[..Penelope..]

I am nak, so going to link to my post in my PR: http://www.justmommies.com/forums/f1...edophiles.html (Amazon.com selling instructional guide for pedophiles)

[Angelaosaurus-rex]

Disgusting!

[Mars]

Horrible! I only hope that the comment about it being used as a means to catch the perpetrators is true.

[soImarriedAnerd]

I would side with amazon on this one...as much as I don't want to hear it, its a 1st amendment right to talk about anything/everything. I hope no one is buying it, but then again nothing is in there that a quick internet search probably wouldn't bring up If anything all the hype this is getting is a great reminder for people to search their area for known sex offenders and do some extra education with their kids on strangers and appropriate touch or even get involved in making the laws stricter for sex offenders.

[..Penelope..]

Angela, I don't want to get into an argument about this, but what about Amazon saying, "Amazon does not support or promote hatred or criminal acts"? Pedophilia is a crime, and by selling this book, Amazon is both supporting and promoting it.

[JediRach]

Originally Posted by soImarriedAnerd

I would side with amazon on this one...as much as I don't want to hear it, its a 1st amendment right to talk about anything/everything. I hope no one is buying it, but then again nothing is in there that a quick internet search probably wouldn't bring up If anything all the hype this is getting is a great reminder for people to search their area for known sex offenders and do some extra education with their kids on strangers and appropriate touch or even get involved in making the laws stricter for sex offenders.

I agree, although I do think it is a bad business move on their part to be honest. As a company you have every right to not sell certain materials.

Originally Posted by ..Penelope..

Angela, I don't want to get into an argument about this, but what about Amazon saying, "Amazon does not support or promote hatred or criminal acts"? Pedophilia is a crime, and by selling this book, Amazon is both supporting and promoting it.

Reading about something doesn't mean you are actually going to participate in the act. I've read the Anarchist Cookbook but I've never made a bomb.

[ShannonMVT]

Freedom of speech is one thing, but selling something that promotes a (heinous) criminal activity is another. You can't yell "fire!" in a crowded building, so free speech doesn't mean you get to say whatever you want.

It kind of disgusted me to read a review saying that they didn't agree with the book, but it was free speech and people needed to stop being intolerant. Are we as a country so into being "tolerant" because it's the cool, liberal thing to do, that we should be tolerant of everything, including wanna be sex offenders?! I don't think so.

[JediRach]

You have the right to read and write whatever you want. And Amazon has the write to sell it, even though its not exactly classy. You don't have the right to act out as a pedophile. Being tolerant of rape and molestation is different than being tolerant of the right for the book to exist.

[LisanAndy]

Sick and horrible

[~*sierra*~]

hm the link didnt work for me......maybe they took it down?

[greeneyes]

I understand Amazon's position that they do not censor the material they sell, if that were truly the case. They do not allow the sale of pornography on their site so obviously they are willing to censor to some extent.

That being said, I do not understand their position from a business perspective at all. How many copies are they realistically going to sell of this pamphlet versus how much business do they stand to lose from pissed of consumers who will boycott their site? And during the holiday season? Makes no sense whatsoever.

[sara~b]

Apparently they took it down now. The link no longer works and when you search for it the book still comes up but there's no option to purchase it. I will boycott Amazon until they issue a public apology and instate a policy of not selling products that promote illegal activities. Free speech wouldn't protect me if I wrote a book or article on how to commit murder and get away with it or stood on the corner and yelled out racial slurs. Pedophilia should not be protected either, period.

[..Penelope..]

Originally Posted by sara~b

I will boycott Amazon until they issue a public apology and instate a policy of not selling products that promote illegal activities. Free speech wouldn't protect me if I wrote a book or article on how to commit murder and get away with it or stood on the corner and yelled out racial slurs. Pedophilia should not be protected either, period.

This.

[♥Ashley♥]

Disgusting!

[sara~b]

Found some case law that says that books on the instruction of the commission of a crime IS illegal! Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So Amazon can be held liable if someone bought this book and used it to molest a child! Rice V. Paladin set a great precedent in my opinion!

