Ebook on Amazon.com about pedophilia deleted

[Kurt]

I know what you are trying to say but talking about Harry Potter in a discussion about a pedophile book is the worst kind of liberal BS.

 

[LuciferSam]

Banning books of this sort would open the door to banning disturbing violent pieces of fiction. Some of these works have some "how to" elements in them for sure.

 

[Matt J]

I hate to break it to you, but the Supreme Court already ruled on the issue of written child por nography. They said it is covered under the First Amendment and while I abhor it, think it's disgusting, and those that act on it should be put to death it is a slippery slope when you start banning books.

Freespace: Written ?depictions? of obscenity?

Then again the fun folks over at the Libertarian party think it should be legal:

During the nomination process at the 2008 Libertarian National Convention, anarcho-capitalist and U.S. Presidential candidate Mary Ruwart came under fire for her comment in her 1998 book, Short answers to the tough questions, in which she stated her opposition not only to laws against possession of child pornography but even against its production, based on her belief that such laws actually encourage such behavior by increasing prices.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_regarding_child_pornography_laws#cite_note-14

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_regarding_child_pornography_laws[/ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_regarding_child_pornography_laws#cite_note-14

 

[Lynnie]

Our media has also shown segments of, 'How easy it is to build a bomb.'
I personally am an advocate of banning the book and I couldn't care less about the argument of Freedom of Speech in this regard. However, this is certainly where a boycott will send a very strong message to Amazon.

That woman should come to my church. We actually had some Sunday School classes on the Harry Potter series......I didn't go.....was never interested in the read.

 

[scooterbug44]

I know what you are trying to say but talking about Harry Potter in a discussion about a pedophile book is the worst kind of liberal BS.

They were running a Harry Potter movie marathon this weekend so it was in my head....................and it's a book series many have tried to ban - even before Harry had the naked out of body experience/dream w/ gay Dumbledore. ;-)

 

[Matt J]

I know what you are trying to say but talking about Harry Potter in a discussion about a pedophile book is the worst kind of liberal BS.

I don't know, some might not see a line between pedophilia and Harry Potter.

 

[30ashopper]

Add one more to the list?

List of books banned by governments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The difference here of course is that this book was not banned by government, it was simply pulled from the virtual shelves of Amazon. There's nothing wrong with that.

 

[Lynnie]

Remember when small towns would ban a movie because the town people tought it too explicit?

 

[Kurt]

Remember when small towns would ban a movie because the town people tought it too explicit?

No.

 

[hkem1]

I hate to break it to you, but the Supreme Court already ruled on the issue of written child por nography. They said it is covered under the First Amendment

I don't see where you are getting this from. The major supreme court cases that still hold precedence regarding child pornography are United States V. Williams, Miller V. California, New York V. Ferber and Osborne V. Ohio and Ashcroft V. Free Speech Coalition. All of those cases ruled laws prosecuting child pornography constitutional except for Ashcroft. And Ashcroft dealt with "virtual" child pornography that was computer generated.

The most pertinent case for this specific situation is Miller V. California which ruled that obscenity is not protected by the first amendment.

The controlling opinion instituted the Miller test to determine whether or not material is "obscene".

1. whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards (not national standards, as some prior tests required), would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;

2. Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law; and

3. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."

The material must pass all three prongs in order to be constitutionally banned as "obscene".

So while Harry Potter would likely not pass that test and could not be ruled obscene; from what I have heard about the books in question, they would be classified as obscene and could be banned constitutionally under the first amendment.

Of course, while states and the federal government are not constitutionally mandated to ban obscene materials, they are constitutionally able to do so.