Man who wrote 'how-to' for pedophiles arrested

[Expat]

i would venture to guess that if your writing a book about how to rape kids and not get caught, you have probably practiced it a few times.

I agree. You also have to think that anyone that would buy the book (and put money in this POS' pocket) is either thinking about it or has already done it.

 

[Ramen]

I agree. You also have to think that anyone that would buy the book (and put money in this POS' pocket) is either thinking about it or has already done it.

The question of how to protect children from predators without becoming thought police and arresting innocents is a tough one.

Is possibly preventing a child's rights from being violated worth choosing to jail certain adults because their thoughts may make them more likely than the average person to commit a crime?

This is a very slippery slope.

Of course, anyone who does molest children must be stopped.

 

[dross]

He should be shunned by his neighbors. He should be fired from his job. He should be booted from his home if he is renting. He should find it difficult to find a place to shop that will let him in the door. He should find it difficult to find a restaurant that will serve him. He should be able to find no venue that will sell his books, which btw, any venue that allows him to sell his books is just as bad as he is. He should have to face protesters daily on the public street outside his house.

All that said, it's none of the government's business if he takes the thoughts, ideas, and beliefs in his own mind, transfers them to a medium where they can be read or viewed by others, and distributes the same to people who want to read it.

It's purely a freedom issue, and it tests one's principles on freedom precisely BECAUSE the guy's particular brand of free speech is so disgusting.

 

[Eddie]

The question of how to protect children from predators without becoming thought police and arresting innocents is a tough one.

Is possibly preventing a child's rights from being violated worth choosing to jail certain adults because their thoughts may make them more likely than the average person to commit a crime?

This is a very slippery slope.

Of course, anyone who does molest children must be stopped.

You are right. It is a very touchy area and one that can be uncomfortable to talk about. Age of consent is set by statute; thus the term statutory rape. Below the set age an individual cannot consent to have sex. A change in the law or crossing a political boundary like a state line can change a person's status. What can be legal one moment can be a felony the next.

 

[Johnny C]

That guy loves guns
He writes about guns
And we all know guns are evil
Any outlet that sells his books about guns are as bad as he is

ARREST THAT MAN BECAUSE HIS WRITINGS OFFEND THE MASSES!

get the point?

BTW, if he ever gets caught with a kid, a 50 cent bullet is too good for him., and i would sure be watching my kids if I knew he was around

 

[rambone]

The 1st amendment dies a little more with each person who is silenced by the State.

You can write books about all sorts of crimes; terrorism, murder, rape, bomb-making, drug dealing, robbery, nuclear arms smuggling, carrying a handgun without a LTCH...

Hell, I mean real-life murderers can write books about their crimes. Writing a book isn't the same as committing a crime though. The Thought Police have arrived.

 

[kboom524]

i would venture to guess that if your writing a book about how to rape kids and not get caught, you have probably practiced it a few times.

I agree, and they should crucify him for that. I just think he is protected by the 1st ammendment as much as those lunatics from the Westboro Baptist Church. I personally think they should all be drawn and quartered, but they have a right to speak there opinion. As someone else said here its a very slippery slope. Once we decide that you can't say this and they can't write about that where does it end. Thats why I will fight for a persons (unfourtunatly even a sick bastard like this) 1st amendments rights as adamantly as I will fight for a persons 2nd amendment rights and all the others.

 

[clgustaveson]

I havent read all the posts yet, but this is over the line.

This is another example of when we pick and choose the applicability of the constituion. I hope this man challenges the law with the supreme court.

 

[clgustaveson]

i would venture to guess that if your writing a book about how to rape kids and not get caught, you have probably practiced it a few times.

So we start arresting everyone that we "guess" committed a crime?

When the state denies someone who did something "bad" rights they are chipping away at the foundation of this country. We were founded on the shoulders of liberty. When we allow the government to pick and choose who can excercise their rights, we are giving them a warrant to do as they please.

