/lit/ - Literature

Lolita is a fictional account of a relationship of a man with a sexually devious 14 year old.

This book is a non-fiction guide to have sex with small children without hurting them, but still sexually abusing them.

Same subject? Okay, faggot.

>>1384496

> Lolita is a fictional account of a relationship of a man with a sexually devious 14 year old.

That's a very poor reading of Lolita.

This book probably doesn't have any literary value, but what if it did? would it be still this controversial?

>>1384496
>sexual abuse
this is the problem with our current judicial system, it functions on the perverted (lolirony) ideals of justice rather than a rational worldview with respect to the society it governs

>>1384503
It is, but it's also the reading any idiot who associates it with Pedophile's Guide had.

>>1384522
So you think it's fine for a child to have a sexual relationship with someone much much older?

Are you fucking retarded?

I don't condone pedophilia but the cops in my state(FL) are overbearing. I hope this guy gets off on technicality. While dudes like this guy are getting arrested in Florida we got priests threating to have Koran burning days on 9/11.

Florida is a fucked up state, never come here, I want to move back to California so bad.

>>1384542
I don't think it's "fine", yet i believe it is vastly misportrayed by our society

do you honestly think a child feels a hand on their crotch and thinks "oh my god I will never be the same"?

Because our society sees sex as some sacred rite not be infringed upon, most matters dealing with sex become taboo, committing taboo acts/having taboo acts committed against oneself have deep psychological impacts against the fragile, especially children

tl;dr pedophiles are lustful, inconsiderate people but they aren't the demonspawn you've been taught to beleive

>>1384553
That you somehow think burning a Qur'an is in anyway similar to have sex with a child only confirms that paedophiles are retards who live outside the real world.

>>1384561
whatever dissatisfaction you feel about society prejudice on this issue, it is still a good idea to have pedo laws because the risk of harm is there. it's a basic public welfare concern.

>>1384575
>it's basic public welfare concern
I understand this, yet laws concerning pedophilia are entirely draconian, this is not for the good of the public, this is because people think sex is the devil's sport and the human form is something to cower away from

Pedophiles make the assumption that a child's cognitive development has reached the point where they understand what sex means and can give informed consent to engaging in sexual relationships.

Yes, they're really that stupid.

>>1384592
so you're a pedophile?

>>1384586
No. You clearly have never been close to someone who was abused as a child.

Either way:
>
tl;dr pedophiles are lustful, inconsiderate people but they aren't the demonspawn you've been taught to beleive

They're not demonspawn. They're sexual predators who happen to like children. It's not inconsiderate to be a sexual predator, it's a fucking disgusting criminal act, pedophilia related or not.

>>1384597
>it's a fucking disgusting criminal act
>disgusting
you're part of the problem, whether or not you think it is "disgusting" should have no effect on the law of the land


I'm not pro-pedophile, I'm pro-objectivity, especially considering the forces we're dealing with here are all but omnipotent

>>1384595
Nope. But I think you are.

I was molested as a child.

I completely agree with Fabulous. It didn't bother me until I learned in church that sex was wrong before marriage, and being gay was also wrong. Learning those made me completely reevaluate the situation and see it as traumatizing. Society did more harm than my molester did.

dealwithit.jpg

>>1384613
Fabulous without her trip on.

>>1384612
Oh so I'm a pedophile now! Then come deliver your divine retribution upon this sub-human monster!

fucking repugnant drone


oh and inb4
>you called me a pedo first!1!!one!!!1
i was trying to make a point, but that's kind of ruined now

>>1384613
I'm sorry you had to endure such an ideal, If i was the deity of this world I would make it so these things never occurred, yet like you, i stand by my convictions that sex is a natural process and a great majority of the damage inflicted to a child's psyche is committed by society

>>1384627
>ideal
that was supposed to be ordeal, I don't know what happened there
>>1384620
>her
no, the trip is tongue-in-cheek

>>1384620
No, actually. Obviously I have no way to prove it, but just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're lying.

