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

Ikari said:

I don't know. We have things like the Anarchists Cookbook and the Poor Man's James Bond which have all sorts of illegal thing in them. Yet are they not still legal to make and distribute? How is this any different? Other than having attached an emotional outlet to this particular information? I think it's crap to have him arrested because I can't imagine it having been done for anything other than emotional argument. And those with nothing more than emotional argument should not be listened to.

Click to expand...

He was arrested in the state of Florida, because they have a law strictly stating that it is illegal to depict children in the manner his book did.. But they said he might not be able to be arrested in the other 49 states, depending on their laws.

I haven't read the book, so I'll assume for the sake of argument it actually seeks to teach people how to target and sexually abuse children.

You know what I find interesting?

How many people are dead-set on being disgusted by this book -- rather than viewing it as an opportunity to learn lessons on how to better protect vulnerable children from the very type of person who seeks to abuse them. Any electronic intrusion, criminal justice or terrorism expert can learn volumes from the maintenance manuals and technical documentation published by his targets. Why is this any different?

Why is it that we can't be adult enough to look past the shock and see the strategic value of a document like this?

SheWolf said:

He was arrested in the state of Florida, because they have a law strictly stating that it is illegal to depict children in the manner his book did.. But they said he might not be able to be arrested in the other 49 states, depending on their laws.

Click to expand...

That's my favorite part. They wanted jurisdiction, so they sent away for a signed copy. They wanted to nail him, so they asked him to break the law, and the best part would be that if he didn't think he was breaking the law to begin with.

The crazy thing is, I bet you dollars to donuts that that violates one of a variety of vaguely-worded Federal statutes regulating interstate commerce, the difference here is that the government did it, so it's okay.

Kandahar said:

I rest my case. You don't even make an ATTEMPT at a rational argument, you just go straight for the emotion. :roll:

Click to expand...

That is all you have to say? Pathetic..

I don't think my statement was emotional and void of a rational argument. I will still argue that if you were hurt by somebody like that man, or one of your children were.. you'd probably feel different and think differently. I am rationally arguing that your initial instinct would be different. That is not void of rational.. your response is utter BS. :2mad:

SheWolf said:

I will still argue that if you were hurt by somebody like that man, or one of your children were.. you'd probably feel different and think differently. I am rationally arguing that your initial instinct would be different.

Click to expand...

The law should not be about instincts or feelings.

TacticalEvilDan said:

I haven't read the book, so I'll assume for the sake of argument it actually seeks to teach people how to target and sexually abuse children.

You know what I find interesting?

How many people are dead-set on being disgusted by this book -- rather than viewing it as an opportunity to learn lessons on how to better protect vulnerable children from the very type of person who seeks to abuse them. Any electronic intrusion, criminal justice or terrorism expert can learn volumes from the maintenance manuals and technical documentation published by his targets. Why is this any different?

Why is it that we can't be adult enough to look past the shock and see the strategic value of a document like this?

Click to expand...

Well, that is a good point that you are trying to make.. but in all honesty these people are not just weird anti social men who are easily spotted, they can be fathers of the children they abuse. Sometimes the abuse can start so early the child doesn't have a chance, and thinks it's normal. They only learn that it is later inappropriate to not "play" that way, when they try doing it with other people. I know of incest happening in families, when the child tells somebody else the rest of the family defends the abuser.. and then the victim is the outsider and receives more abuse from the rest of the family..

I know a lot of personal stories because I work in a support group and I have heard some of the worst stories...

The problem with sexual abuse is that is not the victims fault for failing to protect themselves or preventing the abuse.. don't place that emotional burden on them. It's the abusers fault for being the abuser. The abuser should not rape or molest children, women, or men. Sexual abuse is unacceptable. It isn't legal to depict children in porno, so why should it be legal to depict children in a guide about how to rape and molest them?

I don't have a problem with trying to teach children how to protect themselves, but it shouldn't be their duty alone.. The rule is that abuse is unacceptable. Some of the victims in the group did try to tell when they were very little, but their abuser manipulated them so much and trained them with words and vocabulary that nobody understood what they were telling them. I unfortunately don't believe children are capable of preventing abuse by themselves.

TacticalEvilDan said:

That's my favorite part. They wanted jurisdiction, so they sent away for a signed copy. They wanted to nail him, so they asked him to break the law, and the best part would be that if he didn't think he was breaking the law to begin with.

The crazy thing is, I bet you dollars to donuts that that violates one of a variety of vaguely-worded Federal statutes regulating interstate commerce, the difference here is that the government did it, so it's okay.

Click to expand...

