The thing is, people who you're comfortable defending the free speech of don't generally need defending. Pretty much by definition, the guys who need defending are repulsive or offensive in some way.

Paul, come on, your slippery-slope argument is crazy. From arresting someone for writing (not as a therapeutic exercise, but as something to sell to other people) a how-to book for pedophiles, to arresting someone for attending a support group for pedophiles? That's too far down the slope to even see.

Who knew Paul Giamatti had a secondary career as a book writer?

You omitted one teeny-tiny little detail: I don't think Colorado's going to extradite him to Florida. You see, what he did isn't illegal here.

@4 - And who's going to be the politician in Colorado (or anywhere) to defend this guy? They'll extradite him, and everyone will rush to be the one who signs the order.

"a how-to guide for pedophiles"

How to what? ... how to commit paedophilia?! How to have non-consensual sex with children? Yeah, I'm sorry, I don't think it's a particularly good idea to give paedophiles advice on how to have sex with children. I'm pro-free speech, but I'm also pro-consent. I don't know if this guy deserves to actually be in jail or not himself, but I don't want this book out there just as much as I don't want a book on how to commit abuse of any kind.

Would a "domestic abuse" or "rape made easy" book be more palatable? Less? Equal? Would you block those books if you could?

I would.

This is kind how they nailed Tommy Chong. It was illegal to ship bongs to New Jersey. A federal agent bought crates worth of merchandise, Tommy Chongs son (who ran the company) said he couldnt ship to NJ. So the agents drove to California, picked up 99% of the merchandise, leaving just a small box. "Oh please, oh please, can you ship that to us, its just a tiny little box!!!!!!". So they did and thats how they got busted.

I get the feeling, since the author gave out his personal signed copy, might have been duped into thinking the folks in Florida were fans, in order to trick him into shiping that copy.

Bottom line, Tommy Chongs son was smarter, but was still duped by feds. Where as this author, probably is a moron.

Yeah, I see no difference at all between a therapy group to help people avoid committing a crime, and a book detailing to others how best to commit a crime and get away with it.

No difference at all.

Oh wait, no, um...that other thing...*they're completely opposite*.

Food for thought: if someone wrote an Anarchist's Cookbook that actually had real working and legal-to-known bomb recipes, would that person be worth defending?

@5: Who? Why that would be the governor. Who has less than a month left in his term and isn't running for anything. I really don't think he'll sign off on this.

@6, pedophilia is not illegal. Sex abuse of children is illegal, but merely WANTING to sexually abuse children is not. Nor is telling people how best to do it. What you are describing is MAKING THOUGHT CRIMES ILLEGAL. I'm saddened that you don't get the difference.

There are loads and loads and loads of books that describe the most horrific crimes, and tell people how to do them. Most of the catalog of Loompanics comes under this category; so does most of the work of the Marquis de Sade. There are dozens of sites on the internet devoted to telling you how to get away with murdering your wife or husband. These are not crimes; only performing the act is a crime. Until then, the crime only takes place in your head, and THOUGHTS ARE NOT CRIMES.

Thank you, Fnarf, for being an eloquent voice of reason.

Doesn't this qualify as Hate Speech?

If those officials had any sense, they'd just have had the cops read the damned book themselves, find the weaknesses in the strategies he describes, and use that to better catch anyone who's ACTUALLY assaulting little kids. Seriously, why would any law enforcement officer discourage someone from putting in the public domain how they think they're going to get away with a crime? You don't need a search warrant to buy a book.

did this man actually think there would be no consequences when he published this book? hmmmm?

@12: OK, so making thought a crime is really bad. I'm against it. But.

My argument is going to be a little weaker because I haven't read the book. And guess what? I'm not planning to anytime soon. So I'm conscious that I'm placing myself in a category of people I deplore: those who attack a book I haven't read. But.

Hypothetically, let's suppose that this book earnestly advocates raping children, and offers practical advice on how to do it. I'm not saying the book does do that, because I haven't read it. But suppose it did. In that case, what the author has done has publically advocated for the
commision of a crime, and gone further, offered tips on how to do it. If he suffers some legal consequences as a result, it would be devaluing the epithet "thoughtcrime" to apply it to the situation. He will have done much more than thinking.

If you advocate for the assasination of the president, and at the bottom of your rant you include a map of his motorcade route with suggested clear lines of fire for an RPG, you would go to jail. And it would not be simply for thought crime. As much as I admire our President and hope he is kept safe from the crazies, I feel that even more strongly about children.

I'm not qualified to speak to 5280's legal theories of extradition. Certainly I wouldn't this guy subject to some extrajudicial railroading. But if it turns out he has violated some statute, and he ends up suffering the consequences, I'm not losing sleep over it.

As for Fnarf @1, I admire the libertarian stance, and while my convictions along these lines are not quite as, um, violent, as 5280's, I take the Bill of Rights pretty seriously. When people argue that defending civil liberties counts most when those under attack are repulsive, I have to agree. But it's a nobler sentiment when it's expressed by someone with some skin in the game, when you're defending some one who has gored _your_ ox. 5280, Fnarf, Sloggers in general, what do _you_ hold dearest? Defend free speech for the people who attack those things, and then you get First Amendment cred with me.