I've never admitted it to anyone in real life, but it's completely true. My cousin (the one who molested me) really didn't do much harm. It went on for four years. I only got fucked in the head after I told my parents and we stopped visiting their house and they put me in therapy. That sort of reaction is what fucks you up as a kid, not what happened to you.

When you're young, you don't really know what's going on. If one person tells you it's fine (the molester, of course they're gonna say that) and then everyone else in the entire world, save a few, tell you that it's horribly wrong and that it's a terrible thing and they're so sorry it happened to you, that hurts you because everyone telling you that something like that fucks you up makes it so you believe them and start searching for ways to feel bad about it. Like I said: Not the molester, society.

>>1384586
well, depending on what country you are talking about, it may be too draconian and not well designed with the right purpose in mind, protecting children's welfare. however, it is also pretty impossible to enforce any detailed "this is good pedo" "this is bad pedo practice" laws, until it is too late.
so a properly formulated pedo law is still quite draconian.

>>1384627
Honestly, the only "ordeal" was the ones people made of it.

You should probably avoid language like that, since one of the things that always irks me is how whenever I tell people they always say something to the effect of "I'm sorry you had to go through that." They mean the molestation, but their (and society's in general) response and my fear of them seeing me as "damaged goods" is far worse than whatever "ordeal" that happened to me when I was just a kid.

Of course, I'm over the whole fear of them perceiving me as damaged, and can openly discuss it now, as well as think about it rationally.

Yeah, this is a pretty screwy case and whatnot.

Also from what I've heard, it's pretty badly written.

So if a paedophile says (to their victim) that having sex with a child is fine, that makes it OK?

What a terrible argument. I suppose then that we should excuse all crime by telling the victims it's no big deal.

Yah I was molested too!

But he was only a few years older, and I distinctly remember enjoying the acts. I don't really understand who was harmed...

I mean, yes I'm now gay and have ridiculous amounts of sex with older men but hey, story of a gay guy, no?

>>1384652
the complete opposite is going on here you shit-for-brains paper man

if i spit in your food (not trying to imply pedophilia is this trivial, yet for the sake of the argument go with it) and society tells me it's capital punishment does that justify their taking of my life?

>>1384654
I'm the one who was actually molested. I'm heterosexual, and have no outlandish fetishes to speak of.

Your point, again?

>>1384652
The point is, it really is not as damaging as people make it out to be. Like I said, I suffered no psychological trauma until everyone started making a big fucking deal of it.

>>1384664
In that case, the punishment does not fit the crime. But that's not what we're arguing, is it? Because if we are then that means you think prison is too extreme for the crime of paedophilia, which is absurd. It's either that or that you think paedophilia (or acting on those feelings) isn't a crime at all.

Which is it?

Dude looks like paul giamatti

>>1384691

Goddammit don't ruin Paul Giammatti for me.

>>1384688
Molested guy here again, I'd go as far to say it is not a crime.

Obviously, this doesn't extend to violent sexual abuse, because violence is actually psychologically (and physically) damaging. But sexual "abuse" where no one is hurt? That's really not as bad as everyone makes it out to be.

>>1384688
certain amounts of prison time are adequate in most cases, especially when the perpetrator is militant and actively seeks children (and physically harms them in the process of molestation), yet hanging little signs in front of a pedo's house and differentiating them from society as a whole is just fucking stupid (unless of course, like stated before, the pedo actively seeks out and harms children physically, that's pretty unforgivable)

Entrapment? Just being asked for something doesn't constitute entrapment.
These three conditions have to be fulfilled:
1) The idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.
2)Government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.
3)The person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.

Even IF number 1 was fulfilled the other two certainly were not.

>>1384701
I don't know. It doesn't seem entirely unreasonable to point out that there is a paedophile living in the neighborhood, especially if he's been caught engaging in paedophile stuff and there are children who play outdoors.

to help explain this whole thread to those who are new to the idea that pedophilia isn't a deadly sin let me relate two examples

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece
(excuse the source, wikipedia is pretty reliable, they have their own sources if you want to dissent)
take Greece, they're culture actually encouraged pedophilia, and in artistic depictions, this is recorded as a practice of great love, no one gets hurt

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/local/dakota-high-school-students-accused-of-sexting-20100923-m
r
this is another horrible example of pure subjectivity within our legal system, the two children involved could possibly be labeled as sex offenders, for sending pictures to each other voluntarily

does that sound rational to you?