[greeneyes]

Originally Posted by sara~b

Found some case law that says that books on the instruction of the commission of a crime IS illegal! Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So Amazon can be held liable if someone bought this book and used it to molest a child! Rice V. Paladin set a great precedent in my opinion!

The way that Wikipedia article is written is a little misleading. The 4th Circuit court actually ruled not to dismiss the case sending it to the State Supreme court. Paladin ended up settling so the court case never actually made it to trial, thus leaving the question of whether or not this falls under the protection of the First Amendment unanswered.

Further, Paladin was the publisher whereas Amazon is not the publisher of the pedophilia book so it's really comparing apples to oranges. This argument of liability has come up time and time again (Oliver Stone and Natural Born Killers, The Anarchist Cookbook, etc) and we have yet to see a clear, concise ruling on what falls under the protection of the First Amendment in a case such as this.

[sara~b]

The publisher of the Anarchist's Cookbook agreed it had no value to society and stopped publishing it and the author has been begging for years to have it taken out of print. That says enough in my opinion!

Plus what about this part? In November 1997, a U.S. appeals court ruled 3-0 that Hit Man was not protected by the free speech/free press clause of the First Amendment and thus Paladin Enterprises could be held liable for a triple murder committed by one of its readers.

[sara~b]

According to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals there are precedents which made this book illegal, and the publishers and distributors open to legal/civil action:

The trial for Rice V. Paladin was actually set to decide whether the First Amendment is a complete defense to civil action. According to United States v. Varani "speech is not protected by the First Amendment when it is the very vehicle of the crime itself."

"Indeed, every court that has addressed the issue, including this court (the Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit), has held that the First Amendment does not necessarily pose a bar to liability for aiding and abetting a crime, even when such aiding and abetting takes the form of the spoken or written word."

The Ninth Circuit held in United States v. Barnett that the First Amendment does not provide publishers a defense as a matter of law to charges of aiding and abetting a crime through the publication and distribution of instructions on how to make illegal drugs.   In rejecting the publisher's argument that there could be no probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed because its actions were shielded by the First Amendment, and thus a fortiori there was no probable cause to support the search pursuant to which the drug manufacturing instructions were found, the Court of Appeals explicitly foreclosed a First Amendment defense not only to the search itself, but also to a later prosecution.

In Freeman, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the defendant could be held criminally liable for counseling tax evasion at seminars held in protest of the tax laws, even though the speech that served as the predicate for the conviction “sprang from the anterior motive to effect political or social change.”

The First Amendment is quite irrelevant if the intent of the actor and the objective meaning of the words used are so close in time and purpose to a substantive evil as to become part of the ultimate crime itself.   In those instances, where speech becomes an integral part of the crime, a First Amendment defense is foreclosed even if the prosecution rests on words alone.

In these circumstances, we are confident that the First Amendment does not erect the absolute bar to the imposition of civil liability for which Paladin Press and amici contend.   Indeed, to hold that the First Amendment forbids liability in such circumstances as a matter of law would fly in the face of all precedent of which we are aware, not only from the courts of appeals but from the Supreme Court of the United States itself.   Hit Man is, we are convinced, the speech that even Justice Douglas, with his unrivaled devotion to the First Amendment, counseled without any equivocation “should be beyond the pale” under a Constitution that reserves to the people the ultimate and necessary authority to adjudge some conduct-and even some speech-fundamentally incompatible with the liberties they have secured unto themselves.

[JediRach]

Originally Posted by greeneyes

I understand Amazon's position that they do not censor the material they sell, if that were truly the case. They do not allow the sale of pornography on their site so obviously they are willing to censor to some extent.

That being said, I do not understand their position from a business perspective at all. How many copies are they realistically going to sell of this pamphlet versus how much business do they stand to lose from pissed of consumers who will boycott their site? And during the holiday season? Makes no sense whatsoever.

That's true. I didn't even think about the fact that they don't sell porn. And I also think it was a poor business choice.

[Mars]

I'm learning a great deal about American law here.

That being said, I do not understand their position from a business perspective at all. How many copies are they realistically going to sell of this pamphlet versus how much business do they stand to lose from pissed of consumers who will boycott their site? And during the holiday season? Makes no sense whatsoever.

I totally agree with Kate here