By John Gilstrap
Yesterday, an otherwise unknown writer named Phillip R. Greaves II became way more famous than he deserved after publishing an ebook no one would ever have read but for spasms of media apoplexy. The work in question is The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure: A Child Lover’s Code of Conduct.
Disgusting concept, eh? In case you’re on the fence, read the author’s summary of the book, as reported by The Los Angeles Times (the grammar and spelling are all Mr. Greaves’s): “This is my attempt to make pedophile situations safer for those juveniles that find themselves involved in them, by establishing certian rules for these adults to follow. I hope to achieve this by appealing to the better nature of pedosexuals, with hope that their doing so will result in less hatred and perhaps liter sentences should they ever be caught.”
Oh, my goodness. Where to start? Let’s first agree for the sake of argument that “pedosexual” is a word. Next we need to accept that child rapists aren’t all bad. I confess that I haven’t read this code of conduct, but sight unseen, it’s tough to imagine a set of social rules that would make child rape somehow less worthy of hatred or more worthy of “liter” sentences. If I’m elected king, these monsters will spend long months dangling from the anatomical tools through which they perpetrated their crimes and fulfilled their fantasies.
I think I read that Greaves’s book first appeared on Amazon.com on October 28, and instantly climbed the list to #1.3 bazillion in paid Kindle sales. Then someone noticed it and tweeted discontent. The presence of a pedophile manual went viral faster than Bieber and the fat kid with the light saber combined. Soon pressure was building for Amazon.com to take the book down. Amazon refused initially, but as the Mad Morality Police Force built momentum to boycott all Amazon.com products if the book remained, the company caved and pulled it down. We have lost forever our opportunity to learn Mr. Greaves’s child rapist code of conduct.
Unless, of course, he decides to put it up on a website of his own. If he does that, I wonder if the MMPF will demand a boycott of computers and cyberspace.
The world is no doubt a better place without a pedophile’s guide in circulation, but man oh man, I am not comfortable with this kind of de facto censorship. Book burning is scarier than any idea I can imagine, even if the burned books are printed in electrons instead of ink. It’s not as if someone was proposing to mentor wannabe kid-touchers.
If this is the precedent, where do we stop? In these days of self-publishing, cyberspace teems with poorly-written, ill-conceived screeds on all kinds of topics. Is The Anarchist’s Cookbook next on the list? How about Tom Clancy’s early books where he gives excellent instruction on how to build a nuclear warhead? (A side note to terrorists: Please follow all of the instructions in The Anarchist’s Cookbook to the letter. The only people you blow up will be those who are gathered in your terror lab. And maybe your next door neighbor if your house is small.)
A pivotal moment in Prince of Tides involves the rape of a child. When do we boycott Pat Conroy? What about Alice Sebold? The Lovely Bones is all about a child’s murder, for God’s sake. That’s even worse than pedophilia. Golly, when I really put my mind to it, I can draw up a huge list of story lines that might offend.
Make no mistake, there’s no Constitutional issue here. The First Amendment does not guarantee a right to have one’s words stocked in a bookstore, and to my knowledge, no one’s threatening to prosecute Mr. Greaves for writing his book. (I wouldn’t be surprised if someone took a peek at his research materials, however.) What bothers me is the tyranny of the outraged majority dictating what’s available for purchase.
Help me out here, Killzoners. Are there thoughts that are so distasteful and upsetting that they should be banned?
maybe that’s what we need because going after them to stop them in the courts is not working 100 percent… snapnetwork.org go to this site to offer killing methods and contacts to take care of these pedophiles who are being orchestrated by above government secrecy fostered by the vatican and hierarchy who are secret in the ranks of the roman catholic church… we are talking 14,000 + cases in the us court system alone plus you can bet muliply each case by 100 and you have a more realistic number of children molested by priests and catholic members of the organization in the united states… this somehow ties into the secular world of pedophiles as i have witnessed first hand being a survivor
Because we write, we think all writing should be put out there?
I’m in the UK and we don’t have the amendments, so I don’t think banning this book is an issue, though I’m not sure of any legalities etc.
