• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I had a copy of the anarchist's cook book... I bought the anarchist's book at a local and major book store.. it's not that hard to find and it's kind of a cult classic. You don't have to go to a black market or hunt it down on the internet.. half the stuff in the book has been debunked or doesn't work, and the explosive stuff is extremely unsafe to try and written in a manner that is difficult to understand...

It's still kind of fun to read, but this pedophilia book isn't in the same category. I would put the anarchist's cook book more in category of the Communist Manifesto.. both of them thought violence was acceptable to bring political change. You can pretty much run into angry people who think violence is acceptable on DP or any political forum.. It's not that radical or dangerous IMO...

Some of it's debunked, not all of it. And things like the Poor Man's James Bond (PMJB) went well beyond things like the Anarchist Cookbook. The PMJB details all sorts of things from self defense, to lethal trap building, etc. You can say "oh I read the Anarchist Cookbook" blah blah blah. But the fact remains that there are PLENTY of books out there with very detailed instructions on lethal traps, lethal self-defense, drug use, etc. And it's all legal, it's all been challenged, it's all been held up in court. You only want to say that a book on pedophilia is different than all the other books out there which instruct on deadly and illegal things; but that's only because you desperately want to make this book seem different enough to excuse your desire to censor it. And that is the reality, that's the truth.

Freedom, it's messy business. But it's better than the alternative.
 
This is a pointless part of the argument - we're not debating whether his book should have been banned.
And to use the history of books that have been banned is futile in this case - Where's Waldo was banned in many schools and libraries because of some boobs on a cartoon figure. . . so that's no precedence to follow. . . and I've heard various stories of the Bible being banned - Madonna's book 'Sex' was banned from some stores - and so on. . .So according to those examples - yes - a book should be able to be banned based on content. . . but that is not the issue being debated.



The question, here, is if encouraging pedophilia is actually a constitutional right - or if it's obscenity. You cannot determine that and neither can I right now - we don't know enough to make that call. All you know is that he wrote a book about how to do it - and that's all I know, too.

Take the issue of pornography *for adults - by adults* as an example. . . even the Justices couldn't determine *exactly* what was obscene and *exactly* what was not - they just gave a generalized view on it: if someone's deemed to be "obscene" then it is not protected under the 1st Amendment.

You cannot presume that EVERYTHING is protected - because everything is NOT protected.
And it is, therefor, up to a judgement of the jury in a trial to determine this on a case-by-case basis.



If you disagree with our system then that's your issue. But that IS how our system DOES function right now.
And that's, then, the purpose of a trial - to determine the facts of the case and the resolve of the issue in question. You cannot determine guilt or innocents without an investigation and a trial - etc etc. It just doesn't work that way.

Some might be assuming guilt
Others might be assuming innocents.
The only way to determine which one it is - is to have a proper trial with official procedings and make a legal call.

You're accusing people of letting their *feelings* cloud their judgment - and it seems that, since you *feel* like our judicial system is wrong and you *feel* like he should be innocent - then you are also letting your *feelings* govern your view.

And there is no landmark case in this exact situation to refer to, either. This is a first in this exact area. Other cases are vaguely close - but not quite like this. Thus, it's just common sense to permit it to procede - it might not proceed very far, it might proceed quite a ways. Who knows. He might be found innocent of the charges or he might be found guilty.

But it's actually illogical to *not* follow through with the natural course of law when someone has been accused of a crime - and when there has been proper preliminary 'evidence' to necessity a charge being filed - and a judge has examined the preliminary evidence and felt it was compelling enough to proceed legally.



You wanted an appeal to logic - yet you're specifically not doing so.

You cannot automatically throw someone in jail without a trial.
And you cannot automatically assume someone's innocent purely because what they're accused of doesn't seem like a problem *to you personally*

So - you want an appeal to logic? Then prove it by supporting a trial in which the accused is given a fair chance at justice.

What you are advocating is NOT a fair chance at justice. This isn't a case where the defendant argues that the facts of the case are A, B, and C and the prosecutor argues that the facts of the case are X, Y, and Z. As far as I can tell, no one disputes any of the facts. The question is whether those facts add up to a violation of the LAW, and it's pretty clear that given the Supreme Court's past rulings, they do not.

As for "following the natural course of the law," that's only necessary in the first place because some prosecutor pressed charges for no discernible reason. Just because one prosecutor in the entire country is willing to press charges doesn't mean that there is some serious legal dispute. This never should have happened in the first place. Suppose the police arrested you for trespassing on your own property, and your defense was "Trespassing on my own property isn't a crime, you morons." Do you think it would make more sense to let the prosecutor take you to trial, or do you think it would make more sense for the case to be summarily dismissed and for you to be released?
 