Here cops often lure people into their jurisdiction in online stings... promising sex with an underage person.. What is the different here? All things aside.. I am just talking about getting jurisdiction

SheWolf said:

Well, that is a good point that you are trying to make.. but in all honesty these people are not just weird anti social men who are easily spotted, they can be fathers of the children they abuse.

Click to expand...

They typically do not abuse their own children -- too valuable as cover.

SheWolf said:

Sometimes the abuse can start so early the child doesn't have a chance, and thinks it's normal. They only learn that it is later inappropriate to not "play" that way, when they try doing it with other people. I know of incest happening in families, when the child tells somebody else the rest of the family defends the abuser.. and then the victim is the outsider and receives more abuse from the rest of the family..

I know a lot of personal stories because I work in a support group and I have heard some of the worst stories...

The problem with sexual abuse is that is not the victims fault for failing to protect themselves or preventing the abuse.. don't place that emotional burden on them. It's the abusers fault for being the abuser. The abuser should not rape or molest children, women, or men. Sexual abuse is unacceptable.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with any of that.

SheWolf said:

It isn't legal to depict children in porno, so why should it be legal to depict children in a guide about how to rape and molest them?

Click to expand...

For the same reason it's not illegal to so much as talk about it in public -- because whether you're discussing the evils of child sexual abuse or writing a book about how to sexually abuse children, neither act involves the actual abuse of children.

I think our criminal justice system should focus on people who actually do bad things, rather than simply talk about doing bad things.

SheWolf said:

I don't have a problem with trying to teach children how to protect themselves, but it shouldn't be their duty alone.. The rule is that abuse is unacceptable. Some of the victims in the group did try to tell when they were very little, but their abuser had manipulated them so much and trained them with words and vocabulary that nobody understood what she was trying to tell them. I unfortunately don't believe children are capable of preventing abuse by themselves.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with any of this, either.

SheWolf said:

Here cops often lure people into their jurisdiction in online stings... promising sex with an underage person.. What is the different here? All things aside.. I am just talking about getting jurisdiction

Click to expand...

I just don't get how it's okay in any way for the cops to pursue someone who is obeying the law where he lives by purchasing something via interstate commerce that is illegal where the cops are.

TacticalEvilDan said:

They typically do not abuse their own children -- too valuable as cover.

Click to expand...

I don't really agree with this.. I have read about some who don't start out abuser their own children, but then start doing things gradually.. like masturbating while watching their children sleep or touching them while sleeping. I think it has something to do with them not enjoying being close to their victims for fears of losing control..

I don't disagree with any of that.


For the same reason it's not illegal to so much as talk about it in public --

Click to expand...

No offense, but I think this is a bad argument... It's not acceptable to talk about hurting or sexually abusing children in public, and that would alert anybody's attention and be a cause of concern. Depending on the situation it could lead to all types of consequences, perhaps not immediate criminal.. unless it involves a certain child.. However, protecting children is an important social value IMO, not protecting the freedom of their abusers to exchange ideas on how to be better abusers.

I really think your attitude is symptomatic of saying we should protect ourselves from sexual abuse, not "sexual abuse is unacceptable."

I don't know the legal facts in this case.. let him go to trail, whatever. But I am not going to be acceptable of this type of literature ever, and I have a freedom of speech to say so and protest it. I believe sexual abuse is unacceptable and encouraging it, and encouraging more effective sexual abuse.. or whatever this guy is doing.. is unacceptable.

because whether you're discussing the evils of child sexual abuse or writing a book about how to sexually abuse children, neither act involves the actual abuse of children.

Click to expand...

Talking about or writing a book about abusing a child potentially involves all children.. Who would talk about how to abuse a child and get away with it? Don't forget this book is a how-to-manual.. it's market is obvious, it's niche is for pedophiles to become better abusers. Are you actually supporting his book?

TacticalEvilDan said:

They typically do not abuse their own children -- too valuable as cover.

Click to expand...

Absolutely untrue. Roughly 90% of child abuse cases involve a parent or close relative. In fact, it is this exact stat, that has so many people outraged at the sex offender registry. Since so few sex offenders ever reoffend (3.5-5% according to the department of justice, with nearly 50% being the average for all other crimes) that means that these people who abuse their kids don't abuse anyone else's kids so are no threat to them yet they have to register publicly, sometimes for life. They could have just killed the child and been done with it. No law should encourage an act of murder to avoid jail time. If you want to think about the victim, think about what the perp knows is on the other side for him. Make it too tough, and he'll just kill the child. A dead child won't talk. Think about it.

It's a bad bad thing, no doubt, but lets face it, just like you can't lock up someone for being gay, you can't lock them up for simply being a pedophile. It is better to let him learn to control his urges in a way that doesn't harm kids, rather than tell him "no" all the time and then he lashes out and destroys a life.