@17 For your analogy to be apt, the book wouldn't be "How to assassinate THE President (by name)", but "How to assassinate A President". And I'm pretty sure, while it would get you investigated by the Secret Service, would be protected by the Bill of Rights.

Otherwise owning The Turner Diaries would be punishable by law.

@18. Hmm. Nicely argued. I have no tidy rebuttal for that.
How about you? What do you hold really dear?
Ready to defend the first amendment rights of someone who attacks it/him/her?
If so, good on you. But if you are a fan of "hate speech" statutes, you're a poser.

@6: "Would a "domestic abuse" or "rape made easy" book be more palatable? Less? Equal? Would you block those books if you could? "

Funny you should say that:

http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Domestic…

@19 Maybe I'm a poser. But I'm most certainly an artist who doesn't like juries of inbred suburban troglodytes to decide what has artistic merit and what has not. Which is how our obscenity laws work.

As for hate speech and incitement to violence, Amazon is selling The Turner Diaries, The White Bible (or some crap like) and Mein Kampf, and those books are indirectly responsible for the murder of millions. More than some pedo we knew nothing about. Great job spreading it as usual, moral guardians.

But whatever, that point is moot since the guy is not charge with endangerment. He's charged with obscenity. Which will not stand since his book is in part political speech. He's not charged with hate speech or incitation to child abuse. He's charged with selling obscene pornographic material by mail.

@21 The world's greatest best seller is a guide to genocide, slavery, incest, infanticide, etc.

I hate the goddamn slippery slop argument... i've been hearing it from the far right as long as i can remember... IT'S THE STUPID...

We can't have gay marriage because slippery slope to blah blah blah...

We can't have gays in the military because slippery slope to blah blah blah...

We can't have the devil weed legalized because slippery slope to blah blah blah...

For fucks sake why can't we judge each situation on its own merit...

I think I can safely say that 99.99% of America would think a tutorial on how to stick your cock/finger/foreign object into a 6 year old is obscene so why would you even try to defend it?... Jesus Christ On A Bicycle why even have obscenity laws if they don't apply to something like this..

One of the main reasons to have a constitution is to protect the people it represents... and if all you "free speech at any cost" believers can't see the harm you are doing to the children of our society by arguing in the defense of a tutorial on how to rape those children then you are all seriously fucked in the head...

A couple of things bother me about this.

The Sherriff in FL who announced Greaves's arrest said,"Our No. 1 duty is the protection of children." "Protect the Children" has been followed by "from the eveils of homosexuality" for so long that it's become a red flag in my mind for someone using specious reasoning to effect a change in law.

The same sherriff (Grady Judd) stated the book "contains two graphic stories depicting an adult engaged in sex acts with children." and referred to Greaves as a child pornographer. I haven't seen the book (because, ew), but is a piece of stroke fiction about sex with (or between children) really child pornography? It's a fantasy (once again, ew). No actual children were exploited or harmed. If the fantasy gives some pedos an outlet for release, wouldn't that keep them from going after actual children? It's not like a story is going to give them ideas they didn't already have.

(once again, ew)

The Florida Sentinel (where I first read this story, via the Chicago Tribune) naturally enough tired to gt a quote from NAMBLA. Y'allz want a doco more disturbing that "Living Dolls"? Try "ChickenHawk".

Is anyone else suddenly paranoid of being tracked down by the Feds for posting a comment on this thread that questions Judd's actions?

We can make it illegal to call in a bomb threat, we can make it illegal to slander and defame, we can arrest people for shouting "fire" in a theater when there is no fire, we can prosecute people for threatening someone. There are limits to what free speech will protect and I see nothing wrong with saying that other people's health and safety matter more than your right to be a dick. So yes, writing and profiting off a book written specifically with the purpose of harming children does not strike me as something worth protecting. I don't love that he's being charged for 'obscenity' because that's a meaningless concept. I think he should be charged with conspiring to endanger children or something similar. This is not a book containing information that has some legitimate and meaningful use that is simply being misused. This book has no purpose except to teach adults to assault children.

@27: So you've read the book, then? How else would you know so much about it? Do tell us more.

@28: That's a thoughtful and cogent counter argument that adds much to the debate.

@27 It's legal to write and sell a book called "You should scream fire in a crowded theater".

@30 That's a fair point. I think that for sure, this is a gray area and yes, there are a lot of books with topics that are questionable at best and potentially dangerous at worst. I think my greater point is that speech is not unquestionably protected without caveat and just as writing something libelous is seen as more far reaching than its mere entertainment value, I think that this book has the potential to set a precedent for books whose content constitutes a greater risk than mere offense. Legally, I don't think there's a precedent for this exact situation and just as the Robert Mapplethorpe controversy many years back, shows how prudish beliefs can limit legitimate and beautiful art, I feel strongly that cases like this must be carefully considered so as to avoid limiting valid (if not always pleasant and appealing) speech.

@31 You're wrong but this is moot because he's not accused of being a danger to children. He's accused of obscenity.

@32 if you read my previous post you'll note that I said that I didn't agree with charging him for obscenity.