dangerous to break out words like "greater cause" and it is understandable that individuals value their lives and rather not produce something that will upset a fundamentalist. But we have to go the risky route here and upset them. That is what gives our values strength.

I don't buy into the war against terrorism, as I already said in another thread. I dislike governments and militaries and all that. So take this as a reminder of our base rights, our constitutions, and how to keep them alive. Don't trust your government to do it. The Patriot Act is a classic example of a government seeing an opportunity to tighten the reigns and break another chip off the constitution.

[Lanx]

how to/guides really are just cliff notes for ppl who intend to do it, the intention was already there, they're just looking for more so it's not like someone is gonna browse the bookstore, stumble upon this guide to pedo's and go, "you know i think i'll try it"

I remember i saw an interview about this bank robber and he was very successful and the thing he said was, he watched tons of footage and newsclips/articles on how bank robbers got caught. He saw that they all got caught in a car, so he never used a car. He saw that when they left they all looked ansy, so he would buy a coffee and newspaper, put it right outside the bank, rob the bank then pick up the newspaper and coffee and really look inconspicuous(sp). He'd only rob banks w/ no other customers inside cuz customers not bank security would always be the ones to try to put up a fight... things like that. He knew what he was doing, a how to guide would just have given him the cliff notes if he saw "the hitchhikers guide to being bonnie and clyde".

[chongyixiong]

Seems like Amazon has finally pulled it out.. not that I care for the book but as what others have said, this is not how I would have seen Amazon to finally cave in to public pressure.

So I guess others will start stepping in and petition for books to be removed for their own personal interests now.

On a side note, this How-to book did cause an ill-effect on the Japanese society, as highlighted in one of the past threads talking about the Aokigahara forest suicides.

[chongyixiong]

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=70358

Apparently old news.

[wellington1869]

Seems like Amazon has finally pulled it out.. not that I care for the book but as what others have said, this is not how I would have seen Amazon to finally cave in to public pressure.

i'm sorry, but there is no way preying on children should ever be defended on 'free speech' grounds. Its complete bull****.

So I guess others will start stepping in and petition for books to be removed for their own personal interests now.

no, its NOT a slippery slope. The boundaries are pretty clear and pretty well established in law too. Violence and predation against helpless people (in this case children who are NOT in a position to make an adult decision about sex, and who face an enormous differential of power when facing an adult sexual predator) cross the line.  The slippery slope argument is total bull**** because those moral standards are very well established both in ethics and in law.

i'm sorry but its these kinds of ill-thought out arguments that give liberals such a bad name, and rightly so.

This isnt a case where predation is part of a larger project or cultural or political criticism or satire or even fiction. The only reason this book exists is to help pedaphiles do their predation.  That crosses the line too.

The author told CNN he thinks pedophiles have an 'unfair portrayal in the media' and he wants to change that. Can you ****ing believe it? This is what this guys goal is.  Everyone's a ****ing 'victim' these days - even the predators! And liberals fall for this 'victim' rhetoric, hook, line, and sinker, every single time. We cannot be this feeble minded in our analysis if we're going to have any ****ing credibility as liberals.

[keyboardlover]

I heard they tried to interview the author of this book but he was busy at a barbecue.

[wellington1869]

lol.

this is a pretty open and shut case. The only 'controversy' here is that amazon PR people were that uneducated that they actually made a half-hearted attempt at a defense.

[zefrer]

I don't agree with your viewpoint but I will defend your right to say it.

That's how it should be. If you stop one person from speaking his mind who's to say the next person stopped won't be someone you agree with, or you?

[kps]

Violence and predation against helpless people (in this case children [...]

Amazon is full of books advocating violence against children.

[wellington1869]

Amazon is full of books advocating violence against children.

like what? link?

[wellington1869]

I don't agree with your viewpoint but I will defend your right to say it.

That's how it should be. If you stop one person from speaking his mind who's to say the next person stopped won't be someone you agree with, or you?

no, this book isnt just a 'viewpoint', its a how-to manual and it enables sexual and violent predatory crime against the most helpless.  That is, in part, what puts it over the line. Its like a bomb-making manual written for terrorists, its equivalent to that. Amazon couldnt sell those either, and for good reason.

[kps]

like what? link?

Start with a big seller like http://www.amazon.com/dp/0842305068 and you spend a few hours sifting through the 'also bought' tree.

[wellington1869]

Start with a big seller like http://www.amazon.com/dp/0842305068 and you spend a few hours sifting through the 'also bought' tree.

i havent clicked on that link yet, tho i will, and i'm willing to bet that what you'll find there are works of fiction or satire or cultural criticism or some other redeeming value to the works, which would be in fact protected speech, and that line is not slippery, its clearly defined in our law as the 'redeeming value' clause and judges use it often to decide these cases, its a well set precedent.
And if the books DONT have redeeming value (ie, arent simply a how-to manual for predation), then yea, amazon ought to pull those too and shame on them if they dont, it would be a simple case of amazon PR folks having no idea where our Law draws the line, and where our liberal ethical history has always drawn the line.