>>1384709
sure, but pedophiles are often times branded with a modern day scarlet letter for committing an act that in lots of cases would have no real impact on the child if it weren't for society

>>1384715
Look up statistics of pedophile cases in which physical harm was included, and see why they're all judged pretty harshly.

I'm of the opinion that if a person looks at say, child porn, that doesn't necessarily mean he's going to go out and rape children. Just like looking at gore doesn't mean you're going to go rip someone apart and do whatever.

>>1384715

Pederasty and pedophilia are NOT the same thing at all.

>>1384719
No real impact as long as they remain unknowing of what happened. Despite being impossible, that would lead to them then doing the same, as they have no knowledge that it is objectively wrong.

It's manipulation of an innocent for sexual pleasure.

Why are you still arguing this?

>>1384715

>take Greece, they're culture actually encouraged pedophilia, and in artistic depictions, this is recorded as a practice of great love, no one gets hurt
1st of all ancient Greece viewed both oral and anal sex between free men to be disgusting inappropriate, this extends to any man-child relation
2nd it was not prepubescents that engaged in these acts, but usually teenagers with an older man
3rd why would you look to ancient greece for guidance on moral actions? I mean they had some decent culture and all, but they were a bunch of bigoted bastards who kept slaves with very limited rights for women, we have grown to see those things as bad, why are you suggesting man-boy sex is a good thing because the Greeks did it?
So what you have is a case where a bunch of people back in olden days, who oppressed women, had slaves and looked down on all other races/nationalities, frotted with young boys, not a very compelling argument for anything from where I'm sitting. We as a society have changed, our opinions on what's right and wrong have changed, social roles have changed, I don't see a problem with that.

>this is another horrible example of pure subjectivity within our legal system, the two children involved could possibly be labeled as sex offenders, for sending pictures to each other voluntarily
>does that sound rational to you?
Not really, but that's not an argument against child porn or age of consent laws, just to use sanity when interpreting them, and frankly there should be some censure on those kids, not severe, but some.

>>1384735
>>1384741
both of your views are completely subjective, once again, part of the problem, and yes someone earlier stated many pedophiles are violent, and in all of those cases i would encourage immediate legal action, but the difference between you and I is that I judge crimes based on how harmful they are to the common man (or child, of course), you seem to hate these crimes because of how the criminal acts

>>1384719
>no real impact if it weren't for society
I hear that argument a lot, but the fact is that we all exist within society and we all do it necessarily. The pedophile does harm to the child's ability to function within society. Society didn't suddenly in the span of a week, the pedophile understood how society looks on their action. The fault lies firmly with the pedophile.

>>1384752
All views are subjective, in fact its pretty much part of the definition of "view". But just because they're subjective doesn't make them wrong.

>>1384752
Also:How a criminal acts is a criminal act, a crime as it were, to hate a crime because of how the criminal acts is to hate a crime because its a crime. doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.

But then again I might not be understanding you correctly because of how poorly you phrased that.

>>1384752
Hurfuckingdur they're subjective, we're speaking about an abstract. There is no concrete.

I don't like scumbags. I'm a fan of Singapore, where illegal drugs are an immediate no-questions-asked death penalty. They also go overboard with giving out canings for not flushing a public toilet, but hey, it's clean.

I'd rather live like that than with fucks running around getting off to kids and then getting out of any punishment because of a technicality. Much less people defending them just because their clearly immoral actions are 'subjective'.

Bawsociety. Society exists as is for a reason; without it we'd be barbarians. So saying the very base for law should have no affect on laws?