Last edited:
What about defending your community and society from people reading that book and then sexually abusing children in your community?

They can read any book about any topic. If they actually act on anything however which infringes upon the rights and liberties of the individual; then the police and government force may be brought into the picture in order to enforce the just laws of the Republic.
 
Kandahar has spoken out against Assaunge and in this thread he has defended this guys freedom of speech. As for why am I mentioning it to you, it is because you did say that the information that was probably in that book could be found else where. I used your post. So while it was directed at you it wasn't really DIRECTED at YOU. Know what I mean?

Assange was publicizing classified information. This guy is not publicizing any state secrets, or really ANYTHING that was not already in the public domain.
 
Assange was publicizing classified information. This guy is not publicizing any state secrets, or really ANYTHING that was not already in the public domain.

but....but.....pedophilia....and....well....won't someone PLEASE think of the children?
 
What people don't realize, is that as soon as they say, "I was molested as a child, so this hit's close to home" or "Just wait until your child gets molested and we'll see if you change your mind" it actually negates any opinion they may have as biased and making a law based on emotion. That is not how our laws work. You need neutral 3rd party people to make laws, because as the Adam Walsh Act has shown, making laws as revenge against past wrongdoings always ends up being unconstitutional in the end, or not in the best interest of society. Nobody here, and I checked carefully, said that this book was a good idea or the right thing to do. (one said it was ok because you can learn how to protect your kids by reading it) They are simply saying he has the RIGHT to publish it.

You can't be all "for the constitution" for some, and not for others. If he's not a criminal, and has committed no crime, you MUST keep the constitution at the forefront of your mind. Republicans have proven that they can put emotions first, before the rights of citizens. It's sad, really. Watching one segment on fox news talk about sex offenders proves my point. What political person would stand up and say "no, this sex offender law is wrong."? Well, none. Which is why any law to "get tough on sex offenders" gets passed blindly and without much thought. And with the stroke of a pen, hundreds of thousands of lives are changed forever, sometimes years, or DECADES after the fact. That would be why the Adam Walsh Act is being found unconstitutional. If a sex offender agrees to 10 years on the registry and 2 years in jail, for instance, you can't, 5 years later, suddenly pass a law that says he must register for 25 years or life. If he can't go back and re-plea, you can't re-sentence him. Fortunately, even sex offenders do have rights. At what point do you let an 18yo who had sex with his 16yo gf whom he later married live his life? At what point do you finally say you've paid back your debt to society?

Id love for some of the conservatives on this forum to answer that question.



Ok, so you'd rather be killed than raped? Do you even realize what you're saying? Something that ends a life isn't as bad as something that doesn't. It's that exact mindset that sets a precedent for stupid laws to be passed. And victims choose to be victims forever. Just ask a girl who was raped and is continuing her life and not letting it get to her. It's a harsh thing to say, but I know people who were raped and are living their lives. They say themselves that a rape victims chooses to be a victim for the rest of their lives, they can move on if they want. It's harsh, but it's true. No, they don't choose to be raped and rapists should be put away for a very long time, but victims have a responsibility to themselves to put it behind them and move on. I've had some awful things done to me as a child, and I forgave those people and moved on. Do I still think about it? Yes. Do I let it make me a victim forever? No. That's a personal choice. Some people can't put it behind them, and it's not their fault at all. And those people are the ones I truly feel sorry for because they are letting the rapist win.

I just want to let people know that not all sex offenders are rapists or child molesters. Some are romeo/juliet type offenders and some are people who pee behind a bush and are caught. Sex offender does not automatically equal rapist, by any means.

It's not a personal choice to be a victim... Holy f**k. I know people who have been in support groups and therapy, on medication for years and still struggle... Their struggle to fully and completely heal doesn't mean they are weak. Some of them have done incredible things, and made brave and courage decisions even as children... Some of them have put forth more strength and pulled themselves through so much hardship and horrific abuse, you'd eat your words if you really understood how misinformed your comment just sounded.

Everybody is different and everybody heals differently.. Rape, abuse, and trauma is personal and a personal journey... It can affect so many aspects of your life (destroy your family, put you in foster care, put you on trial), you cannot even comprehend. Depression is often a life long struggle for people... people kill themselves due to depression because they'd rather be dead than live with torture..

