Guide for Paedophiles published on Amazon

**Stunned Silence**

Maybe this could lead to an investigation about censoring third party products on websites that let you set up shop.

I just get 404'd when I try to look at the review, etc.

But this raises an interesting question. Obviously I have not read the book but what does it contain? Is the author trying to help people like himself fit into society or is he looking to stir up criminal activity? The quote from the BBC seems to suggest that he's offering advice to help them abide by the law. Why, then, is everyone up in arms about this? By saying things like "its a disgrace" and "this is terrible" are we not just going to push these people underground rather than helping them get the help they need?

I realise that I may get heavily flamed for that comment. I just think that people see the word 'pedophile' and lose all sense of rationality. It is heavily emotive.
At the end of the day they are still people and, as such, are entitled to the same rights that we are as long as they do not stray outside of the legal restrictions placed upon them.

"Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure a Child-lover's Code of Conduct"

Somehow from that title, I doubt its a self-help book for pedophiles…

From the BBC story; "The author…argues that paedophiles are misunderstood and purports to offer advice to help them abide by the law."

Maybe, as digital forensic investigators, we should hold judgement until we have all the facts.

Looked at objectively, the way societies deal with taboo subjects of this kind is certainly an interesting field of study.

With regard to paedophilia, you can see a wide range of actions from harassment of pediatricians to attempts (thankfully unsuccessful) to legalise sex with children through the political process.

The latter, I suppose, is somewhat analagous to the discussion about this ebook - how far do you go in a liberal democracy to protect the principles - including freedom of speech - upon which it is founded (even when such speech is clearly objectionable)?

I find phrases such as 'principles of liberalism' in context with this topic of discussion to be diametrically opposed to what liberalism is supposed to mean. The freedom to publish material that promotes gratification that directly seeks to harm the most vulnerable is our society, babies and young children, who are unable to defend themselves causing them mental and physical injury, maybe torture, is not in the spirit of intent as we think about freedom without censorship. I will explain. If a doctor writes a book on this subject the doctor does so for medical (if I may call it that) reasons. No censorship there. But it is unlikely the doctor seeks to encourage the acts. The paedophile who writes the book (so to speak) encouraging the acts and simply keeps his/her thoughts to themself is one issue. Amazon allowed distribution of a publication (to the world at large) to be accessed globally and it maybe in doing so they used globalism and cyberspace (an intangible place) governed by no laws that "might" directly breach the freedom of countries that seek to lawfully censor distribution (censorship) of such material. Where is so-called liberalism for those affected countries under these circumstances - it got swept away. So if we replace one concern of state censorship imposed by law with a no barriers imposed by unwritten/unconstituted law that disregards any law of a particular country, where is liberalism (freedom) in that for that country? This is why I find liberalism arguments quite strange, because it suggests giving on the one hand and taking away with the other hand at the same time (without consultation).

Libertarianism is about behaviour one wants or chooses to do or for one's self, but that should be without impact on anyone else's life (in discussing the topic of this thread). Libertarianism with rules operated under a laissez faire approach for paedophiles is an aphorism - literally, the left hand doesn't know what that right hand it doing.

Publications that are said to stimulate the notion that somehow getting a bit of 'nourishment' will ween them off it appears more aimed at getting society to accept this condition as naturally incurable, as opposing to mending it. I make that observation because the premise to their condition as we are led to understand it is that they say it is a condition incurable. And because paedophiles suggest their condition is incurable, why give them treatment? But surely that is a dichotomy, isn't it? If a child is without this so-called 'incurable' condition before being a victim of a paedophile, why should the child suddenly become incurable afterwards?

I guess that the single only positive point I can see in it being available via Amazon is that downloads may have a higher level of traceability, especially if buyers are logged into their user account. On a personal level, it saddens me that such a publication should be made available via a company such as Amazon. It'd be interesting to know whether any downloads are followed up by LE………

I give up. After that last comment about tracking people who buy the book I'm beginning to think it wouldn't matter WHAT was in that book to a lot of people.