Well it seems everyone agrees that sex with minors is bad. Minors are minors, and are deemed, quite rightly, not to be capable of informed consent.
For those that disagree with Amazon selling that books, are you;
- Against Amazon selling that book, or
- Against someone publishing that book, or
- Against someone writing that book, or
- Against someone having the thoughts that lead to the writing of that book?
Now, Amazon, and let us be quite clear about this, are NOT BREAKING THE LAW. If you don't like the law, please refer to your local politicians. Likewise, the publication of that book, is, again, NOT BREAKING THE LAW. Similarly, you will find that writing that book is NOT AGAINST THE LAW, and that having the thoughts that lead to writing that book, is NOT AGAINST THE LAW.
Now, we may all agree on the reprehensibility of sexual activity of adults with minors, but, if this is the fact, how come thinking/writing/publishing/selling such things is not against the law?
Obviously legislating against certain mental activity, although attempted by various religious and political organisations (Orwell's 1984 discusses this quite well) is rather difficult to enforce. So, even if we don't like it, people have the privacy of their thoughts, even if they are what we would commonly refer to as 'sick'.
As regards the freedom of speech, if there is one thing that the first amendment has done time and time again it is to resist every attempt to define limitations of freedom. This is essentially because freedom either is, or isn't. If God tried to get the freewill/no eating from tree of knowledge trick through the Supreme Court, he'd be laughed at, as time and time against (sometimes overturning itself) the Supreme Court has realised that saying you have freedom and then describing limits means... YOU DON'T HAVE FREEDOM.
Now, you can lobby your politicians to change these laws, but to do so entails the risk that someone will decide something YOU do should be controlled, and BANG!, the next thing you know you have Hustler banned whilst Soldier of Fortune carries on being sold, which is pretty mixed-up really.
As it is legal to think and write this, it is also legal to publish and sell. Now, you can punish the companies involved if some of the things they make or sell offend you by withdrawing custom. But they are complying with the law, whether you like it or not, and changing the law makes a mockery of the concept behind the law.
Then of course, we have the hypocracy. The Sun; isn't it great how the Sun, which not too long ago would happily have had topless 16-year-old girls on page 3, suddenly has a thing about the sexuality of minors being in need of protection? This is a newspaper from the end of the sewer where the amount of time spent lingering over the details of a sex crime is absolutely purient.
As for the two 14-year olds Yeru, they are being criminally prosecuted for attemoting to have sex with each other. I don't know how that is meant to help them; if you read the newspaper accounts BAD PARENTING is what screams out at you; the boy was on bail until his dad 'phoned the authorities and said he wouldn't follow rules, and is now in jail. The girl is virtually never home at night. I know who I'd lock up.
