'Pedophile's Guide' author arrested in CO by Fla. detectives - Polidicks

If the material is deemed obscene enough, then it's constitutionally justifiable to take it down. Child porn is obscene enough, and that's obviously where he crossed the line. The government doesn't really have the power to prevent publication of something, so you have the idiot, greedy publishers to blame as much as the writer.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;26832942]Normally I'd agree that books shouldn't be censored, but he wrote on book on how to rape children for fucks sake, he even included pictures. The book should be destroyed and he should be jailed.[/QUOTE] what law has he broken

Making that book was just all kinds of bad ideas rolled into one.

[QUOTE=TheHydra;26832725]explain[/QUOTE] With pleasure. You claim that he needs to be rehabilitated, now if I cite wikipedia "a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children", aka a sexual preference, now if I cite wikipedia again but this time on homosexuality it tells us: "sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex or gender." Now 'sexual interest' and 'sexual attraction' can be interpreted like being the same, so are you practically saying that Gay people and Pedos should both get therapy. Don't get me wrong I still condemn sexual assault etc... and children under 13 should not have nude pics of themselves. But saying that pedophilia is a disease is rather harsh.

Given there's so much debate over whether the books is a "how to rape kids" guide, or a guide to safely deal with such urges, someone might need to actually read it, rather than base their opinion off of what the author says. However, if this book is of the former material, I believe it should be suppressed and destroyed, and does not deserve protection under the grounds of "freedom of speech". Why? Because this is a direct guide solely for the purpose of committing a crime. It would have no other use. If I publish a book on how to commit violent jihad, complete with the explanations of best ways to construct and detonate a car bomb, as well as popular, crowded locations, should that be published? No - because it is for the purpose of committing a crime. But yeah, someone read it.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;26826260]He was arrested for distribution of CP.[/QUOTE] no he wasn't

[QUOTE=JDK721;26833016]what law has he broken[/QUOTE] Pedophilia is against the law, and so is Child Porn. [editline]20th December 2010[/editline] Also he's kinda encouraging it, and encouraging crime is also against the law as far as I know.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;26833491]Pedophilia is against the law, and so is Child Porn. [editline]20th December 2010[/editline] Also he's kinda encouraging it, and encouraging crime is also against the law as far as I know.[/QUOTE] No, pedophilia is not against the law. Molesting underage children is. Harassing underage children is. Certainly having sex is as well. But being older and having an attraction to young children as in being a pedophile, is not illegal at all.

[quote=commander204;26833252]with pleasure. You claim that he needs to be rehabilitated, now if i cite wikipedia "a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children", aka a sexual preference, now if i cite wikipedia again but this time on homosexuality it tells us: "sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex or gender." now 'sexual interest' and 'sexual attraction' can be interpreted like being the same, so are you practically saying that gay people and pedos should both get therapy. Don't get me wrong i still condemn sexual assault etc... And children under 13 should not have nude pics of themselves. But saying that pedophilia is a disease is rather harsh.[/quote] what

[QUOTE=JDK721;26833451]no he wasn't[/QUOTE] My mistake I meant he was arrested on suspicion of distribution of CP

[QUOTE=commander204;26833252]With pleasure. You claim that he needs to be rehabilitated, now if I cite wikipedia "a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children", aka a sexual preference, now if I cite wikipedia again but this time on homosexuality it tells us: "sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex or gender." Now 'sexual interest' and 'sexual attraction' can be interpreted like being the same, so are you practically saying that Gay people and Pedos should both get therapy. Don't get me wrong I still condemn sexual assault etc... and children under 13 should not have nude pics of themselves. But saying that pedophilia is a disease is rather harsh.[/QUOTE] one's harmful one isn't

Depends, on how you look at it.

[QUOTE=commander204;26833252]With pleasure. You claim that he needs to be rehabilitated, now if I cite wikipedia "a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children", aka a sexual preference, now if I cite wikipedia again but this time on homosexuality it tells us: "sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex or gender." Now 'sexual interest' and 'sexual attraction' can be interpreted like being the same, so are you practically saying that Gay people and Pedos should both get therapy. Don't get me wrong I still condemn sexual assault etc... and children under 13 should not have nude pics of themselves. But saying that pedophilia is a disease is rather harsh.[/QUOTE] Worst post in the history of Facepunch Pedophiles are attracted to people who cannot consent, that's the difference

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;26832576]Yes but how is a book in any way probable cause? If I wrote a book about how I would murder someone, that doesn't mean I've done it.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;26830678][QUOTE=Zeke129;26826951][QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;26826367]they deemed the book probable cause that he has child pornography.[/QUOTE]a miscarriage of justice right there[/QUOTE] I won't disagree[/quote] [editline]20th December 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Meller Yeller;26827084]Do you even know what's in this book? I really don't think you're in the position to judge whether he was rightfully convicted or not.[/QUOTE] He hasn't been convicted of anything.

Why is it that expressing sexual fantasies that facilitates no harm and prevents sadistic child abuse (guide to gentle love, not sadomasochism) warrants an arrest in this country?

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;26834546]My mistake I meant he was arrested on suspicion of distribution of CP[/QUOTE] what CP? his book isn't CP

[QUOTE=commander204;26834590]Depends, on how you look at it.[/QUOTE] What different way to look at it exists?

