Amazon sells 'deadly' pedophile magazine

[Ted Striker]

i can't believe some of you *******s are still defending this garbage

and freedom of speech is not absolute look at the damn movie theatres people get restricted from watching particular types of movies

[blackice]

Ted in defence some some of the innocents here, maturity happens at different stages for children.

On the other hand the thread is about a pedo group who cares not for such facts but thier sexual gradification with young children. That is simply wrong what ever color you paint it.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Japher
that was on Law and Order. Saying "it ought to be illegal to kill gays" is not illegal while saying "everyone should kill gays, go out and get your frag today" is illegal... See the difference?

Yes, that's the unbiased and objective interpretive bar here in the US. And how foolish of us to form our opinions without first consulting our betters!

That TV drama is about criminal law, not tort law.

Originally posted by skywalker
No, from the case you cited, you said that they were INCITED by the leadership. DIFFERENT from ADVOCATING something.

In criminal law, yes. But in common law tort the hearer may infer encouragement or incitation from passionate advocacy, and therefore a suit has enough merit to be heard.

Originally posted by Spiffor
According to a study I've read (I don't know how biased it was), the emotional scar highly depended on the surrounding adults' reaction when hearing about the intercourse. It was said the kids were very much more scarred when the surrounding adults flipped out when hearing the news.

So, be sure to quietly lynch the buggerers when they're caught, and to advocate vigilante justice dispassionately.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Straybow
So, be sure to quietly lynch the buggerers when they're caught, and to advocate vigilante justice dispassionately.

If you're gonna lynch the guy, sure, that's what you oughta do. Or be passionate as much as you want, but not in front of the child. Until he grows up enough to hear what you really think of the pedophile, avoid to consider it like a big catastrophe in front of the kid.

Kids are emotionally weak, in the meaning that their emotions are heavily influenced by the emotions of their superiors, and are a reflexion thereof. When I lost my grandfather at 8, my sadness came more from the general sadness surrounding the event, than by the death itself (I was merely sorrowed that nobody would give me Kinder Surprises anymore.

So don't worsen your kid's scar, because you'll be making the evil pedophiles win

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


An entirely different issue, threatening speach vs political advocacy.

To elaborate on the earlier advocating to assassinate the President example: Encouraging people to go out right now and kill President Bush can get you in legal trouble. However, if I take the position that political assassination is a legitimate mean of the electorate to express their dipleasure with politicians, and it therefore out to be legal to ensure Congressional accountability with their constituents, it should not be possible to prosecute me if I confine my statements to this argument, especially if I make it clear that I do not advocate breaking the law on this matter. (Just to be clear this is not something I would actually support! )

The part where NAMBLA argues that man-boy love should be made legal should not warrent legal action against them no matter how repugnant we find the suggestion. However, if or when they go further than this, they may very well be running afoul of the law.

[Seeker]

Eww....teacher/student sex is...the idea is disgusting.


Legal Stuff:
Whatever fiction or 'true life accounts' or whatever, without pictures, is not considered 'pornographic' under the law.

I hope you are all aware that in Stephen King, one time the worlds most popular author, has 'scenes' in 'It', 'Pet Sematary' 'Needful Things''the Stand' and 'the Shining' which would be illegal if accompanied by images i.e.

the Shining: the psychic boy picks up a man and womans lewd, graphic thoughts. One of the evil ghosts offers to perform fellatio.

Pet Sematary: the re-animated Gage Creed rapes his mother.

the Stand: A boy is described reading a pornographic magazine and becoming aroused.

Needful Things: A scene that shocked me that it could POSSIBLY be legal and so uncommented upon, a boy has a vividly described dream where he is manually stimulated by his teacher.

The most over the top 'WHY?' stuff that I found 'questionable' had to be in It:

-many sexual fantasies are described.
-group mastrubation is described
-an eleven?(possibly 12-13 I'm not sure) year old girl has group sex with six eleven year old boys in a bizzare quasi-Druidic ritual (open up 'It' it's all there)

So even though it is certainly beyond the limits of good taste, it appears that there is no obscenity provision for strictly written materials......I didn't think about this until now that I've written in down but now that I have there sure is a lot of wierd sex **** in SK! That ****s me up, I remember lots of people reading his stuff even in grade school!!

I've made an amazing discovery, why wasn't there ever a huge debate and to do about what seems to be Stephen Kings latent pedophilia???

[FrustratedPoet]

why wasn't there ever a huge debate and to do about what seems to be Stephen Kings latent pedophilia???

Because his writing is such dreck that nobody takes him seriously?

[Seeker]

But he's the Peoples Choice, by dollars and sales.

Obviously people like dreck more than any other type of literature.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove

There's more to it than that. I was six once. 'nough said.

That wouldn't be my business to divulge.

[Brundlefly]

Howard Stern had a NAMBLA member on his show one time. The guy said that if he's walking down the street and he walks past a basketball court and a ballplayer takes off his shirt that means he is flirting...

Stern also had Crackhead Bob sing a parody of Allman Bros "Ramblin Man" titled "NAMBLA Man" ...

[Az]

I think this is hightime for this thread, that dissident would enter and say "I think I am a paedophile"

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm with che and sky on this. NAMBLA has a right to advocate pedophilia if it so chooses. It simply cannot incite the illegal act. And no, explaining how to perform the act and talking about the act is no more incitement than High Times explaining how to role a joint and people talking about how they got high is incitement (ie, not at all).

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I'm with che and sky on this. NAMBLA has a right to advocate pedophilia if it so chooses. It simply cannot incite the illegal act. And no, explaining how to perform the act and talking about the act is no more incitement than High Times explaining how to role a joint and people talking about how they got high is incitement (ie, not at all).

Yeah, well like Straybow said above they could be open to liability under the right circumstances.

[Drogue]

Civil liability yes. Criminal no. That is my understanding. If the plaintiff can show a strong, credible link between NAMBLA and the killers, then they may get compensation. However they won't get a criminal conviction for NAMBLA unless they told people to abuse children.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yep, Drogue is correct. Civil liability only for selling the mag and even there it may be a tough sell, especially when there is a tenuous link (such as suscribing to a magazine) involved.