This man writing a how-to book is no admition of a crime, nor does it insinuate he has ever done such a thing. This man did violate a law, and will be punished for that; however, the law that he has been proven to violate is unconstitutional and he should not be held on those grounds.

 

[Gamez235]

I think what makes me most sick about this, it that he is able to find protection in our Constitution and that others are quick to admit that. Criminal's who know what they are doing is morally wrong and creates, facilitates, and give others the means to do unjust harm on others by using the constitution as a shield.

When do criminals or people who use this shield to do harm to others cross from being citizens protected by the constituion and become not and are left to be face the consequences of their actions? Accountablility of one's actions or words, where's the line and what happens when they cross it?

I, as an human, a father, an American, or even a soldier who has fought to protect the freedoms of my fellow Americans can't even fathom me ever saying he has a right to say or encourage others by the things in his book or actions, it literally makes me sick that other would suggest that he's justified by our Constitution.

It saddens me beyond words to see that our country has come to a point where criminals can openly brag about things like this.

I believe in freedom of speech, and we as Americans should be allowed to express our selves as we see fit. But when a person uses this freedom to spread a message of hate and promote indescribable hurt and pain on those who can't fight or defend themselves... I can't even find the words to describe how I feel, it just makes me sick to my stomach.

 

[clgustaveson]

I think what makes me most sick about this, it that he is able to find protection in our Constitution and that others are quick to admit that. Criminal's who know what they are doing is morally wrong and creates, facilitates, and give others the means to do unjust harm on others by using the constitution as a shield.

When do criminals or people who use this shield to do harm to others cross from being citizens protected by the constituion and become not and are left to be face the consequences of their actions? Accountablility of one's actions or words, where's the line and what happens when they cross it?

I, as an human, a father, an American, or even a soldier who has fought to protect the freedoms of my fellow Americans can't even fathom me ever saying he has a right to say or encourage others by the things in his book or actions, it literally makes me sick that other would suggest that he's justified by our Constitution.

It saddens me beyond words to see that our country has come to a point where criminals can openly brag about things like this.

I believe in freedom of speech, and we as Americans should be allowed to express our selves as we see fit. But when a person uses this freedom to spread a message of hate and promote indescribable hurt and pain on those who can't fight or defend themselves... I can't even find the words to describe how I feel, it just makes me sick to my stomach.

As you should, but it's not about the constitution protecting this. The constitution does not protect individuals per say, it restricts the government from doing what it shouldn't.

This man is detestable and is doing things that he should not, but his book does not admit or confess anything. He doesn't say he did any of that or will do any of its contents. The two men that wrote "How to be a Serial Killer" were not serial killer (that we know of).

We simply cant allow the government it infringe on any right we have for the sake of the common good unless the person has commited a crime.

 

[isis]

I don't see how illustrations wouldn't be protected under the first amendment either. Even if they are heinous. That seems like an infringement unless he was using live models to make the illustrations, in which case it is exploitation and child pornography.

There are many legal exceptions to the First Amendment depending on intent and other such instances, such as child pornography. The child pornography law states that whether or not live models are used, any visual depiction of under-age children in any sexual situation is automatically classified as child pornography and hence subject to prosecution.

 

[rambone]

When do criminals or people who use this shield to do harm to others cross from being citizens protected by the constituion and become not and are left to be face the consequences of their actions? Accountablility of one's actions or words, where's the line and what happens when they cross it?

The line is when the person actually commit a crime, in real life. Talking about it, writing about it, & thinking about it does not constitute a crime.

Consequences of child molestation are already defined in the law.

I, as an human, a father, an American, or even a soldier who has fought to protect the freedoms of my fellow Americans can't even fathom me ever saying he has a right to say or encourage others by the things in his book or actions, it literally makes me sick that other would suggest that he's justified by our Constitution.

Like the last poster said.... The Constitution doesn't justify individuals, it restrains the government. We decided a long time ago that the Government was not allowed to punish people for what they write.

That includes taboo subjects.

It saddens me beyond words to see that our country has come to a point where criminals can openly brag about things like this.