>>1384758
>>1384765
>>1384770
>>1384775
i now hold the subjective view that eating beef is a crime of the highest degree, overnight i convince the rest of the nation that this is true, at this point i am mercilessly sentencing carnivores of all kinds to death and no one raises a finger because after all society agrees


do you?

well it's become obvious at this point we won't reach a conclusion, but i leave you with that, have a nice holiday season everybody

>>1384789
>i now hold the subjective view that eating beef is a crime of the highest degree, overnight i convince the rest of the nation that this is true, at this point i am mercilessly sentencing carnivores of all kinds to death and no one raises a finger because after all society agrees

You're kind of not getting the point, you're little thought experiment glosses over what gives legitimacy to the belief, the intersubjective. It is in the give and take of society, that your beliefs are inset in you from being raised in a human society, and you yourself are a part of some society. Its in the discussion where meaning appears, where moral values can be ascribed. Subjective morality is meaningless, the intersubjective is the only morality that carries force. You still have to participate in society, if you don't then you're just a lone mad man talking to the padded walls of his cell, a discourse devoid of meaning.

>well it's become obvious at this point we won't reach a conclusion, but i leave you with that, have a nice holiday season everybody
You too... but stay away from kids please.

>>1384801
Why the fuck do I keep, using "you're" when I'm typing, I know better, I just don't read fast enough, my apologies.

You god damn retards, the argument surrounding this case IS NOT whether or not child molestation should be condone. The argument around this case is whether or not a book can be considered "obscene" and it's creation and sale be an arrestable offense based solely on its subject matter.

Here is what is considered "obscene material" in Florida:

http://law.onecle.com/florida/crimes/847.06.html

And here is what Mr. Greaves (or whatever the fuckers last name is) is being charged with:

http://law.onecle.com/florida/crimes/847.06.html

Happy reading.

>>1384789
Interestingly, I actually agree with this as a vegetarian. But I wouldn't commit people to death. But making it a crime would actually not bother me.

But yeah, as >>1384789 said, that's not the point.

>>1384801
assuming I'm a pedophile myself is kind of unnecessary, but thanks, i assure you i won't be even thinking of children in a sexual manner anytime soon

>>1384810
Oh thanks, I've been looking for the text of the actual statute (not very hard) but I didn't know the exact charge he was facing (cause again I didn't try very hard)

>>1384810
Wait, you posted the same link twice! Where is the other link you meant to post?

>>1384826
Shit sorry, here:

http://law.onecle.com/florida/crimes/847.001.html

What I find funny is that under this definition Dark Horse could be charged with obscenity for distributing copies of Gantz to B&N. I doubt that it would fly for "Artistic merit."

>>1384819
Its the "no harm except that done by society" argument that makes me suspect people are pedophiles. Its just sounds like its trying too hard, the whole "blaming society" thing and assuming "no harm" when all we really have documented evidence for is cases where there is harm (even if that is a biased sampling). It just sounds like a pedophile.

Now arguments about the first amendment or cultural relativism, they don't have the same sort of ring to me, but that's just my impression.

>>1384819
>>1384801
Yeah, I thought that was an unnecessary move, too.
Just because this person is questioning a social norm doesn't mean he himself is violating it. That's equivalent to charging somone on a thought crime.

I myself make mental exercises of questioning the morality of cannibalism, murder, anti-drug laws, pedophilia, abortion, steaking etc. I have never practiced any of them. I just like to question my beliefs regarding them all the time (this isn't to say I'm anti-choice or pro DARE, quite the opposite, but I just like to rethink my beliefs and test them out). It's called being an independent thinker.

Of course, with that said, I don't agree with OP's arguments for many reasons. But I'm not going to label him a pedophile for holding them, either.

>>1384841
lol "steaking" - I mean *stealing

>Pedophile's Guide

>"The Lover", "Lolita", "Summer of '42", and even "American Pie"

>fringe the same subject.

>Pedophile's Guide

>>1384841
Equivalent to charging him with thought crime, I didn't charge him with any crime, I just encouraged him to stay away from children, and I wished him a nice holiday season.

Advising that he not commit child abuse is very different then, condemning him for perceived predisposition of thought.