[QUOTE=JDK721;26834923]what CP? his book isn't CP[/QUOTE] Keyword: suspicion

[QUOTE=JDK721;26834923]what CP? his book isn't CP[/QUOTE] Don't ask me. I didn't write the arrest warrant. They determined the book was probable cause that he has distributed CP. An unjustified leap of faith, if you ask me, but all I've been trying to do is tell people is he isn't going to be tried just because of the content of his admittedly creepy book. [editline]20th December 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=IStanI;26834906]Why is it that expressing sexual fantasies that facilitates no harm and prevents sadistic child abuse (guide to gentle love, not sadomasochism) warrants an arrest in this country?[/QUOTE] "Gentle love" is not really a phrase with any weight when it comes to fucking kids.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;26835188]Don't ask me. I didn't write the arrest warrant. They determined the book was probable cause that he has distributed CP.[/QUOTE] no they didn't the charge is some bullshit obscenity charge in florida [quote]"You cannot engage or depict children in a harmful relationship," said Polk County, Florida, Sheriff Grady Judd as he described the Florida obscenity statute that officials used to charge Phillip Greaves with distribution of obscene material depicting minors engaged in harmful conduct.[/quote] [url]http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/12/20/florida.obscenity.arrest/index.html?hpt=T2[/url]

[QUOTE=Zeke129;26834627][b]Worst post in the history of Facepunch[/b] Pedophiles are attracted to people who cannot consent, that's the difference[/QUOTE] seriously

[QUOTE=commander204;26833252]With pleasure. You claim that he needs to be rehabilitated, now if I cite wikipedia "a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children", aka a sexual preference, now if I cite wikipedia again but this time on homosexuality it tells us: "sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex or gender." Now 'sexual interest' and 'sexual attraction' can be interpreted like being the same, so are you practically saying that Gay people and Pedos should both get therapy. Don't get me wrong I still condemn sexual assault etc... and children under 13 should not have nude pics of themselves. But saying that pedophilia is a disease is rather harsh.[/QUOTE] The important difference between pedophila and homesexuality is that an adult has the maturity and knowledge to be able to consent to whatever sexual intercourse he/she wants, whether it's with a man or a women. A child doesn't, hence why sex with a child is a crime - the child hasn't got the ability to know (or in older children, fully understand, as may be the case) what they are consenting to, and therefore can't give any.

[QUOTE=Camundongo;26835625]The important difference between pedophila and homesexuality is that an adult has the maturity and knowledge to be able to consent to whatever sexual intercourse he/she wants, whether it's with a man or a women. A child doesn't, hence why sex with a child is a crime - the child hasn't got the ability to know (or in older children, fully understand, as may be the case) what they are consenting to, and therefore can't give any.[/QUOTE] are suggesting that a 15 year-old inherently does not understand sex

[QUOTE=JDK721;26835586]no they didn't the charge is some bullshit obscenity charge in florida [url]http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/12/20/florida.obscenity.arrest/index.html?hpt=T2[/url][/QUOTE] [quote]obscene material depicting minors engaged in harmful conduct[/quote] Unless I have misinterpreted "harmful conduct" in thinking it meant "sexual conduct" (if I have, the leap of faith to determining probable cause is more ridiculous than I thought possible) that sounds like the very definition of child pornography.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;26833491][b]Pedophilia is against the law[/b], and so is Child Porn. [/QUOTE] It's not illegal in and of itself, just what it leads to. It's not illegal to be sexually attracted to a certain group (albeit one that cannot give consent). [QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;26833491][editline]20th December 2010[/editline] Also he's kinda encouraging it, and encouraging crime is also against the law as far as I know.[/QUOTE] Then let's ban all those books that write about how to get away with murder, make dangerous chemical compounds, and how to commit breaking and entering efficiently and successfully without getting caught. They must be doing the same thing, right?

[QUOTE=Doriol;26835702]are suggesting that a 15 year-old inherently does not understand sex[/QUOTE] Are you suggesting that a 15 year old is a child?

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;26835716]Unless I have misinterpreted "harmful conduct" in thinking it meant "sexual conduct" (if I have, the leap of faith to determining probable cause is more ridiculous than I thought possible) that sounds like the very definition of child pornography.[/QUOTE] That's a funny law because then if you have [b]any[/b] depictions of children, it's illegal. I guess all those lolicons in Florida are criminals as well. Let's arrest them, too!

[QUOTE=Camundongo;26835874]Are you suggesting that a 15 year old is a child?[/QUOTE] are you suggesting that a pornographic picture of a 15 year-old is not considered child porn in the united states

Oh right I see, depicting covers illustrations as well. Regardless, point stands. He's not just being arrested for the book. He's being arrested for bullshit probable cause that he has done something that shouldn't be illegal, but as I was saying, I was just telling people he isn't just being charged with having written that book. [editline]20th December 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Camundongo;26835874]Are you suggesting that a 15 year old is a child?[/QUOTE] Yes a 15 year old is a child both by law and common sense

[QUOTE=Doriol;26835902]are you suggesting that a pornographic picture of a 15 year-old is not considered child porn in the united states[/QUOTE] No, but a 15 year old is close to the age of consent in many countries. A 16 year old is legally able to consent to sex in large number of places such as the UK, but it would be still be illegal for them to appear in porn in a equally large number of places (including the UK, natch). And to be honest, the majority of 15 year olds aren't ready for sex, emotionally, despite what their raging hormones tell them.