Good for you for tackling this. I think it is imperative for people to discuss things that sometimes make them uncomfortable.

This book, and the controversy surrounding it, bring a lot of points forward. I'm reminded of a virtual artist years ago...before the internet became such a big deal...who designed for gaming. In his spare time, he created virtual pornography involving young people. He was arrested, lost his job, etc.

As a rational human being, the description of what he created disgusted me. As a mother, it enraged me to a point that I cannot adequately describe. As a member of society, it frightened me more than I care to elaborate on.

But as an artist by trade, it disturbed me in a way that was profoundly confusing. This man created things that were disturbing, but he did not sell them, or market them, or exhibit them publicly. I had to question something that I felt blasphemous even thinking about; the images were just images, not real people...not real children. Is it possible to be imprisoned for fantasy, or for putting one's thoughts to paper?

I understand that we can say that this may lead to the real thing, etc., but the fact remains that this guy didn't actually DO anything to anyone. We do not imprison artists who depict bloody, brutal murders or torture (and I've seen some things that have given me nightmares, believe me), so I'm not understanding how a society can imprison a person for art depicting one illegal act, but not another.

Keep in mind that I'm not a fan of either type of "art," but I am merely presenting a query that I have not resolved in my own mind.

Now, that being said, this book is an abomination, from what little I have heard about it. And I think it clearly shows a lack of judgment for a major retailer to sell such an item without examining the content more closely.

But that uncomfortable, blasphemous, shameful question still arises in me: can a "freedom of speech" society really ban any sort of book or writing from being created? Does this book differ because it's a guide telling predators what to do, or what not to do (which I cannot really expound upon because I do not know what all it includes)?

I'm honestly torn. No, this book doesn't deserve a place on a shelf. But as a country that prides itself on expression and freedom of speech, can thoughts on paper, canvas, etc., really be censored?

I don't know. I don't have the answers to these questions, and I sincerely hope that no one finds my post to be pro-deviance, because I am not. I'm just rambling about the things that came up in my own mind.

Thanks, Melanie for tackling this -- it's a toughie!

Sex with a child is against the law, so how is it ok to write a book about how to improve the way you break this law? Isn't this akin to a person yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater? The greater good of theater goers over rules the need of one person to yell "FIRE".

The greater good (the right of every child to grow up knowing that their body is their own) outweighs the need of a criminal to commit their crime of choice.

Afterall, aren't pedophiles required by law to stay AWAY from children? They aren't even allowed to hand out candy on Halloween. AND they have to register their location so they can be monitored and their presence disclosed to other residents in their area. Criminals are crimnals.

While I totally support freedom of speech and press -- I also think a bit of common sense is a must.

This whole event has maybe me question many things...

Mel, this is awesome that you choked and shared with us the sick truth that our society harbors such atrocity. I, too, believe in the first amendment because what it means is that we as a society get what we tolerate, and thus what we deserve. I think it's horrible that someone wrote that book and thinks, hopes or pretends that it's making things "better" for victims of such horrors. but apparently our society just isn't ready to stop consuming such stuff. Yuck. Maybe some odd twist of fate will make this book a part of bringing those who illegally engage in such acts to justice.

But because of the free market, it's also possible and important we continue our work supporting Lissa, and supporting others who do so much positive work in the world. We are helping those who want to crawl out of those holes of horror and bring the light of love to those who see and seek it. This is a reminder of how important our work is.

Thanks SO much for being part of the love and light. You make it so much brighter.

The first amendment gives us the freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly and petitioning. However, and unfortunately, it does not "protect" us from stupid, horrifying, and evil! But consider Salman Rushdie and others, he's on a hit list for what he wrote. You can't even check out the Harry Potter series in some Libraries in this country because they've been banned. Do I like the thought of his book? Makes me want to project vomit! Censorship? Hell no! Making a such a fuss that no one will want to buy his book? March on ladies!!!

"More trouble for Amazon, this time with photos
Amazon sells books and videos containing images of children in possible sexual situations"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40137046/ns/technology_and_science-security/%20

Maybe I'm missing something huge, but the question that keeps flashing across my mind is, "what if someone self-published a book about how to blow up a building or take over a school with automatic weapons?" Is it free speech then, or would law enforcement be all over the person who exercised their first amendment right? Isn't this dude writing about a crime? Is the difference that he's not advocating murder? People could potentially be scarred for life, maybe, but not killed?

However, as some of you guys have suggested, if it does make it easier to actually track this fella down, maybe Amazon is doing us all a solid by allowing this stuff. Hmm...