>>1384839
Not that Fabulous motherfucker, but I your argument is retarded. The 'you're either one of me or one of them' mentality is typically disregarded in any real discussion, and the personal attacks that come from such a stilted viewpoint is baseless libel on the person who disagrees with you.

Mind you, I don't defend child molestors at all, and I feel that the ones being arrested for child molestation should have shown the restraint and self-awareness that humanity has been granted by a highly evolved brain. Now, pedophiles that go their whole lives not fucking kids, I could give a shit less about. Mind you, an individuals sexuality may be beyond his or her control, but that same individuals actions aren't. There ARE people, after all, who go throughout their whole lives not engaging in either intercourse nor masturbation, and closing ones eyes and pretending that one is screwing something else isn't uncommon.

Now enough of that irrelevant argument, let's talk about whether or not a book can be banned if the public finds it to be 'obscene.'

>>1384870
>Not that Fabulous motherfucker, but I your argument is retarded. The 'you're either one of me[sic] or one of them' mentality is typically disregarded in any real discussion, and the personal attacks that come from such a stilted viewpoint is baseless libel on the person who disagrees with you.
I never made used a "you're either one of us or one of them" mentality, like I said, its only that one specific argument that reeks of pedophilia too me, its too desperate, too illogical and unjustifiable in premise to be a "devil's advocate" argument. I didn't assume that he's a pedophile because he opposed me.

>Now enough of that irrelevant argument, let's talk about whether or not a book can be banned if the public finds it to be 'obscene.'
Sure, why shouldn't they? Its nothing new. If it lacks artistic/literary/cultural merit then its non-protected speech. Sure what exactly is artistic/literary/cultural merit is fuzzy, but that's why we have a justice system instead of some book-banning robot.

So if it's illegal to transport these books then how is Hustler sold? And, how is Lolita or The Lover sold since they're accounts of fictional characters.

Greaves may calls it the "guide" but I doubt this could be any more dangerous than any book by Ragnar Benson about flame throwers, homemade explosives, and things in that nature.

Crime is bad. But the knowledge or the reading of the lunacy; is that wrong? Doesn't it come down to choices?

>>1384901
>So if it's illegal to transport these books then how is Hustler sold?
Is Hustler sold in Florida? I've never been porn shopping there.

>Sure, why shouldn't they? Its nothing new. If it lacks artistic/literary/cultural merit then its non-protected speech. Sure what exactly is artistic/literary/cultural merit is fuzzy, but that's why we have a justice system instead of some book-banning robot.

Now we're talking.

Now the problem that I have with obscenity laws stems from two things, how vague they are in nature, and how outdated many statures are.

Now, for the first fault I find with obscenity laws, the vagueness in this case, is how it is both ineffective and restricting at the same time. Their vagueness makes it hard to both charge and convict. And even if the individual charged with obscenity is convicted, it isn't completely outside the realm of possibility to appeal the ruling. From a legal standpoint, this causes more problems than it solves. Legal tie-ups cost the justice system a boatload of taxpayer money each year, and such vagueness and subjectivity doesn't help at all.

The vagueness of the Miller Test also confuses the citizens it is trying to protect by not clarifying what is and isn't allowed to be depicted. As a result, most publishers, writers, artists, bookstores, and consumers ignore the laws altogether. Causing the situation that we are seeing with Mr. Greaves. One persons obscenity is another persons art, and a jury isn't likely to examine the artistic or social merit of a work that depicts subject matter that offends them.

(brace for part 2 of text wall)

>>1384901
No fucking clue, Hustlers are sold all the time, they just have to be shrink wrapped, and adult movie stores are not uncommon. Tampa has strip clubs galore, and all of them contain the nastiest working girls imaginable.

It's sad that 4chan is only concerned because most people have a bias for paedophilia.

FYI, about 99% of child sexual abuse victims have clear negative after effects, often severe and notable, even if only 10% of cases contain physical abuse and conscious hurting of the child. In the nonviolent majority of cases, the trauma often comes not at the time of the abuse, but at the time when the youth learns about sex and develops their own sexuality and they finally realise what has happened to them (because they can't as children).

Upon this discovery, they often have feelings of loss and betrayal because an adult, often someone they trusted, used them for purposes they could not comprehend at the time. The trauma has less to do with culture and more to do with that, though many cultural factors (not so much those discourses of "sex is wrong" but rather those of "it's not abuse if there was no violence and you didn't say no", though: those that make them blame themselves or feel that they aren't real victims) do escalate the feelings of shame in the victim.

tl;dr: sexual abuse is basically always harmful to the child, and mostly for reasons other than culture, even if the effect isn't instant.

Also, many of these statures are updated very rarely, and favor smaller communities over large ones. It is easier to judge the moral codes of a small town than it is to judge the moral codes of an entire city.

Furthermore, these statures were written years ago, and have only been amended very recently. And those amendments didn't rewrite any of the rules currently in place, but only added rules (child porn over the internet and distributing obscene and pornographic materials to minors over the internet, check the links I posted). So it doesn't take into account the complications that may occur from the relatively new ability to shop over the internet. Which brings up another problem with this case (and one that can easily destroy it altogether), how the hell was Greaves supposed to have prior knowledge about Florida's obscenity statures? It states in the press releases that he has no connection what-so-ever with Florida, so how was he supposed to know about such laws if he has never even been to Florida? Should someone be held accountable for indirectly breaking a rarely enforced law from a state he hasn't set foot on?

This also brings up some other points. Shouldn't the book have been barred entrance to Florida if it was going to break a law? Books undergo the same inspections as everything else. And why isn't the company who agreed to ship the material being held accountable? They are the ones who ACTUALLY transported it to Florida, after all.

>>1385017
That isn't the damn argument you moron, this is about obscenity, not child exploitation. Read the damn news, make sure you can comprehend it CLEARLY, and stop watching Nancy Grace and other sensationalist news outlets.

By taking those few measures, you should be more informed on the events than the average person, and as a result, your opinion should be more constructive and, in this case, relevant.

>>1385019
Most likely it was transported by the post office, and they have special legal protections.

But yeah, states tend to just decriminalize rather than repeal laws. Its easier to just stop enforcing than it is to take political flak for fighting a campaign to legalize pornography. Lots of states have laws sitting around that no one cares to enforce.

>>1385028
Several arguments about child exploitation have been made in this thread, though.

You mad?

>>1385057
Yeah, actually, I AM MAD. Because those in favor of the charges brought before the man are trying to say that those opposing the charges are advocating child rape. And that isn't it at all. We are OPPOSED to the idea that obscenity laws can be wielded in a way that can so blatantly restrict freedom of speech.

Mind you, he is being charged WITH OBSCENITY *not* CHILD EXPLOITATION!

OBSCENITY DOES NOT JUST COVER PEDOPHILIA AND NOT JUST NON-FICTION SEE THE LINKS I HAVE POSTED ABOVE, YOU DUMB MOTHERFUCKERS!

>>1384810
>>1384838

This case can set a precedent that allows law enforcement to charge people with obscenity without any real check. And mind you, being charged with obscenity, with any crime of that nature, is social suicide for most people. This causes all but the most apathetic writers and artists to watch what they are writing and drawing out of fear of being persecuted. This creates what is called the "chilling effect."

Which, considering the level of mental deficiency that the posts I have been seeing in this thread imply, you people DON'T know what the "chilling effect" is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect_%28law%29

Now you may say, "durr well they just can't sell it in Florida, big deal hurr." This may be, but with the book publishing industry breaking down as is, they will probably want to sell a book in as many stores as possible. Which may lead to bookstores not carrying certain books altogether. Writers need to make a living too, and they may just not write about certain subjects so that their book may actually have a feasible chance of selling.

Now, I'm probably jumping the gun, but I can't be at all comfortable with the stage this case sets.

>>1385113
We all fucking agree with you, you self-complacent fuck

just because you read a wikipedia article and witnessed a discussion that's only semi=relevant to the matter at hand doesn't make you some enlightened prophet

>>1385113
1 - Literary merit is always a defense against obscenity charges
2 - Obscenity charges are a misdemeanor, not likely "social suicide" and would in all likelihood increase your sales.