However, I would like to finish with the fact that not all sex offenders are pedophiles, even child rapists don't always qualify, simply because many molestations and rapes aren't about sex at all. They are about power and manipulation. There have been many sex offenders in prison for molesting and raping children who tested negative for sexual attraction to kids (which is, of course, the requirement to be a true pedophile, no crime alone can create that label). Of course, a lot of this comes from the large number of false accusations that are made against men by pissed off ex wives, ex girlfriends, etc. Who are the cops going to believe, little Emily who says daddy touched her (and was told to say this by mommy, why promised her her favorite doll if she did), or Daddy, the big evil man with a mustache who says he didn't?

See how easy it is?

Ok, sorry I'll get off my soapbox. I just had to correct the incorrect piece of information I saw.

Interesting link:

http://recidivism.samcaldwell.net/

Avg. Recidivism (1983-2010) (all felony offenders):41.56%

Click to expand...

Avg Recidivism (1983-2010) (sex offenders, new sex offense): 8.47%

Click to expand...

Repulsive as this specific instance may be, free speech is free speech, we cannot put emotional limitations on it without risk of any and all emotionally charged issues becoming subject to censorship. When speech becomes action then all bets are off.

marduc said:

Repulsive as this specific instance may be, free speech is free speech, we cannot put emotional limitations on it without risk of any and all emotionally charged issues becoming subject to censorship. When speech becomes action then all bets are off.

Click to expand...

Amazon should not have published his book in the first place... Amazon f**ked up.. They pulled it, but he is still headed to trial in January..

Kandahar said:

Apparently freedom of speech goes right out the window when it comes to being on the wrong side of public opinion on emotionally-charged issues.

Click to expand...

I would say this is akin to yelling fire in a crowded theatre when there is no fire.

SheWolf said:

Amazon should not have published his book in the first place... Amazon f**ked up.. They pulled it, but he is still headed to trial in January..

Click to expand...

They would have never pulled it were it not for the bad press, they are not concerned with content, they are concerned with profit - which others now have an opportunity to capitalize on.

The saddest thing of all of this is that a publication that would have otherwise had a very limited exposure now has free advertising and the exposure to this publication has now increased by several magnitudes of order above and beyond what would have occurred otherwise. The media exposure has assuredly been a godsend for book sales - free publicity for a book that should have withered away in obscurity. good job media, way to feed that monster for the sake of sensationalism.

Ok, people, firstly, defending the notion that this guy is protected under freedom of speech is not the same as advocating that he actually engage in the speech he has chosen. Did you actually enter adulthood thinking freedom was ALL sunshine and roses? It's costs are many and varied.

Secondly, everything that is likely to be in this book can probably be found by reading certain psychology books. Are you advocating that those authors also be arrested? Those books, I am quite certain, have led to the abuse of children, too, probably to a far greater extent than this book. Yet, these books are written with the ultimate goal of protecting children. So, if he had started out the book with the first sentence being "This book is written as a how to book, but is meant to help parents and others in authority help their children guard against predators", would you suddenly consider the work to be under constitutional protection?

Kandahar said:

OK, suppose that the guy had wrote a book telling people what areas of a city they could visit if they wanted to find a prostitute...or how to behave if the police find your stash of pot. Off with his head? :roll:

I'm curious as to what you mean by "teaching others how to molest children." That's rather vague. What exactly did he write about that you think warrants a prison sentence?

Click to expand...

Your first paragraph gave me pause. So I read some more....

Greaves has been charged with distribution of obscene material depicting minors engaged in conduct harmful to minors.

Click to expand...

Apparently some here (and everywhere) think that the right of free speech is so damn sacrosanct that common sense should be thrown to the wind. Well, I don't.

I would think the same about a book that gave explicit instructions on how to destroy the U.S. power grid and put us in the dark for 3 months, by the way. Different subject. Same common sense approach.

Dezaad said:

Ok, people, firstly, defending the notion that this guy is protected under freedom of speech is not the same as advocating that he actually engage in the speech he has chosen. Did you actually enter adulthood thinking freedom was ALL sunshine and roses? It's costs are many and varied.

Click to expand...

No one said it was the same did they?

Dezaad said:

Secondly, everything that is likely to be in this book can probably be found by reading certain psychology books. Are you advocating that those authors also be arrested? Those books, I am quite certain, have led to the abuse of children, too, probably to a far greater extent than this book. Yet, these books are written with the ultimate goal of protecting children. So, if he had started out the book with the first sentence being "This book is written as a how to book, but is meant to help parents and others in authority help their children guard against predators", would you suddenly consider the work to be under constitutional protection?

