Pedophile Handbook, now in Kindle edition!

[hooplala]

It was only a matter of time. 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Amazon pulled it due to boycott threats.

Which is a perfect example of Freedom of Speech in action!

Its so rare that our system works in any way shape or form that I'm taking some joy in this. I'm sure it will be a long time before it happens again

[Prince Glittersnatch III]

Ok, now I'm curious if anyone has actually read this book.  The whole thing could be a tasteless joke/object lesson/sociological experiement/political landmine. 

I mean, I could self-publish a book and put it on Amazon called, "Making love to your kittens: a how-to guide for at-home beastiality" with little to no content, and it would probably stir up a shitstorm from the title alone.

I'm not saying I approve, but I'm curious if anyone has gone deeper into what's going on here.

Im sure torrents are fucking everywhere now. The problem is finding them, I for one do not want to know happens when you google "pedophile handbook"

[Cain]

The NSA put your name on a database, and then if they ever need anything from you....

[Placid Dingo]

Racism and homophobia are protected speech, as long as you don't say "Let's go kill us some Kike Faggots!! Here's the rope!"

But you can say "Homosexuals will go to HELL!!!" "God Hates Fags!" "Those Jews secretly control all the money!!" or even "Here's my 600 page book documenting how "evil the jews are/stupid black people are/diseased gays" are, or "Best practices for kiddie fucking".

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Don't like what they say, but I'm still glad that the government isn't going after them for saying it.

This! Free speech is a boolean concept - you either have it or you don't. You draw a line across it, anywhere, even somewhere that looks totally reasonable on the surface, that's it gone.

Theirs is the right to spout whatever vile, senseless, fucked up bullshit they choose. Ours is the right to call them "cunts"

Out of curiousity, am I the only one who disagrees and thinks there should be laws in place about at least profiting from works instructing others in a heinous (directly harming others) crime.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Racism and homophobia are protected speech, as long as you don't say "Let's go kill us some Kike Faggots!! Here's the rope!"

But you can say "Homosexuals will go to HELL!!!" "God Hates Fags!" "Those Jews secretly control all the money!!" or even "Here's my 600 page book documenting how "evil the jews are/stupid black people are/diseased gays" are, or "Best practices for kiddie fucking".

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Don't like what they say, but I'm still glad that the government isn't going after them for saying it.

This! Free speech is a boolean concept - you either have it or you don't. You draw a line across it, anywhere, even somewhere that looks totally reasonable on the surface, that's it gone.

Theirs is the right to spout whatever vile, senseless, fucked up bullshit they choose. Ours is the right to call them "cunts"

Out of curiousity, am I the only one who disagrees and thinks there should be laws in place about at least profiting from works instructing others in a heinous (directly harming others) crime.

I'm just going to throw out the words "slippery slope" and see if you have the reasoning skills to figure out what makes it one.

[Placid Dingo]

Racism and homophobia are protected speech, as long as you don't say "Let's go kill us some Kike Faggots!! Here's the rope!"

But you can say "Homosexuals will go to HELL!!!" "God Hates Fags!" "Those Jews secretly control all the money!!" or even "Here's my 600 page book documenting how "evil the jews are/stupid black people are/diseased gays" are, or "Best practices for kiddie fucking".

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Don't like what they say, but I'm still glad that the government isn't going after them for saying it.

This! Free speech is a boolean concept - you either have it or you don't. You draw a line across it, anywhere, even somewhere that looks totally reasonable on the surface, that's it gone.

Theirs is the right to spout whatever vile, senseless, fucked up bullshit they choose. Ours is the right to call them "cunts"

Out of curiousity, am I the only one who disagrees and thinks there should be laws in place about at least profiting from works instructing others in a heinous (directly harming others) crime.

I'm just going to throw out the words "slippery slope" and see if you have the reasoning skills to figure out what makes it one.

I 'get' the slippery slope arguments. I also tend to avoid them. I really really find something fundamentally unpleasant about SS because it applies to basically everything.

"My objection to X is that if it was taken to the extremity, it would be bad."
Well, no shit Sherlock.

We should not make people divide rubbish and recycling because soon we could need thirty types of seperation containers with separate requirements that will confuse anyone! (also, take this down to 12 and you have Japan).