[zefrer]

no, this book isnt just a 'viewpoint', its a how-to manual and it enables sexual and violent predatory crime against the most helpless.  That is, in part, what puts it over the line. Its like a bomb-making manual written for terrorists, its equivalent to that. Amazon couldnt sell those either, and for good reason.

As opposed to what? A bomb making manual not for terrorists? Of which soldiers in service read every day? Is that ok? Or the 'Prepatory Manual of Explosives' available on amazon? That ok too?

Where's the line is my point. I agree that particular book incites illegal activities and it would probably be found illegal in a court of law but where's the line?

[wellington1869]

As opposed to what? A bomb making manual not for terrorists? Of which soldiers in service read every day? Is that ok? Or the 'Prepatory Manual of Explosives' available on amazon? That ok too?

Where's the line is my point. I agree that particular book incites illegal activities and it would probably be found illegal in a court of law but where's the line?

dude, there's no mystery as to where the line is. There is so much precedent in our legal system for this point. One famous case I read about (and saw the movie on) is the case of lenny bruce's trial for obsenity in the 60s (i actually know one of the sociology professors who testified in defense of lenny bruce, i've talked with him about it). The argument that got bruce off the hook was the argument about redeeming value.

The bomb making manuals technically should not be on amazon, this topic comes up periodically too and shame on amazon for having them. Just like youtube recently pulled jihadi imam videos exhorting people to do holy war. Yea, they should be pulled, there is no redeeming value for encouraging people to take up the task of murdering people in a mall in the name of religion.

there is NO mystery about where the line is, i'm sorry. This is so well established. If amazon is flaunting the rules, the only question is when will they stop. There is no question about what the line is. Predatory violence as instructions and exhortation and with no other social political critical or other redeeming value is not protected speech. Period. If its getting past the rules, the question is about enforcement not about whether its protected or not. No, its not protected speech.

[zefrer]

Sorry that's some BS right there. How to make a bomb is not exactly difficult and knowledge for the sake of knowledge is in no way illegal. The point is you can't differentiate between someone buying a book because he likes books and is curious and someone buying a book because he is on a jihad or w/e.

These are not books of the 'you _should_ make a bomb and do this and that' type. They do not instruct you to do anything illegal. It is just knowledge. If you then use that knowledge to do something illegal then you will be in trouble, almost anyone is in a position to do something illegal. They do not because it's illegal not because they don't know how.

[wellington1869]

Sorry that's some BS right there. How to make a bomb is not exactly difficult and knowledge for the sake of knowledge is in no way illegal.

thats simply not true. Another example: wikileaks. Yea, if he spilled military secrets, he's going to be prosecuted (and should be, unless you're such an airhead-hippie that you think democracy can defend itself with magic). Knowledge for the sake of knowledge? Yea, it can be prosecuted; it depends on the knowledge. Even in a liberal democracy that remains true. There is NO SUCH THING as nihilistically, anarchistically "free" speech.  Liberal concept of free speech is NOT that; it is a disciplined concept, it is not an anarchic concept.

The point is you can't differentiate between someone buying a book because he likes books and is curious and someone buying a book because he is on a jihad or w/e.

No, you cant -- but you CAN differentiate between a book that has NO OTHER PURPOSE but to incite violence, vs books that obviously HAVE other purposes (satire, criticism, fictional entertainment, etc etc). And that is precisely what the law courts have done for centuries in the western liberal tradition of figuring out what speech is protected and what is not.  There is no mystery about this because the legal precedent is so well established in deciding these cases.

These are not books of the 'you _should_ make a bomb and do this and that' type.

yes they are

They do not instruct you to do anything illegal.

yes they do. they have no other purpose for their existence; thats the argument about 'no other redeeming value'.

It is just knowledge.

there is no such thing as knowledge without context of both production and usage. To pretend otherwise is to be either really really naive, or willfully complicit.

[Lanx]

there is no such thing as knowledge without context of both production and usage. To pretend otherwise is to be either really really naive, or willfully complicit.

I guess I agree with this, just recently my fiancee said well our blankets are torn to shreds(cuz we wash and dry them weekly cuz of allergies, ppl with allergies know what i mean). But they are comfortable and she likes her blanket (and the previous blanket i bought for her, gave her hives, like real big hives) So she said, can we sew it together? and i'm like ok sure.
So i just goto Amazon sort by highest user reviews but the sewing machine that isn't 1000$ and wait.
Now i go, wait wtf, i have no idea how to sew or use a sewing machine. so i google and watch a few youtubes.

Long story short, i'm pretty sure w/o this need to learn how to sew, i really would never just all of a sudden out of the blue go, "lemme google some youtubes about sewing@!!!".