I believe in freedom of speech, and we as Americans should be allowed to express our selves as we see fit. But when a person uses this freedom to spread a message of hate and promote indescribable hurt and pain on those who can't fight or defend themselves... I can't even find the words to describe how I feel, it just makes me sick to my stomach.

People have always been able to spread hate. It is nothing new.

What is changing in this country is that the Government is now interfering with as it can get away with. Shutting down websites, censoring the internet, debating if a mosque is "allowed" to be built, calling a guy a terrorist for exposing corrupt government emails, creating "hate crime" laws, arresting people who publish unpopular material....

This is the new trend in America we should be afraid of.

 

[rambone]

Should we arrest the guy who wrote this film? Where does the censorship end?

We must stick with punishing real, actual, physical crimes, or else we give way to the Thought Police and the end of the 1st Amendment.


Death of a President (2006) - IMDb

 

[isis]

I think Florida had a case several years ago involving an adult woman who created adult videos wherein she would dress and behave as a child. If memory serves me right the woman won her case and was allowed to keep making her videos because she was in fact an adult.

Yes, I agree with the outcome of that case with the woman. However, I would point out that video is different from illustrations, possibly because of trying to ascertain age when no live models were used (unlike videos, which, while not 100% certain, can be easier to try and find out the true ages of the people being filmed). (As I pointed out in another reply, child pornography laws allow prosecution whether or not live models were used).

 

[clgustaveson]

There are many legal exceptions to the First Amendment depending on intent and other such instances, such as child pornography. The child pornography law states that whether or not live models are used, any visual depiction of under-age children in any sexual situation is automatically classified as child pornography and hence subject to prosecution.

Can you show where this is stated?

Not to say you are wrong, but the point is why and where does this become relevant? Any where is this located in the "child pornography law"?

 

[level.eleven]

He should be shunned by his neighbors. He should be fired from his job. He should be booted from his home if he is renting. He should find it difficult to find a place to shop that will let him in the door. He should find it difficult to find a restaurant that will serve him. He should be able to find no venue that will sell his books, which btw, any venue that allows him to sell his books is just as bad as he is. He should have to face protesters daily on the public street outside his house.

All that said, it's none of the government's business if he takes the thoughts, ideas, and beliefs in his own mind, transfers them to a medium where they can be read or viewed by others, and distributes the same to people who want to read it.

It's purely a freedom issue, and it tests one's principles on freedom precisely BECAUSE the guy's particular brand of free speech is so disgusting.

Ostracism has been conditioned out the public's psyche in favor of government force and the safety they promise. It requires that you actually know your neighbors and know what is going on in your community. It requires a real press corps, not what is passed off today as journalism. I completely agree with your solution, for what its worth.

 

[dross]

Illustrations based on someone's imagination should never be illegal, regardless of what they depict. It's tyranny, pure and simple.

 

[Ramen]

There are many legal exceptions to the First Amendment depending on intent and other such instances, such as child pornography. The child pornography law states that whether or not live models are used, any visual depiction of under-age children in any sexual situation is automatically classified as child pornography and hence subject to prosecution.

I understand that you are saying you can be jailed for illustrations, however, I will opine that I believe that this law is unconstitutional. I agree with Dross's post directly above this one. Arresting people for things they draw, paint, sketch, or doodle is wrong. The line will never stop moving.

 

[GunGirl2020]

Well having known a few pedos in my day, you dont write a book about being a pedophile unless you are in fact a pedophile. I'm glad he was arrested, violation of rights or not he should be castrated IMMEDIATELY. I feel sometimes there should be an exception to the rule even if it does violate your rights. This is definatly one of them. In addition, I think they should arrest anyone who makes an attempt to purchase the book. Because again, you wouldnt even be interested unless you were a pedo. Why would you need a book like that unless a.) you want to be one or b.) you're brushing up on your practice. Spare the children and put these cowards away before they get the chance to act on these urges. Strictly personal (I guess) . My 2 cents