From what I’ve read, including your round up of his inside cover, it isn’t just a story, fictional make believe, it is actually a “how to be a good paedophile” book.
I work in child protection and I completely agree with the removal of this book. I was shocked to read just how many people bought it and hope a law enforcement agency somewhere has actually thought to get their hands on a copy to see if there are real victims in the book revealed or if he makes admissions of hands on offences.
Childrens lives are so completely affected by these acts of crime. I am completely for removal of this book. It is dangerous. Really.
Seriously?
How on earth can you compare it to the Lovely Bones or Prince of Tides? Neither of these books are intended to HELP child rapists, they fictionally depict these assaults for a narrative purpose. it’s certainly not a how-to manual like the Greaves’ book. For you to make those comparisons has to be one of the most intellectually disingenuous arguments I’ve ever heard.
I hate censorship but you know what? in a few limited circumstances a line has to be drawn. You can’t yell “fire” in a crowded movie theater, Netflix shouldn’t sell snuff films and any books that facilitate and promote child sexual assault should not be sold. Where do you draw the line Gilstrap? Anything goes?
I have made a choice as a consumer that I will not purchase products from any company that sells books assisting child molestors.
It’s an ethical choice and per your flippant and sanctimonious post, one that apparently makes me part of the Mad Morality Police Force and the tyrannical majority.
Are there things that I would deem in the world as unworthy to read garbage? Absolutely! But everyone should be able to make that choice for themselves. If we start banning stuff we enter a dangerous world of who decides what is good, worthy, acceptable, or not. Not to mention that banning anything notoriously makes it extremely popular for the taboo factor. The more hoopla you give something like this, the longer it will hang around before it dies an ignoble death.
I absolutely don’t want someone(s) telling me what I can, should, or should not read or write. Maybe people have to be responsible for themselves rather than being policed or censored. This whole book burning thing turned out so great for Hitler and his version of the world. Yeah, that’s a model worth repeating.
What should we ban next, the Bible- there’s rape, incest, mass murder, homosexuality, etc… in it. How about school chemistry books? They harbor many of the building blocks of the world in there, including the beginnings of bombs and chemical weapons. What about biology books? Are we arming pedosexuals, rapists, and hunters with that information?
Maybe we should just ban English and writing classes: no writing, no reading, no banning, no problem, all solved. Once it starts, there is no easy end in sight. You would have to throw out the baby, the mom, and the dad with the bath water. You would risk great literature, fun literature, philosophy, art, science and all that’s best that is humanity. Not to mention all knowledge, reason, and thought. Some of those small things that elevate us above fungus and ordinary apes.
I’m not for censorship of books, but can a line be drawn, at any point, or is ANY idea worthy of print, no matter how destructive it is, or dangerous for innocent children who don’t even get to vote or decide this stuff? It is the adults of the world who are charged with keeping them safe.
I’m honestly shocked that this has become a book censorship issue. To me, its about keeping kids safe from sickos. Plain and simple.
So can we “censor” an idea that 99% of the population can agree is detrimental in its core to kids? Or is that a “bad thing”?
To say a book has been “banned,” is to imply an official edict. This book has not been banned; it, and it’s sellers, have been boycotted. This is a perfectly reasonable means of expressing dissatisfaction. I consciously avoid gas stations of oil companies that buy Middle Eastern oil.
This is an example of people making a personal decision not to buy the book, and to let the sellers know they won’t buy anything else from them. The sellers than have their own choice. They clearly don;t believe strongly enough in the importance of the book to face down the economic consequences.
Not all books reach audiences, for a variety of reasons. This is just one more. It hasn’t been banned.
This comment has been removed by the author.
What Dana King said.
Another big thumbs up for what Dana King said.
There are a number of other books on Amazon.com that I wish weren’t there, but I agree that it’s a scary thought that all it takes to get a book out of circulation is to get a bunch of likeminded people together and boycott anyone who sells it. It’s easy for us to say that someone else’s book should be banned, but the problem is that someone has to be given the ability to decide which books should exist and which shouldn’t. That gives that person or that group of people a great deal of power. If we were saying something in our own books that they didn’t like, they could easily silence us. To many people have lost sight of the fact that the only way to protect our own freedom of speech is to protect the freedom of speech of people who don’t agree with us.
