This story is all over the news.
Phillip R. Greaves wrote a how-to guide for pedophiles: The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: a Child-lover's Code of Conduct.
He was arrested in Colorado for violating Florida’s obscenity law.
An Associated Press article said: “If the government is willing to prohibit this book from being shipped and sold in Florida . . . what would prevent officials from prosecuting a bookseller who ships and sells Vladimir Nabokov's ‘Lolita,’ a novel about a pedophile?”
The article cites Florida Sheriff Grady Judd who said, “What’s wrong with a society that has gotten to the point that we can’t arrest child pornographers and child molesters who write a book about how to rape a child?”
Any pedophile should be prosecuted, but if this book aids them, what, if any, punishment should the author endure?
In other words, should freedom of speech include protection for this book? Why?
For comparison, if an armed criminal robs someone, I would not consider the gun seller liable. A gun can be used for self-defense. A how-to guide for pedophilia cannot. However, banning unpopular ideas does not have a stopping point.
Someone should write a Mises Daily article about this.
What do you think?
As gross and obscene as it is, the book has to be protected as free speech. I don't think murder is anywhere near as bad as hurting or sexually molesting a child, but Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors is the same concept. Same with The Anarchist Cookbook. Soon enough people will be blaming Oliver Twist for a string of pick-pocketers.
It's not so much freedom of speech, but rather freedom from the initiation of aggression. Since he is not using or threatening to use violence against anyone's person or property, no one may initiate violence against him. That said, others should be free to boycott and exclude the hell out of him. However, since the state has a monopoly on many services and therefore no incentive to screen who receives them or is admitted onto public property, and even actively protects such social deviants with privacy and anti-descrimination laws, an effective boycott is renderd almost impossible.
Think "unintended consequences." We all know how successful prior attempts to ban books have been at disincenticizing readership. And isn't media attention making it more likely to be sold?
Either way, most bookstores would not sell this. It would be and underground thing, so banning it would be difficult anyway.
And isn't media attention making it more likely to be sold?
Yes. No one would have even heard about the book unless they were looking for a book similar to it. Now people will be curious and, even though they aren't buying the book in order to learn how to molest children, they're still giving money to a pedophile. I think someone should create a PDF of it to make sure he gets no money.
In other words, should freedom of speech include protection for this book? Why? For comparison, if an armed criminal robs someone, I would not consider the gun seller liable. A gun can be used for self-defense. A how-to guide for pedophilia cannot.
For comparison, if an armed criminal robs someone, I would not consider the gun seller liable. A gun can be used for self-defense. A how-to guide for pedophilia cannot.
Or, if you're a parent, school administrator, police officer, or other concerned adult, you can use this book as a way to protect your children from pedophiles. In other words, you can use this book to identify which techniques a pedophile might use.
What most people don't realize is that if you do something already, you probably know how to do it. Pedophiles will know how to lure children into having sex with them. This book won't do much to improve the lot of pedophiles, if you could put it that way. What it will do is teach adults and maybe even children how to combat pedophiles (in a peaceful manner, of course).
Political Atheists Blog
krazy kaju:Or, if you're a parent, school administrator, police officer, or other concerned adult, you can use this book as a way to protect your children from pedophiles. In other words, you can use this book to identify which techniques a pedophile might use. What most people don't realize is that if you do something already, you probably know how to do it. Pedophiles will know how to lure children into having sex with them. This book won't do much to improve the lot of pedophiles, if you could put it that way. What it will do is teach adults and maybe even children how to combat pedophiles (in a peaceful manner, of course).
Keep noted that the definition of a pedophile is "an adult who is sexually attracted to children," so saying that pedophiles already know how to lure children is inaccurate. I assume the book is intended to be an instructional handbook. Pedophiles are just as capable of not acting upon their urges as anyone else is, but being a pedophile doesn't constitute doing something wrong. Acting upon those urges and having sex with children does.
But I 100% agree that use of this book should be encouraged in order to better protect children from being exploited.
Pedophiles are just as capable of not acting upon their urges as anyone else is, but being a pedophile doesn't constitute doing something wrong. Acting upon those urges and having sex with children does.
