Book that tells you where is it legal to have sex with children

Still about solid's belief that LastMango makes the law!

Um, solid, I don't make the law, I wasn't telling you what I think it should be, just explaining what it is. (And that it the law, by the way, solid, not 'the doctrine of LastMango'? Do you understand that? They're not the same thing.)

And not once have I said that the book will make people do bad things. SGM might have said something along these lines, bless her, but I haven't done this.

solid your tub-thumping about about free values is very quaint (if a bit predictable and hackneyed), I even agree with some of the points that you make (despite the fact that you can't seem to tell the difference between other posters' descriptions of fact and opinion), but please do try and read posters' comments before you start shrieking at them? You're not doing a very good job of representing free speech exponents, babes.

LastMango: Well, I disagree with that. I don't think that any drawings, writings, computer-generated images should be illegal at all. (And don't bother to come up with a list of Waa, waa, what about THIS sort of drawing, or writing? The answer will still be the same). And just because this book was advertised and sold on Amazon (if anyone bought it, anyone looked into that yet?) doesn't mean that it would make people go and do Bad Things, any more than reading the Anarchists' Cookbook makes people go and plant bombs.

I wouldn't be terribly surprised if this book isn't, as someone upthread suggested, a 'sting' by the police trying to catch child abusers.

solid - Cartoons, drawings, etc. of sexualised images of children aren't treated so differently from images which could only be produced by assaulting a child anymore, following CJIA 2008.
But the point isn't whether or not it contained images, it's that this book was clearly advertised as a 'guide' to help sex tourists avoid prosecution when having sex with children. (Not sure how many times that point has been repeated now on this thread - .)
As for the 'exact contents' - some of them were available on Amazon on that 'Look Inside' thing they have.

FUCKING HELL, SGB. HOW MUCH MORE EXPLICIT DO YOU WANT IT?

I don't know that the book contained any images at all - obviously I haven't read the thing.. Images which could only be produced by assaulting a child are in a different category from text (or drawings).

Blurb aside, I doubt that anyone on this thread knows the exact contents of the book. And if you do know, well, how do you know?

ecclesvet, IIRC Handyside and Shaw v DPP. Very different cases, but probably could set precedents for a book like this one potentially falling foul of English obscenity law.
I agree, it would be very bizarre if a book 'consisting entirely of a summary of international legislation' would ever be seen as appropriate for obscenity charges, but as has been pointed out numerous times on this thread, this book doesn't fit that description.

"there have been cases where obscenity charges have been successfully brought against authors/publishers for publishing 'facts' that are seen to fulfil relevant legislative criteria"

Care to name one? I very much doubt that a book consisting entirely of a summary of international legislation would even come close to 'obscene'.

• there have been cases...

ecclesvet have been cases where obscenity charges have been successfully brought against authors/publishers for publishing 'facts' that are seen to fulfil relevant legislative criteria, so it's not inconceivable that such charges could be brought against authors/publishers of this book in this case. If that were done, and the case went to court, noone would be able to say whether or not 'this book' (or its publishers) 'broke' the law.
FWIW, if it really was a cut and paste re-hash of Wiki pages then it may have breached copyright as well as criminal law.

Yes it is illegal in the UK to publish certain materials, as I indicated earlier. Even if they "dress" themselves as something above board.

I'm not sure about the UK, but stateside it is illegal to promote illegal activities.

This book was promoting an illegal activity, if not through its content, then through its blurb and so forth.

Thus, by hosting it, Amazon could have ended up up shit creek, so to speak.

Implying that something is legal when it is not, is not a violation of the law, actually detailed here.

No, eccles. It implied that you could get away with having sex with minors in certain countries (they wouldn't have been minors by that country's laws, but by ours) This would have been a violation of laws outlined here The wording in the blurb endorsed breaching this law.

No, it didn't. As far as anyone can tell, all it did was give a list of countries and the respective age of consent. There is nothing inherently wrong with that.

The packaging and blurb gave off a creepy 'helping "red-blooded travellers" stay on the "right side of the law"' vibe, which, if given the benefit of the doubt, could merely mean that they want you to make sure that the age of consent isn't 21 if you go home with an 19 year old. I think you'd have to be pretty naive to believe that was the real intention, but that doesn't stop it being our inference/speculation, rather than anything inherently wrong with the book itself.

Incidentally it is illegal to publish some things.

To do with drugs and bombs, mainly.

Hmmm OK

So if a book with a creepy title and foreward explained how to get work caring for preschoolers in the UK - OK?

If a book with a creepy title and foreward listed the addresses of care homes for vulnerable children exist in the UK with times that they are allowed out on their own and where they like to go - OK?

I could go on (and on!)

I think not OK.
I think the book in the OP is not OK.

What do others think?

The book promoted the violation of an existing law.

This book didn't violate any existing laws at all. It's a summary of international legislation, albeit one in a very creepy wrapper.

They took it down to avoid the publicity, or to give them the benefit of the doubt, because it was brought to their attention and they didn't want to be party to that sort of thing.

Solid - It's more likely that Amazon's removal of this book was because of existing law, so doesn't reflect increased or tighter censnorship.
Agreed, it's appalling when commercial/voluntary 'censorship' takes place in response to a 'moral majority' (or vocal minority) panic. As far as I can see, noone posting on this thread had tried to make that happen here.

If a book full of horrific images of this nature were being sold, the fact that "you can find that stuff online anyway" would be irrelevant. Of course this book shouldn't be sold, AMazon has to take at least some ownership of what it's selling.

SGB

Are you really comfortable with Amazon promoting rape culture? Really

It is interesting that there is no common consensus in Europe, and that the legal age in Spain is only 13.
I would have expected otherwise.