I’m not sure there’s a first amendment issue here, although to be fair, I’m not a constitutional lawyer, either. Although the topic is enormously distasteful (to say the least), I think it’s up to Amazon as to whether they chose to publish it. I sort of doubt anybody really looked it over prior to it going for sale, and I’m not sure it’s unreasonable for a retail facility’s customers to boycott them if they disagree with what they’re selling. It’s still up to the retailer to decide. In this case, I doubt it was much of a decision.
Of course, one of the problems here is that Amazon, if the book was doing through their DTP self-publishing program, sort of becomes both the distributor AND the publisher, which could bring into question their standards (ha-ha) in terms of what they allow to be self-published under their banner.
First, I’d like to agree with the other commenters who are saying this is not a case of either banning or censoring. I hate it when an argument so egregiously misuses terms that it is difficult to join in, because you’ll be automatically swabbed with the wrong brush.
Anyone should have the right to hold whatever opinion they want to. I understand that in Germany, it is illegal to publicly admit to a disbelief in the Holocaust. As appalling as such an opinion would be, it is even more appalling to think that if you hold that opinion, you cannot say so.
Anyone should have the right to write and to publish whatever opinion they hold, without regard to how you or I feel about it.
Anyone (including Amazon) should have the right to sell whatever book they want to, as long as it it doesn’t promote illegal activity (and I’m willing to assume, for the sake of argument, that this book might not, although it’s a serious stretch).
Anyone should have the right to refuse to buy that book, indeed to refuse to buy anything at all from Amazon (or whomever). That’s market pressure, and it can be a much more potent force than any law. If there were no market for crack cocaine, we would need no laws banning it.
In terms of what was actually done in this case, from the publication of the book to its removal, there is nothing I can disagree with. But I would like to bring up two points you made, and I will reverse their order, since I think you have answered your own question.
Q: Are there thoughts that are so distasteful and upsetting that they should be banned?
A: We have lost forever our opportunity to learn Mr. Greaves’s child rapist code of conduct.
This degenerate ‘author’ was able to write and distribute his self-described “Guide”. Clearly and undeniably aimed at promoting/influencing/fostering blatantly criminal and morally reprehensible activity. Market forces and public opinion have only limited his options to distribute. This is benign and should not trigger the all or none hysteria that big brother is shutting freedom of expression down.
Consider the principle of true justice. What should happen to this creature? Something much more significant and illegal. The behavior he is fostering is far from victim free.
John on this one I feel your typical level head briefly tipped over.
Here’s the sign of a good, lively, honest debate: I feel myself being pulled to the other side of my own argument. The Greaves case is less an issue of censorship than one of market forces. Amazon’s decision to pull the book (though The Washington Post hinted this morning that Greaves may have pulled it of his own volition) was a business decision, not a moral one.
Got it. I see that. And because the underlying issue behind the hullaballoo is so universally reviled, there’s no upside to pursuing the larger “bad ideas” debate in this case. From Amazon.com’s perspective, it’s not a sword worth falling on.
Agreed.
Now, for the sake of argument, assume that the same trail of events (poorly written book–> Blogsphere–> threatened boycott–> distributor withdraws the title) dealt with a controversial topic where supporters on either side can have a legitimate point–say, religion, abortion, capital punishment, or terrorism. Does my ever-weakening argument about the dangers of market bullies gain any strength?
John Gilstrap
http://www.johngilstrap.com
I appreciate what I believe is your point on avoiding complacency regarding individual freedoms.
No doubt market forces and prime players in the market (e.g. Amazon)have considerable power. The power, however, is not absolute. In our country abuse of individual freedoms is so fiercely protected that true censorhip or over-the top control efforts have legal and other redress.
Not perfect but, imo, safeguarded pretty well.As an example this disturbed creature’s freedom is afforded protection well beyond what the overwhelming majority of citizens and institutions would desire.
a tough example given the brutal and recidivist nature of sexual predators. If he contributed to the victimization of one of mine or any I know, the debate on capital punishment would take center stage. Ugly but true.