>>1385113
It's a huge problem. I agree 100%
For years now, books publishers have been ignoring obscenity laws, and nothing like this has happened (as far as I know). It's important that writers be able to write freely about anything they want to. It's part of the role a writer has in society: writing about what makes people uncomfortable, being unafraid and uninhibited to speak from one's experience or interest no matter how "obscene" it might be deemed. It's difficult to fathom all the literature what would be never have been written if these obscenity laws had been enforced on literature as they are in this case.

>>1385151

Yes. This is exactly how culture has progressed.

Which is why it never did until the 1960s…

Oh, wait, never mind. That was silly of me.

>>1385168
Never implied we hadn't "progressed" until the 1960s.

This may shock you but I don't believe in progression in society at all.

>>1385151
Bah, what's the point of crossing into the taboo if there is no personal risk? Why do you people want to cheapen transgression so much?

>>1385168

There was plenty of obscene literature before the Victorian era.

>>1384838
Does that mean the old "Greenleaf" press books are considered CP? They have situations with (fictional/made-up) minors and use ages as references.

Crime, accepted = bad.

Obscenity, poor taste = poor judgement.

Book burning anyone? Or is someone gonna send Debra LaFarve to prison & not house arrest?

David Schwimmer who's saying his movie about on-line predators needs a PG-13 & not an R rating.

Isn't this filled with shades of "Happiness" which showed HOW to committ such a crime or am I wrong?

Well the Miller test for obscenity has been around for a couple decades now,
>Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
>Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law,
>Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

Apparently "prurient interest" is defined in legal settings to be "A morbid, degrading and unhealthy interest in sex, as distinguished from a mere candid interest in sex." I have no clue what that should mean.

Speaking as a Pedophile, I don't see how any of this is any worse than homosexuality, and society seems to accept that just fine

>>1385896

Ultimately the issue is that everything is studied academically these days, everything is a god damned text to be deconstructed, even pornography is analysed. But if everything can be analyzed as a 'text' then doesn't everything have some literary or cultural or political or scientific merit?

>>1385896
Do you really expect us to take that bait? what are we morons?

What you meant to say was "Retarded apologetic pedophile here..."

>>1385896
I refuse to dignify this sorry excuse for provocation with a response.
If you would wish to incite my anger, I must insist that in the future you use a higher degree of subtlety.You bring shame upon all those who are proud to live under bridges and frighten travelers with your sorry ramblings.

>>1385209
Interesting point, if writers are completely free, then their writings have no impact.

>>1385909
>>1386359
Merit and impact are determined by reception and interpretation, not by any qualities inherent in the text itself.

If we decide to analyze something, we give it meaning. Merit is a decided thing.

>>1386371
But nothing is a quality inherent of a text. Neither obscenity nor meaning. Everything is given by the act of reading and interpretation. You have scribbles on a page until something is actually parsed.

>>1384652
yeah, that sounds about right.

OP here. Never thought this would be this big. Thank you for the assorted insights, arguments and ramblings.

Sorry for causing so much trouble.

Merry Christmas.

>>1386380
The obscenity lies in the mind through the eyes of the perceiver, not the person that jotted down some letters. If you want to offer the parse-rationality of intention. Obviously, it's the intention to offer a product to those who would rather read then stalk the parks for prey. He was obviously trying to do a good deed, but like all idiocracies like the constant one the United States lives in they took it to mean he was promoting obscenity instead of helping his fellow man with his very uncivilized, anti-social behaviors.

That is the crux of stupidity, nobody gets the joke because everyone is a part of it, and nobody is in on it. So when the punch line comes, they get all upity.

>>1387866
That last part was too good, I just has to put it on facebook. :3

>>1387866
Its actually a guidebook, not sexual escapism. Which may make the obscenity claim harder, but does mean his intent is not as noble as you describe.

>>1387888
Even if I offer you a guide book on how to drug women with date-rape drugs, told you the side-effects, and how to get away with it that doesn't make it illegal, it makes it informative so we can make informed decisions as in Free-Will instead of police state.