Click to expand...

And everything that Assaunge published via wikileaks could have been gotten through various other reporters over time.

And yet, Assaunge is demonized for exercising his freedom of speech/press while this guy gets a pass. I see that as nothing more than hypocritical in the extreme.

Kandahar said:

Exposing state secrets = a crime that is illegal for good reason
Writing about objectionable topics and informing people of their own rights = freedom of speech

Click to expand...

And yet reporters find out confidential and classified information all the time and publish it...just not as much all at once. That is the ONLYdifference between what you would call a normal reporter and Assaunge. Assaunge is just apparently better at it, probably because he doesn't do fluff pieces like X dog won the blue ribbon at the dog show.

Also does Assaunge not have the same protections? Freedom of Speech AND Freedom of the Press? Apparently, to you, he doesn't. So, why is it that you are so selective in your application of the Bill of Rights? Even to the point of letting this guy publish a how to guide on pedophilia?

I try not to get twisted up in knots over what the pro-pedos believe.

These individuals who are pro-pedo haven't actually been NEGATIVELY affected by pedophilia - they have no sense of direction on the issue and don't grasp the impact that such people's actions and obsessions actually have on others.

If their kids were molested - they'd be going for the gullet.

All these morally charged posters who think this guy needs to be locked up, and the key thrown away, as he is obviously the slime of the earth ...... OK, the guy is scum by just about all standards.

But where is the outrage, and I have some, that my Sheriff, Grady Judd, down here in Polk County, FL, largest city Lakeland, is apparently the only County with the laws, and the Sheriff, to enforce justice on this perp ? Last time I checked, we aren't the designated maybe-its-child-porn prosectutorial arm of the United States ! While Grady is highly respected down here, and tough as nails, I am miffed as to why we're taking on the cost of cases like this that will surely attract the ACLU and other competent defense groups, while the rest of the country does what ? Says "Thank God someone had a law" ?

The case is also weak according to many legal scholars.

SheWolf said:

He was arrested in the state of Florida, because they have a law strictly stating that it is illegal to depict children in the manner his book did.. But they said he might not be able to be arrested in the other 49 states, depending on their laws.

Click to expand...

Well there are lots of retarded laws. The problem specifically in this case is that people rely on emotional arguments when it comes to pedophilia. As a result, we have constructed overreaching laws and improper government action. The fact that people would try to attack a book is a bit ridiculous. In the end it's a book and while it seems that Florida sucks balls, at least in the other 49 states he probably couldn't have been arrested.

Emotion should NEVER override logic.

Aunt Spiker said:

I try not to get twisted up in knots over what the pro-pedos believe.

These individuals who are pro-pedo haven't actually been NEGATIVELY affected by pedophilia - they have no sense of direction on the issue and don't grasp the impact that such people's actions and obsessions actually have on others.

If their kids were molested - they'd be going for the gullet.

Click to expand...

Nice propaganda and appeal to emotion. Care to make a logical argument instead?

SheWolf said:

Here cops often lure people into their jurisdiction in online stings... promising sex with an underage person.. What is the different here? All things aside.. I am just talking about getting jurisdiction

Click to expand...

I think that is nothing short of entrapment and should NOT be allowed in any circumstance. Entrapment is most certainly something the People should be protected from. It's like that "to catch a Predator" show where they set up situations pretending to be a kid and did all they could to get someone to come over, and then had them arrested. I do not know how that could even be considered legal. It's so clearly entrapment. But people are so emotional about this topic that they'll excuse excessive government and improper action by the authority. And that is truly sickening.

Aunt Spiker said:

I try not to get twisted up in knots over what the pro-pedos believe.

These individuals who are pro-pedo haven't actually been NEGATIVELY affected by pedophilia - they have no sense of direction on the issue and don't grasp the impact that such people's actions and obsessions actually have on others.

If their kids were molested - they'd be going for the gullet.

Click to expand...

Which is why emotion should never override logic. A law should never be passed to "right" a past "wrong" or revenge an act. That is why the Adam Walsh Act has been proven unconstitutional in many states, and is being challenged in many othes. Sorry AS, I am totally against you on this one. Just as I am against the Patriot act which was passed on emotion and not logic, this is too. I think Florida will lose, and lose a lot of money, on this. They will be made fools of.

The man wrote a book. I can write a book on anything I want to, protected by the first amendment. No book has ever caused someone to commit a crime, it is an inanimate object. The person commits the crime, not the book.

What if a child molester says that the show "America's Got Talent" made him do it when he saw a child perform on stage? You gonna go after AGT? Or, since you don't see much connection, AGT is ok? See where this goes? It's a slippery slope.