I think this is at the core of what society is about. We as humans are a general mob that organizes itself by gathering together in groups of people with similar sensibilities and moral convictions.
In some places in the world this person’s book may be accepted as a reasonable treatise on something that is considered common. In other (perhaps most) parts of the world the author will be lucky to remain alive after making his thoughts known.
It all has to do with what the majority is willing to accept. In many Muslim countries men force grown women to completely hide their identity from public view in the name of modesty, yet those same men may marry and have sexual relations with a young child without condemnation. On the other hand in the West we tend to let our women show off their figure in public and even allow public displays of adult sexuality but get extremely protective of children’s innocence.
In my opinion there need to be boundaries. If no one is willing to enforce those boundaries then we fall to anarchy. In an event such as this, where the letter of the law is incapable of defending the weak from a predator, the law of the pack takes its natural place and that which is deemed unsuitable for society is quashed.
Nothing wrong there.
John,
Your second point crossed my mind as I wrote my original comment. I almost included it, but decided against it for one reason. The books you described would have supportters on both sides. Let’s say I wrote a screed against Sarah Palin, and many of her supporters decided to boycott anyplace that sold my book. There would likely be a significant backlash of people who would be interested in reading it for the same reasons the other want it off the shelves.
I wasn’t even considering whether the pederasts’ primer was well-written; I don’t care. Frankly, I don’t know that I would boycott Amazon for carrying it, though I did cease buying from them during the tiem they had removed the Buy links from one publisher’s books. (I forget who it was.) It would sure make me look hard at the prospect, though, just as I wouldn’t shop at a store where the owner was openly racist.
I almost forgot. This isn’t a freedom of speech issue. He’s free to print his book up and distribute as best he can, just as we all are. No one has a right for their book to be published and distributed. If so, every manuscript ever submitted would have to be published.
Pedophilia was an aspect of the murder scene in THE LOVELY BONES too, sadly.
Ironically, the calls to pull the book off Amazon prompted a sharp increase in sales, as (and I sincerely hope it was mostly) reporters rushed to buy a copy.
I am also anti-censorship. But I think another issue is at stake here: this is precisely what happens when it’s easy for authors to bypass the gatekeepers, and for this sort of material to be disseminated easily to mass quantities of people. In the past, Mr. Greaves would have been forced to cobble a pamphlet together at Kinkos and somehow mail it to his target demographic.
But with the ebook proliferation (or, as Lee Goldberg recently referred to it, the “tsunami of swill), it was easy for him to reach more people than he would have been able to otherwise. So do there need to be new rules set in place to protect people? Where do you draw the line? What’s child porn, and what’s protected under the first amendment? I think this is the first of many instances where that line is going to be tested via ebook distribution.
This is a great discussion. I especially like Basil’s comment but let me build on it. My biased answer follows.
A deeper point has been missed in this discussion that Basil only hints at: We are discussing this situation through the lens of our joint western worldview. This worldview has most strongly been influenced by the ideals of Christianity which are still felt today in our laws and ideals. Basil is absolutely right in saying that we humans need boundaries to know what is right and religion provides part of that and government another.
In writerly terms, it’s the difference between the definitions of “can” and “may”. “Can” has to do with ability. “May” has to do with permission and implies a requested by the asker to make a decision. This situation encompasses aspects of both which make it far more complicated and interesting. (Generally speaking, “Can” is the realm of government while “May” is the realm of religion, philosophy, culture, and worldview.)
This author was legally able (can) to write his book and publish it. The resulting uproar was a reaction over his permission (may) to do so. Thus, I agree with John G in his 11:20 AM comment that this is not a question of censorship. Certainly, the removal was a business decision on Amazon’s part albeit one that aligned with the dominant morality of the moment.
So, back to John’s question: Because of the above, it is impossible to ban a book (legislate=>government=>”can”) based on a moral objection to it (“may”) while remaining perfectly objective and neutral to all parties. Drawing that line *requires* a position be chosen on the moral issue first. (e.g. Justice is blind.)