And I 100% agree with that. Not to put it in such simple terms, but it's like if you were to have a debate with someone in the future and beforehand they publish the arguments/counter-arguments they plan on bringing up.
krazy kaju: In other words, should freedom of speech include protection for this book? Why? For comparison, if an armed criminal robs someone, I would not consider the gun seller liable. A gun can be used for self-defense. A how-to guide for pedophilia cannot. Or, if you're a parent, school administrator, police officer, or other concerned adult, you can use this book as a way to protect your children from pedophiles. In other words, you can use this book to identify which techniques a pedophile might use.
nice insight, haven't thought about it :)
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
Can't put it much better than that.
Someone should write a Mises Daily article about this. What do you think?
Working on the Daily right now :)
ya'll should read Walter Block's article that deals kind of deals with this topic, well it deals with NAMBLA, http://www.reasonpapers.com/pdf/26/rp_26_4.pdf page 56
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
Brian, if not accepted, forward it to me and i will put it on the Mises Blog under your name
Read until you have something to write...Write until you have nothing to write...when you have nothing to write, read...read until you have something to write...Jeremiah
I also agree for what you been knowing about books i hope there it is...
Hd Dvd Recorders
state laws protecting privacy and allowing defamation/libel actions serve to inhibit the spread of information, potentially one of the few ways to lower incidence of this crime. sex-offenders often being recidivists, punishment in the form of detention will not guarantee community safety after release.
Sounds good! I'll most likely finish it tonight, so I'll send it to you in a few days if it's not accepted.
This is bullshit. The book is apparently about how not to molest children and violate any laws.
Gero:An Associated Press article said: “If the government is willing to prohibit this book from being shipped and sold in Florida . . . what would prevent officials from prosecuting a bookseller who ships and sells Vladimir Nabokov's ‘Lolita,’ a novel about a pedophile?”
Presumably Lolita has been deemed to have "artistic merit", which is an "I know it when I see it" kind of thing.
Gero:The article cites Florida Sheriff Grady Judd who said, “What’s wrong with a society that has gotten to the point that we can’t arrest child pornographers and child molesters who write a book about how to rape a child?”
Is Mr. Judd implying that anyone who writes such a book must himself be a child molester? I wasn't aware that that alone was enough to convict. In the case of molestation, there must be actual victims. Of course, when one's goal is to "eliminate child molestation", as it appears is the case with Mr. Judd, the ends justify the means.
Gero:Any pedophile should be prosecuted, but if this book aids them, what, if any, punishment should the author endure?
The author should be prosecuted as an accessory to the crime. That alone would give any (would-be) child molester pause from writing such a book, even in an anarcho-capitalist society. However, it would not prevent such a book from being written, nor would it prevent child molestation from happening. In our zero-tolerance legal-positivist society, it seems to be all about prevention.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
@scineram
was that sarcasm? the book is clearly about how to have sex with children and how to get away with it.
Did the act of writing the book hurt someone? No.
He was arrested not because he hurt someone, but because he didn't follow cultural norms. It's kind of lame. If he lived in one of a number of ancient societies, like Japanese or Spartan, where pedarasty was commonly accepted, he would be considered normal and left alone.
I had that same question.
It seems like the State's law are at fault here, does it not? The non-aggression principle isn't a loophole, but government laws tend to be.
If he lived in one of a number of ancient societies, like Japanese or Spartan, where pedarasty was commonly accepted, he would be considered normal and left alone.
You can't be saying that it's okay to have sex with a child if it were commonly accepted, are you? I don't mean to make a conclusion from that one statement alone, but that's what it sounded like.
>You can't be saying that it's okay to have sex with a child if it were commonly accepted, are you?
No, I didn't mean to suggest that. Whether it's OK or not depends on whether someone is harmed.
Voluntarily working as a sex worker isn't morally wrong, whether you are a child or adult. But it's morally wrong to use the legal system as a bludgeon to destroy someone's job simply because you find it distasteful.
bump
Here is something I wrote on this subject.
"I'm extremely libertarian, so please do not piss me off with your shit"
that made me laugh
Isaac "Izzy" Marmolejo: "I'm extremely libertarian, so please do not piss me off with your shit" that made me laugh
Haha, thank you.
Brian Anderson: bump Here is something I wrote on this subject.
good :)
What is the big deal?
Just publish the full name, address, photograph of Phillip R. Greaves along with those of his family, friends and his publisher. Freedom of speech, goes both ways.