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. Liberalism 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.
Surely you're confusing "liberalism" (in the sense with which it's meant in the phrase "liberal democracy") with "libertarianism"?
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. Liberalism 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. Liberalism 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.
Sorry but there's is a contradiction here, even if both parts are correct… To clarify writing, selling, reading a book is behaviour that has no impact on anybody else's lives, and more, should be protected - in a liberal state - as part of freedom of expression, no matter what actually is the book content. If we begin to limit by law what can be published/said in public and what cannot, we are running towards a police state (tracking downlaods by LEOs…. I shiver…..)
So no lassaiz faire for pedophiles who act and commit crimes, which is very different from writing and selling books.
PS saw Jamie's post… I'm using "liberal" in the "European" sense, menaing the doctrine which endorses a minimal state, the rights of the individual etc
You are right Jamie. I meant to put libertarianism regarding behaviour, so as to separate from my earlier remarks on liberalism relating to the making freedoms. I have now corrected it. Thanks.
Sorry Alex missed out replying to your point. My comments were aimed only on the single subject of this thread, not freedoms and free will about other matters and issues.
>>> Looked at objectively, the way societies deal with taboo subjects
>>> of this kind is certainly an interesting field of study.
Absolutley, I don't think much has been done on it. Also the effect on CF practitioners that are exposed to CP material day in day out.
Interesting article today also regarding Op Ore and some of the accused who were quite possibly innocent.
http//
Heres some lines from a wonderful TV series called monkeydust which captured the public hysteria around this issue perfectly by a character called the paedofinder general!
You can watch him in action here
http//
[Mrs Jenkins has come to collect her pictures from a photo development shop]
Paedo-Finder General I am the Paedo-Finder General, and you are Mrs Jenkins, a paedophile!
Mrs Jenkins On what basis?
Paedo-Finder General [holds up photo] On the basis of these pornographic images taken with your camera of a naked infant!
Mrs Jenkins That's my baby, Jacob. I became a mother last week!
Paedo-Finder General So! You confess that for nine months you imprisoned a naked child in your stomach before forcing him backwards through your genitalia for your own sick amusement!
Mrs Jenkins Well, that's how all babies are born!
Paedo-Finder General Enough! By the powers invested in me by tabloid-reading imbeciles, I pronounce you guilty of paedophilia! [Takes a giant pair of scissors and gruesomely chops off her head]
Just read this
http//
I retract all previous statements as he says
"Penetration is out. You can't do that with a child, but kissing and fondling I don't think is that big of a problem".
So sorry everyone, but I now agree with the pulling of the book and the guy could possibly be arrested for encouraging illegal acts.
However, how many books are out there that teach you how to do something illegal, even in fiction? People don't boycott Amazon for those do they?
The end of a society is when the evil cannot be punished, nor the good rewarded.
I do not know the laws in the US that would punish this publisher, nor do I think the laws are sufficient what punishment I would deliver.
Amazon.com morals, ethics and character in their response is beyond my comprehension.
Amazon does not support or promote hatred or criminal acts, however, we do support the right of every individual to make their own purchasing decision.
Amazon's argument of censorship holds no water for me. I agree with AC360-boy you can not be against censorship when you censor porn (for example).
I hope some LEAs got their hands on this to see what was in there.
"you keep your friends close and enemies closer…."
-=A=-
Amazon's argument of censorship holds no water for me. I agree with AC360-boy you can not be against censorship when you censor porn (for example).
Amazon's argument of censorship holds no water for me. I agree with AC360-boy you can not be against censorship when you censor porn (for example).
What some seem to miss is that First Amendment protection of speech is a protection against GOVERNMENT censorship, not individual censorship, and since the Supreme Court in its wisdom, has decided that corporations are "individuals" under the Constitution, well, draw your own conclusions.
Ironically, the word "pornography" means, literally, to "write about harlots" (porni=prostitute and graph=write), yet, because of the special protections given to speech in the US, successful prosecution of individuals who write or speak what could be considered pornography are rarely pursued.
Even speech advocating the commission of a crime can be protected unless it can be shown that it actually incited someone to commit a crime (i.e., Abby Hoffman's 'Steal this Book' was a frequent target of shoplifters). Hoffman, himself, was amused to note that "It's embarrassing when you try to overthrow the government and you wind up on the Best Seller's List."
Even more ironic is the accusation that he plagiarized it.
All of this is to say that Amazon has no more duty to protect free speech than the rest of us; WalMart makes rappers edit lyrics (or recording engineers bleep them out) all the time.
So I suspect that their motivation is less about the moral high ground and more about the bottom line.
Kind of funny, in a way. If Amazon had been around in the 1960s the title "Steal this Book" would have been as anachronistic as the rest of the book is, today.