And as somebody else already pointed out.. conservatives don't have corner in the logical market on this issue.. The Patriot Act was passed devoid of logic, and mostly fear. The invasion of Iraq wasn't very logical IMO... I think it was based mostly on emotion again, dislike of Saddam and fear, again..
 
What you are advocating is NOT a fair chance at justice.

We cannot rewind time. This is the issue at hand - it is already in motion. We can either debate "what should have happened" or we can debate "the next thing that can actually happen."

I'm not debating the past on this - I am debating what will happen next which isn't even a debate, it's merely a fact - it will proceed to trial.

I cannot appease you and rewind time to undo what has already been done, sorry. He has been charged with a crime - and once *anyone* is charged with a crime the proper thing to do is give them their Constitutionally rightful and fair chance at defending their good honor and possibly filing a counter-claim and even being awarded a sum for the trouble to have to prove theirself innocent.

Why are you fearing that this trial will go against him? Why are you jumping to that conclusion?

This isn't a case where the defendant argues that the facts of the case are A, B, and C and the prosecutor argues that the facts of the case are X, Y, and Z. As far as I can tell, no one disputes any of the facts. The question is whether those facts add up to a violation of the LAW, and it's pretty clear that given the Supreme Court's past rulings, they do not.

No, it is not clear.
If it was clear then it wouldn't have proceeded this far.

This is where the issue is for you then - you think it is clear. When in reality it is not.

As for "following the natural course of the law," that's only necessary in the first place because some prosecutor pressed charges for no discernible reason. Just because one prosecutor in the entire country is willing to press charges doesn't mean that there is some serious legal dispute. This never should have happened in the first place. Suppose the police arrested you for trespassing on your own property, and your defense was "Trespassing on my own property isn't a crime, you morons." Do you think it would make more sense to let the prosecutor take you to trial, or do you think it would make more sense for the case to be summarily dismissed and for you to be released?

Once again - you want us to rewind time. . . but things don't work that way. You can only progress forward - not backward.

If he is being falsely accused then there are other avenues he can take as reprisal and other options that open to him during the pre-trial and during trial - such as a judgment on the pleadings and so on.

I don't see why this upsets you quite so much. If this goes to full trial and doesn't end on a judgment on the pleadings or something of that nature then he can actually be compensated - and there might come a heavier and more detail definition of 'obsenity' which would quell confusion and issues in the future.
 
I don't personally think there is anything wrong with your reaction given what you have been through... I also think you are brave to put it out there like that.

Ya know, I turned 50 a week ago. It's been a time of quiet reflection for me. I guess I don't care what's out there anymore. Childhood sexual abuse leads to behavioral problems, mental illness, chemical dependency and suicide. These are the good points. Well, I have been sober for 18 years and still do the work daily, as best I can. The f*cking depression from time to time is the killer. That, and the self hatred part that feels right but is not the truth.

Everything happens for a reason...
 
Last edited:
It's not a personal choice to be a victim... Holy f**k. I know people who have been in support groups and therapy, on medication for years and still struggle... Their struggle to fully and completely heal doesn't mean they are weak. Some of them have done incredible things, and made brave and courage decisions even as children... Some of them have put forth more strength and pulled themselves through so much hardship and horrific abuse, you'd eat your words if you really understood how misinformed your comment just sounded.

Everybody is different and everybody heals differently.. Rape, abuse, and trauma is personal and a personal journey... It can affect so many aspects of your life (destroy your family, put you in foster care, put you on trial), you cannot even comprehend. Depression is often a life long struggle for people... people kill themselves due to depression because they'd rather be dead than live with torture..

And as somebody else already pointed out.. conservatives don't have corner in the logical market on this issue.. The Patriot Act was passed devoid of logic, and mostly fear. The invasion of Iraq wasn't very logical IMO... I think it was based mostly on emotion again, dislike of Saddam and fear, again..

Oh wow, I like you...
 
No one is. This is an emotionally charged and quite frankly down right stupid comment.

No one is trying to make pedophilia mainstream or more acceptable?

Excuse me, but that is AUTHOR'S GOAL. He is trying to do that, and I cannot respect that. I cannot easily accept his ****ing book... I have a freedom of speech to express that... You think my opinion is just pure emotion and just stupid, but his is protected speech and you're willing to lecture me on that for pages and pages, whilst insulting me.. :roll:
 
Some of it's debunked, not all of it. And things like the Poor Man's James Bond (PMJB) went well beyond things like the Anarchist Cookbook. The PMJB details all sorts of things from self defense, to lethal trap building, etc. You can say "oh I read the Anarchist Cookbook" blah blah blah. But the fact remains that there are PLENTY of books out there with very detailed instructions on lethal traps, lethal self-defense, drug use, etc. And it's all legal, it's all been challenged, it's all been held up in court. You only want to say that a book on pedophilia is different than all the other books out there which instruct on deadly and illegal things; but that's only because you desperately want to make this book seem different enough to excuse your desire to censor it. And that is the reality, that's the truth.