That is the difference.
If the law is made to make men civil, the law and not the man gains the credit for having done so.

>>1387899
Why are you telling me I said "may make the obscenity claim harder"

Also your points are stupid and poorly phrased.

>>1387899
"Where there is no free agency, there can be no morality. Where there is no temptation, there can be little claim to virtue. Where the routine is rigorously proscribed by law, the law, and not the man, must have the credit of the conduct." [William H. Prescott, "History of the Conquest of Peru," 1847]

now, just curl up and die from shame.

>Even if I offer you a guide book on how to drug women with date-rape drugs, told you the side-effects, and how to get away with it that doesn't make it illegal, it makes it informative so we can make informed decisions as in Free-Will instead of police state.

1. Free will can exist in a police state, and without a police state there may still be no free will.
2. That might be illegal, if your book contains state secrets (like, for example, how to build a nuclear weapon). Legality isn't whatever you want legality to be, which is what your post seems to be implying.
3. >If the law is made to make men civil, the law and not the man gains the credit for having done so.
So what? This is semantic fixation. Who cares who gets the credit? Seriously.

>>1387913
Mindless zombies don't care, that's who.

>>1387913
Besides, your statements are just as if not more convoluted then my own.

I enjoy personal choice above all manner of law, morality, etc. So when I make a civil, moral, ethical choice...guess who gets the credit? Guess who gets the responsibility? Guess who gets what they deserve? Mwah!

Go fuck yourself.

>>1387916

Mindless zombies don't care at all because they can't process the information, and raging zealots care absolutely because they can't process the contrary information. But this is true of just about any philosophical statement of note. I on the other hand have amply considered the problem of agency and assignment of credit. And truthfully I've found that most notions of free will and assignments of credit have an cynical purpose to them - for example, by holding to a philosophy of freedom by non-attachment to the state, you allow yourself to feel righteous and oppressed without really changing the system in an engaged, meaningful way. It's more than libertarianism or anarchy, it's the further step, the notion that any form of institutional engagement is for slaves, the notion that 1984 is an ever-present choice and most people are choosing Big Brother. It's paranoia and the exalting feeling of standing out as a rebellious ink blot on the white and infinite canvas of existence. Yes, maybe this isn't you, but it was me at one point, and it was a sickness in me. Institutional engagement is the only way to give content to our beliefs. Without institutional engagement, the freest man may not be a slave, but he will not be a good man, because he has seen the poverty of his age and done nothing to maintain his supposed superiority and purity of mind.

>>1387924

>nothing, except to
in the last sentence

>>1387899
The law exists to uphold the common welfare and protect the people, not to further some arbitrary ideological ends.

>>1387947
What about laws on marriage?

>>1387960
They provide legal protection for women in the rearing of children. More generally marriage laws are a form of contract law, which has obvious value for common welfare.

>>1387947
wut?
Furthering some arbitrary ideological ends is upholding the common welfare and protecting the people.

That's why the police show up after someone dies to clean up the mess.
That's why criminals have to commit crimes or at least be evidentially qualified in order to be prosecuted for them. So, protecting the people means protecting them from more of the same from the same person, but not protecting people from the same from everyone else that comes afterwards.

And this is what makes it arbitrary in the first place.
The Law is Reactionary, not Initiatory. And thank God it isn't initiatory because that would infringe on civil liberties, rights, freedom of choice.

So we return to the old semantics, the Law is a show-piece to reveal to the world that the masses can overwhelm the few, ruling individuals in fear under the guise of "protecting the people."

>>1388021
btw, If I were in a debate, I would troll the shit out of congress.

So does this book tell you how to kidnap children? Does it tell you how to manipulate them into having sex with you? Or does it only provide safety guidelines for having sex with children? Because if it's that last one, then this book will do more good than harm.

>>1388024
It tells you how best to seduce them and encourage them not to tell anyone about it. Which I put on the at least as much harm as good pile.

>>1388021
that is the least sense-making argument I've ever read