We should not let people have freedom of speech because soon we'll have websites showing people brutally murdered live, protected under freedom of symbolic speech!

If we implement Obama's health care system soon we'll be a Socialist nation!

Basically ANYTHING looks like a crap idea using slippery slope, so it's not a preferred argument of mine.

In Oz we have laws saying you cannot benefit from your crime. So you can't kick a puppy, go to jail, then make a best-selling novel 'I kicked that puppy!: A memoir'.
Also, I'm sure there are a number of other laws around classified information, identifying victims/perps of sexual abuse, other things etc.
So I don't think saying NO you CANNOT make money of teaching efficient means of specific crimes is an unreasonable extension.

All of this is besides the point.

My question is; am I the only one of this opinion here? That's what I'd like to know.

Edit for clarity.

[Faust]

While yes, Slippery slope is one of the classical logical fallacy's, I don't agree with you.

The Marquis De Sade's 120 days in Sodom contains material far far worse then this and is considered a classic. Its grotesque and awful, but sometimes we need that feeling of outrage in order to do the right thing.

[E.O.T.]

While yes, Slippery slope is one of the classical logical fallacy's, I don't agree with you.

The Marquis De Sade's 120 days in Sodom contains material far far better than this and is a literary and human sexuality classic. Sometimes we need that. In DeSade's case, we needed it. This other book sounds stupid.

[Faust]

While yes, Slippery slope is one of the classical logical fallacy's, I don't agree with you.

The Marquis De Sade's 120 days in Sodom contains material far far better than this and is a literary and human sexuality classic. Sometimes we need that. In DeSade's case, we needed it. This other book sounds stupid.

The acts depicted in the book were far far worse. Though I agree that this book sounds stupid.

[Faust]

Amazon pulled it due to boycott threats.

Which is a perfect example of Freedom of Speech in action!

Its so rare that our system works in any way shape or form that I'm taking some joy in this. I'm sure it will be a long time before it happens again

I don't see and difference between boycot threats and government intervention being used to pull the book. Mob rule on different scales is all.

[E.O.T.]

While yes, Slippery slope is one of the classical logical fallacy's, I don't agree with you.

The Marquis De Sade's 120 days in Sodom contains material far far better than this and is a literary and human sexuality classic. Sometimes we need that. In DeSade's case, we needed it. This other book sounds stupid.

The acts depicted in the book were far far worse. Though I agree that this book sounds stupid.

HA!

         most of what occurres(how the fuck is this word spelled?!) in a DeSade book is physically impossible. That's not including the anatomical! the rest is poetry.



         

[Placid Dingo]

While yes, Slippery slope is one of the classical logical fallacy's, I don't agree with you.

The Marquis De Sade's 120 days in Sodom contains material far far worse then this and is considered a classic. Its grotesque and awful, but sometimes we need that feeling of outrage in order to do the right thing.

My problem isn't the offensiveness, it's the ability for a 'how to guide' of this sort to be a commercial product.

That said, I haven't read it, or Sade. But if what's being said is accurate, and this is a how to guide for paedophiles then it meets the scenario I described above, and this is where I stand.

Edit: Clarity. Again.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Amazon pulled it due to boycott threats.

Which is a perfect example of Freedom of Speech in action!

Its so rare that our system works in any way shape or form that I'm taking some joy in this. I'm sure it will be a long time before it happens again

I don't see and difference between boycot threats and government intervention being used to pull the book. Mob rule on different scales is all.

Market pressure vs. legislation.

Also, by waiting for a boycott to threaten their business, Amazon gives themselves an out, vs. just pulling it for "offensive content" without market pressure.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

While yes, Slippery slope is one of the classical logical fallacy's, I don't agree with you.

The Marquis De Sade's 120 days in Sodom contains material far far worse then this and is considered a classic. Its grotesque and awful, but sometimes we need that feeling of outrage in order to do the right thing.

How about medical manuals that detail abortion procedures?

Abortion isn't illegal NOW. But it could easily become illegal again in the US, and a law that banned the pedophile handbook would likely also ban any book that explained abortion procedures, in that case.