Freedom, it's messy business. But it's better than the alternative.

I don't think I have advocated censoring the book... I have expressed that I don't support the book. I don't think Amazon should have published the book in the first place.
 
but....but.....pedophilia....and....well....won't someone PLEASE think of the children?

I'd consider that to be innapropriate - as much as making jokes about rape when discussing the punishment due a rapist.
 
They can read any book about any topic. If they actually act on anything however which infringes upon the rights and liberties of the individual; then the police and government force may be brought into the picture in order to enforce the just laws of the Republic.

Do you think any type of child porn should be legal? As long as the pedophiles are getting some visual pleasure and not hurting anybody.. that is ok..
 
No one is trying to make pedophilia mainstream or more acceptable?

Excuse me, but that is AUTHOR'S GOAL. He is trying to do that, and I cannot respect that. I cannot easily accept his ****ing book... I have a freedom of speech to express that... You think my opinion is just pure emotion and just stupid, but his is protected speech and you're willing to lecture me on that for pages and pages, whilst insulting me.. :roll:

Well, what law is he breaking in doing exactly that? Please point it out, with links. Otherwise, he's not breaking a law and can do what he pleases. Just because someone does something we detest doesn't make it illegal.

You know you've won the argument when people start saying "You must be hiding something, you seem to be a pedo lover." I've never once endorsed what this guy did or endorsed pedophilia, I've used links to back up my arguments all along the way. That is what a "professional" (word used loosely) debater does.
 
Last edited:
I don't think I have advocated censoring the book... I have expressed that I don't support the book. I don't think Amazon should have published the book in the first place.

Notice you hear nothing from them about Jon Stewart's book not being sold in Walmart and Sam's Clubs.
 
We cannot rewind time. This is the issue at hand - it is already in motion. We can either debate "what should have happened" or we can debate "the next thing that can actually happen."

I'm not debating the past on this - I am debating what will happen next which isn't even a debate, it's merely a fact - it will proceed to trial.

I cannot appease you and rewind time to undo what has already been done, sorry. He has been charged with a crime - and once *anyone* is charged with a crime the proper thing to do is give them their Constitutionally rightful and fair chance at defending their good honor and possibly filing a counter-claim and even being awarded a sum for the trouble to have to prove theirself innocent.

No, the proper thing to do is for the judge to summarily dismiss the case and reprimand the prosecutor.

Aunt Spiker said:
Why are you fearing that this trial will go against him? Why are you jumping to that conclusion?

I'm not. I'm saying it should be dismissed.

Aunt Spiker said:
No, it is not clear.
If it was clear then it wouldn't have proceeded this far.

This is a circular argument if I've ever heard one: "There must be some legitimate dispute over the law, because the prosecutor filed charges. And the prosecutor must have filed charges because there is some legitimate dispute over the law."

Aunt Spiker said:
This is where the issue is for you then - you think it is clear. When in reality it is not.

The law is quite clear that inflammatory speech (including speech advocating breaking the law) is constitutionally protected unless it incites imminent lawless action, as established in Brandenburg v. Ohio.

Aunt Spiker said:
If he is being falsely accused then there are other avenues he can take as reprisal and other options that open to him during the pre-trial and during trial - such as a judgment on the pleadings and so on.

It's not a matter of being "falsely accused," as that implies that the facts of the case are under dispute. Everyone agrees on the facts, and the prosecutor is simply wrong that those facts add up to a violation of the law.

Aunt Spiker said:
I don't see why this upsets you quite so much. If this goes to full trial and doesn't end on a judgment on the pleadings or something of that nature then he can actually be compensated - and there might come a heavier and more detail definition of 'obsenity' which would quell confusion and issues in the future.

Why would it quell confusion on the issue in the future? The law is already quite clear, yet you're saying this case is somehow different from previous cases. Why would a clear ruling here prevent you from doing exactly the same thing next time someone exercises their freedom of speech to voice an opinion you dislike?
 
Last edited:
Notice you hear nothing from them about Jon Stewart's book not being sold in Walmart and Sam's Clubs.

