Author of 'Pedophile's Guide' Arrested on Obscenity Charges

[freethinker83]

You’re confusing “freedom” with “license”.

You believe that because there is freedom of speech, it also grants a license to print whatever one wishes.

Yes, because the First Amendment covers freedom of speech AND press.

 

[Barbkw]

I am not saying that “child love” has any validity at all and I think those who practice it should be prosecuted. I am saying that those who SPEAK about it should be free to do so.

What about Abraham offering Isaac up for sacrifice to God? By most modern standards this would be considered child abuse. Even though he didn’t go through with it, it surely left a psycological scar on the child. Many people site this child abuse as a lesson on the devotion to God. Do you think Abraham was wrong?

What is the validity in pedophilia and pederasty? Does being a “freethinker” mean that a person is not allowed discernment between moral and immoral?

In the name of your understanding of “Freedom of Speech” you are granting your consent to the licensed approval of pedophelia and pederasts “how to” books.

You are removing protection from children and giving access, freedom and protection to persons who practice pedophelia and pederasty.

In the opposite way, God the Father began a covenant with Abraham, in a new land where all child sacrifices would be ended. Abraham was a pagan from Ur, where living child sacrifices were conducted to appease their gods.

 

[Barbkw]

Yes, because the First Amendment covers freedom of speech AND press.

If you were able, you would give license to pedophiles and pederasts to conduct their business as usual. Police would not be allowed to stop their operations.

You are making a moral choice to license evil instead of protecting the innocence of children.

You are chaining yourself to evil, how “freethinking” is that?

 

[Barbkw]

What about Abraham offering Isaac up for sacrifice to God? By most modern standards this would be considered child abuse. Even though he didn’t go through with it, it surely left a psycological scar on the child.

As I wrote above, Abraham was called out of Ur, by God to be the father of a great nation of believers. The first thing God does with Abraham is the abolishment of pagan child sacrifice.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moloch

"Moloch, Molech, Molekh, Molok, Molek, Molock, or Moloc (representing Semitic מלך m-l-k, a Semitic root meaning “king”) is the name of an ancient Semitic god, in particular a god of the Phoenicians, and the name of a particular kind of child sacrifice associated with that god.

Moloch was historically affiliated with cultures throughout the Middle East, including the Ammonite, Hebrew, Canaanite,[1] Phoenician and related cultures in North Africa and the Levant.

In modern English usage, “Moloch” can refer derivatively to any person or thing which demands or requires costly sacrifices."

 

[freethinker83]

1.What is the validity in pedophilia and pederasty? Does being a “freethinker” mean that a person is not allowed discernment between moral and immoral?

1. In the name of your understanding of “Freedom of Speech” you are granting your consent to the licensed approval of pedophelia and pederasts “how to” books.

1. It does not mean that morality doesn’t exist. It means that in a situation where there is no victim I don’t judge. Yes pedophiles create victims, and yes it is immoral. But WRITING about it doesn’t create a victim. What about this don’t you understand?
2. Essentially yes. It doesn’t give license to act on it, but limiting speech, no matter how hateful or immoral, is a dangerous game.

 

[Mumbles140]

1. Essentially yes. It doesn’t give license to act on it, but limiting speech, no matter how hateful or immoral, is a dangerous game.

Which is why the SCOTUS was so specific when it did set limits on it. And whether you choose to see it that way or not, it is instructing someone how to ‘safely’ commit a felony act. That would be like writing a terrorist manual and then denying the responsibility when someone else uses the information you sold to them to carry out an act of violence.

I am an absolute supporter of free speech, but I accept that, for the sake of our laws remaining in tact, there have to be some limits. Teaching someone to commit a felony act and get away with it is not within them.

 

[Barbkw]

1. It does not mean that morality doesn’t exist. It means that in a situation where there is no victim I don’t judge. Yes pedophiles create victims, and yes it is immoral. But WRITING about it doesn’t create a victim. What about this don’t you understand?
2. Essentially yes. It doesn’t give license to act on it, but limiting speech, no matter how hateful or immoral, is a dangerous game.

I’m just freethinking here.

So, you’re saying it’s more moral to consent to the immoral - than to consent to the protection of the innocent.

 

[freethinker83]

Which is why the SCOTUS was so specific when it did set limits on it. And whether you choose to see it that way or not, it is instructing someone how to ‘safely’ commit a felony act. That would be like writing a terrorist manual and then denying the responsibility when someone else uses the information you sold to them to carry out an act of violence.

I am an absolute supporter of free speech, but I accept that, for the sake of our laws remaining in tact, there have to be some limits. Teaching someone to commit a felony act and get away with it is not within them.

You can legally purchase books on how to build a still and distill liquor in the U.S. While homebrewing beer and wine is legal, distilling liquor at home is still a federal crime. Do you think these books should be banned because they instruct someone on how to commit a crime?

You can also read books on marksmanship. You could use these skills to commit murder. Should these books be outlawed too?

 

[Barbkw]

You can legally purchase books on how to build a still and distill liquor in the U.S. While homebrewing beer and wine is legal, distilling liquor at home is still a federal crime. Do you think these books should be banned because they instruct someone on how to commit a crime?

You can also read books on marksmanship. You could use these skills to commit murder. Should these books be outlawed too?

And how does an adult having sex with children work into your example above?

 

[freethinker83]

And how does an adult having sex with children work into your example above?

It doesn’t, but a BOOK about it does. I am saying that the First Amendment protects our freedom to write about everything, even things that are illegal.

 

[Barbkw]

It doesn’t, but a BOOK about it does. I am saying that the First Amendment protects our freedom to write about everything, even things that are illegal.

Even a universal instruction guide that advocates violence against children.

You can’t discern a moral and immoral guideline?

Is that a freethinking atheist kind of thing? Is the protection of children a “religious” notion?

 

[Mumbles140]

You can legally purchase books on how to build a still and distill liquor in the U.S. While homebrewing beer and wine is legal, distilling liquor at home is still a federal crime. Do you think these books should be banned because they instruct someone on how to commit a crime?

You can also read books on marksmanship. You could use these skills to commit murder. Should these books be outlawed too?

Because buying a book on distilling liquor could be used to start a distillery - plain and simple. The act of distilling liquor is not illegal, and that is the main focus of the book - the specific circumstances make it illegal. The same principal holds for guns. It is not illegal to own or use a firearm, and so they have books detailing how to purchase, care for, and safely handle the guns. But writing a book how to literally get away with murder is.

When you have a valid idea (i.e. making alcohol, firing a gun, having sex) and then use it for an act that isn’t intended to be part of the idea, it’s a perversion.

Greaves did not write a book about sex, that someone could then use to have sex with a minor - that would be outside the circumstances and he would be protected. However, following the purpose for which his book was written, one would have sexual relations with a minor, and if he is as knowledgeable as he claims to be, get away with it.

Now, we’ve shown the legal backing of the courts. But let’s look at the common sense aspect. If this guy really did write a book that will teach a pedophile how to have sexual relations with a minor and get away with it, then how many pedophiles aren’t brought to justice, how much emotional and physical trauma will children suffer, and how is allowing this beneficial to society. Find a similar set of circumstances where preventing this from being legal would block a legitimate right of someone.

 

[Rascalking]

I’m just freethinking here.

.

LOL! That was an awesome line, in regards to the other gentlemens name! 2 points your way!

Come on Freethinker, we need a funny line in response!

 

[Mumbles140]

It doesn’t, but a BOOK about it does. I am saying that the First Amendment protects our freedom to write about everything, even things that are illegal.

See, that is where you are wrong. If I wrote a book that said everyone needs to go out and murder a politician, and someone read my material and did just that, I am legally responsible. The 1st Amendment isn’t absolute - you yourself have admitted the need to limit it in cases of libel and slander, but those aren’t the only situations where freedom of speech is hindered to respect the rights of others. Freedom of expression has also been group in there with freedom of speech, and freedom of religion overrides freedom of speech when religious symbols are removed from public property.

 

[Barbkw]

If this guy really did write a book that will teach a pedophile how to have sexual relations with a minor and get away with it, then how many pedophiles aren’t brought to justice, how much emotional and physical trauma will children suffer, and how is allowing this beneficial to society.

According to Freethinker, the damage caused to children weighs less than pedophiles / pedarests’ right to read the material.

The license of the immoral, outweighs the rights of the innocents.

 

[freethinker83]

Even a universal instruction guide that advocates violence against children.

You can’t discern a moral and immoral guideline?

Is that a freethinking atheist kind of thing? Is the protection of children a “religious” notion?

Yes I can discern morals, but morals aren’t the issue here, freedom of speech is the issue. When did I ever say I supported the rape of children? I do not support any such thing.

 

[freethinker83]

See, that is where you are wrong. If I wrote a book that said everyone needs to go out and murder a politician, and someone read my material and did just that, I am legally responsible. The 1st Amendment isn’t absolute - you yourself have admitted the need to limit it in cases of libel and slander, but those aren’t the only situations where freedom of speech is hindered to respect the rights of others. Freedom of expression has also been group in there with freedom of speech, and freedom of religion overrides freedom of speech when religious symbols are removed from public property.

What about religious books? Some people who read the Bible interpret it in a way that makes them go out and murder doctors who perform abortions or kill homosexuals. Some take meaning out of religious books and crash planes into buildings. Should these books be outlawed? Should the people who publish them be put on trial?

 

[Barbkw]

Yes I can discern morals, but morals aren’t the issue here, freedom of speech is the issue. When did I ever say I supported the rape of children? I do not support any such thing.

“The Pedophiles Guide to Love and Pleasure: A Child-Lover’s Code of Conduct.”

Publish, sell, read, imagine, plan, put plan into operation.

Innocent children, be damned.

 

[freethinker83]

“The Pedophiles Guide to Love and Pleasure: A Child-Lover’s Code of Conduct.”

Publish, sell, read, imagine, plan, put plan into operation.

Innocent children, be damned.

All I am doing is protecting the First Amendment. I think I’m done talking in circles with you. Go ahead and get the last word of that type of thing is important to you.

 

[Barbkw]

What about religious books? Some people who read the Bible interpret it in a way that makes them go out and murder doctors who perform abortions or kill homosexuals. Some take meaning out of religious books and crash planes into buildings. Should these books be outlawed? Should the people who publish them be put on trial?

Again, you are imparting goodness into pedophiles and pederasts where it does not exist.

They are child sexual abusers.

His book, is informing people with evil desires how to best satisfy their sexual needs with children without getting caught.

Evil encouraging evil.