Mel, thank you so much for posting this and getting the wheels turning & conversation flowing. Hope you got the seed up.

Love you ...

what a difficult set of questions! I always try to ask, what will the actual effect of [this subject] be, in the real world? I doubt that many who have *not* crossed the line, will really believe "it's okay then" or "I won't be convicted." whereas, it might help mitigate the actions of criminal perps.

one uncomfortable truth is that pedophiles most likely become that way through victimhood, and keeping in mind how best to reach and help heal these individuals is part of any ideal response.

it sounds to me that the author may actually be coming from this direction--trying to protect children like he once was--and perhaps "liter sentences" is a carrot intended to draw the attention of perpetrators who can be persuaded to do less harm if they're determined to act (as appalling as that concept may be, there ARE degrees).

no one has summarized the content of this book, which is necessary for a complete evaluation. First Amendment? yes, as others have said; publication doesn't mean you can't boycott a seller for any reason. but for the appropriate degree and nature of organized response, I'd want to know more before starting any crusades.

I counseled sexual perpetrators for two years. They were 12-18 years old (we turned away boys as young as 5)who had multiple (sometimes hundreds)victims. As Oprah is so graciously bringing into the light, 1 in 6 girls and 1 in 4 boys are a victim of sexual abuse. Consider any group of children: the ones on the playground you drive by, your child's classroom, the kids living in your apartment building, and take into account how many of them are/or will be victimized. Let's not forget, as Mr. Greaves practices his right to speak, as Amazon practices their right to sell, as we debate over the fuzzy lines of freedom/criminal intention, thousands of people are buying this book looking for additional motivation to attack a child. In the end, Mr. Greaves will have his money and limelight, Amazon will have their profit, we will have our mixed feelings and hundreds of children will become a victim of a perpetration that will permanently alter who they are today. That's a pretty high cost.

If you value your freedom to speak than use it to smoother this issue off our planet! Use this vile material to bring about change: notify your friends and family how perpetual sexual abuse really is, ask your elected officials to pass stronger laws against ANY defilement of a child, create safe spaces where victims can talk and search for justice, let our society HEAR how you will not accept a world where pedophilia is tolerated.

Thank you Melanie for providing us a space to practice our own freedom and for bringing this issue where it needs to be; front page.

As disgusting as it is, it's freedom of speech. He has the right in this country to create that "book" and market it. All of us have every right to speak out against his book and not purchase it. The Anarchist Cookbook is another book that Amazon sells. It shows how to build bombs, it's been in and out of print for years but no one has ever screamed about boycotting Amazon for selling that book.

Where do we draw the line with censorship? If we want freedom of speech we have to allow all speech even speech we don't agree with. Lissa was angry when a website took down the article about vaginas. That was blatant censorship. We all were angry about the double standard. They can say penis but not vagina? When we allow censorship of things we don't agree with, that feeds the fire for people who don't agree with us to censor us. Where does it stop?

Sure the book this guy wrote is revolting. But in America, what everyone is fighting for is freedom of speech. If that means pedophiles get to publish how-to-guides, and the KKK gets to have a parade down my street then so be it. Because that means I get to stand up and protest these things and everything else that is wrong. I get to join the Take Back the Night rally, and watch the Gay Pride parade. If we're going to allow freedom of speech, we've got to be willing to accept all forms, including the ones we don't agree with.

Pattie

I guess the author has the first amendment right to say what he has to say. But I don't believe he has a right to sell it through someone else's business. I think Amazon is allowed to say 'no' to certain topics. The danger would be: Where does Amazon draw the line? Where does it start to get fuzzy?

In the case of pedophilia, only a TINY minority of people (that is pedophiles - & I hope it's a tiny number), would consider this acceptable material. There are some cases where it's pretty clear that the content is potentially dangerous to some - and those some are the most vulnerable among us. This topic should be clear - as it would likely be if I decided to self-publish a book on bomb-making. (NOTE: the only thing I can actually blow up is stuff in the microwave.)

I think if Amazon swung too far and went overboard with censoring topics, its customers would be swift to respond with threats of shopping elsewhere, as they did in this case.

Bottom line - Amazon isn't violating this guy's first amendment rights. Sadly, the whole thing likely gave the author way more exposure than he might have had otherwise.

Welcome to OP sweets! So nice to see you "here." I know the FBI tracks online pedophile activity. I wonder if they would keep track of something like this? Although I'm sure there are folks that bought it just because they were incredulous and wanted to waive it around and say "STOP."

I'm so happy you liked it! That was a major problem I had as well, it was like a 100,000% increase. Crazy town.