Since one cannot remain neutral, I will defer to my own Christian heritage and worldview to answer John’s question with a resounding “yes.” Some may call this conclusion biased, and they’d be right, but there is no possibility of an impartial conclusion so at least I know why and can explain how I came to this decision.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Any thoughts so distasteful they should be banned? None whatsoever, John.
The “banning” should be left to the free marketplace of ideas.
Thanks for posting this and thanks again for using such a repulsive book as this pedophile guide as an illustration.
One of the problems with banning books was somewhat overlooked in your otherwise fine piece. You kept referring to “we” as the final arbiters, as in “Where do we stop?” or “When do we boycott Pat Conroy?” This is touching at the crux of the problem, which is…
There is no “we”.
There is only “I”.
If “I” don’t like something, if “I” am “offended” by some book, then “I” will bitch and moan until the PC Gestapo come barging into the author’s home, nightsticks swinging, and drag him away until he is “reeducated”. At least, that’s the scenario “I” am trying to create. One person can make a whole lot of noise, given the right platform.
You may remember that’s what certain feminists wanted to do to Bret Easton Ellis upon publication of his novel, AMERICAN PSYCHO. Turns out very few others had a problem with the book, only some uptight feminists. But they sure made a lot of racket.
Some people were no doubt upset when they read PRINCE OF TIDES, but hey. So what? That’s THEIR problem. You don’t like the book, don’t buy it and tell your friends not to buy it. Like you say, when do “they” (not “we”) get around to banning Conroy?
“We” will merely sit around helplessly and watch it happen.
Just last year (and even today, in some quarters), certain people were murmuring that “something should be done” about all these violent, anti-woman serial-killer novels being written.
As long as these people are given credence, the PC Gestapo will thrive. They’ll never have a shortage of leads to run down, never a shortage of authors to harass and threaten, and unfortunately, never a shortage of willing media stages on which to spout off their anti-American censorship crap.
So. should child porn be legal? If child porn is exploiting children, doesn’t this “book” exploit children? I don’t feel comfortable thinking about this, but what an argument for community standards ruling.
Interesting discussion, indeed.
Miller: Child porn is in a different category. That is, by definition, the victimization of children, because without the victimization, there would be no pictures. Thus, it is rightfully illegal. I’m not sure that merely writing about such victimization–as distasteful as it is–rises to the same level. If it did, we’d have to hold writing about murder to the same standard as murder.
Here’s my prediction: As the world of publishing transforms from its New York elitist model to something that more closely resembles the Wild West, we’ll see this dilemma play out again and again, with offended parties demanding the removal of all manner of left-wing and right-wing screeds from the self-published bookshelves. Sooner or later, a defensible ox will be gored, and the ensuing mayhem will be something to behold.
John Gilstrap
http://www.johngilstrap.com
I’m sorry, but puh-leeze. Really? A how-to guide is not simply writing about pedophilia; it’s facilitating it. It’s not wrong to write about evil if it’s discouraged and presented in an evil light or even in a neutral light, but that’s the opposite of what this how-to book is doing. Good golly. It’s the same as HELPING someone rape or murder. Someone could go to jail for giving physical assistance or verbal instructions to a pedophile. THAT’S illegal. What’s so sacred about ink (or whatever) that assistance to rape shouldn’t be illegal in print?
“It’s not as if someone was proposing to mentor wannabe kid-touchers.”
Actually, that’s exactly what Mr. Greaves book proposed to do. His description, “… and perhaps liter (sic) sentences should they ever be caught,” pretty much says that’s what this book was about.
As such, it was a primer on how to commit a crime (which is different from disseminating knowledge that can be used to commit a crime, as is the case of the The Anarchist’s Cookbook) , as a manual it has no literary value (as Prince of Tides or The Lovely Bones, or any of the other literary works we could name from Ulysses to The Tin Drum) and is therefore not protected speech under the 1st Amendment.
Had Mr. Greaves couched his arguments in the form of stories or a novel, the argument would be different. In this case, it’s (IMHO) a pretty clear cut argument. And, as others have pointed out, Mr. Greaves can still sell his book. It’s not like there is a court order that prevents it (at least not yet).