There are a lot of books not sold at Walmart.

But there's a huge section of Adult Romance Novels.
 
There are a lot of books not sold at Walmart.

But there's a huge section of Adult Romance Novels.

I know, right? Ever peruse the videos? Now let's see, you can buy a filthy, unrated version of a movie, you can buy romance novels - but no bad words in music and no liberal works with bad words. God bless the US of A.
 
The Patriot Act was passed devoid of logic, and mostly fear. The invasion of Iraq wasn't very logical IMO... I think it was based mostly on emotion again, dislike of Saddam and fear, again..

Pssst....those votes did not belong to the Republicans alone. The Deomcrats did not oppose it, particularly things like the Patriot Act and such. They're all a bunch of cowards willing to sacrafice our lives and money for their political gains.
 
Do you think any type of child porn should be legal? As long as the pedophiles are getting some visual pleasure and not hurting anybody.. that is ok..

No. Pictures which have actual, factual child porn (i.e. sexual intercourse or other pornographic images of real minors) should be illegal. Things such as drawings, lolicon, etc. where there is no real child should not be illegal.
 
People are saying that because a prosecutor brought charges, it must mean he did something wrong. What was that guys name who brought charges against all those rugby or something players and it was later all dropped, found to be lies, and the prosecutor lost his job and was sued?

A prosecutor pressing charges means nothing.

Of course child porn should be illegal, but unless that guy had child porn in his book, this thread isn't about child porn.
 
Last edited:
No one is trying to make pedophilia mainstream or more acceptable?

Excuse me, but that is AUTHOR'S GOAL. He is trying to do that, and I cannot respect that. I cannot easily accept his ****ing book... I have a freedom of speech to express that... You think my opinion is just pure emotion and just stupid, but his is protected speech and you're willing to lecture me on that for pages and pages, whilst insulting me.. :roll:

Sorry, I meant no one on these boards are trying to do so. Your comment seemed more generally aimed, not specifically aimed only at the author. Of who's intent I have no clue.
 
Somebody is, and it's not the good, moral cons and faux libertarians. Jesus...

What is the point of this horribly stupid comment? Faux libertarian? Please, don't be an idiot. There's no faux with me. I stand by the rights and liberties of the individual and nothing more. I will defend those to the end, I will take every consequence, all dangers, every last duty required in order to preserve freedom to the maximum. So take your failed smarmy comments and assumptions that have no backing and come back when you have something of intellectual honesty and integrity to say. Until then, the ravings of emotional fools has no bearing on me. Good day.
 
No, the proper thing to do is for the judge to summarily dismiss the case and reprimand the prosecutor.

I'm not. I'm saying it should be dismissed.

This is a circular argument if I've ever heard one: "There must be some legitimate dispute over the law, because the prosecutor filed charges. And the prosecutor must have filed charges because there is some legitimate dispute over the law."

The law is quite clear that inflammatory speech (including speech advocating breaking the law) is constitutionally protected unless it incites imminent lawless action, as established in Brandenburg v. Ohio.

It's not a matter of being "falsely accused," as that implies that the facts of the case are under dispute. Everyone agrees on the facts, and the prosecutor is simply wrong that those facts add up to a violation of the law.

Why would it quell confusion on the issue in the future? The law is already quite clear, yet you're saying it isn't. Why would a clear ruling here prevent you from doing exactly the same thing next time someone exercises their freedom of speech to voice an opinion you dislike?

It could possibly be dismissed - sure. They haven't gone past that point, yet. But the argument for the case must still be made - first - dismissal comes based on a review of the pleadings.

But that would merely postpone the issue of 'pedophilia-obscenity' for the future - we'll be revisiting this issue again and again.

The core problem is that there is no case precedent - there are 'sort of' and 'similar' - but nothing exactly *like this one* - leaving everyone drawing a blank.

This subject must be addressed in the legal system - the definition of 'obscenity' is too vague and needs a heavy case to propel the entire subject back to the Supreme Court Justices so they can define "obscene" - pelting out "I'll know obscenity when I see it" as they've done in the past is not a decision and not a judgment and has left so many loopholes in this entire subject that obscenity is either tossed too heavily - or too lightly.

Why you don't want this to culminate into more detailed agreement and definition on "what is obscene" is beyond me - you want this to merely be dismissed based on how you feel about it.

Once they further define obscenity then there will be more solid ground to stand on when filing said charges against someone.

If there were currently a more precise definition of what obscenity was then charges might not have been filed at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom