Why are cruel parenting sites legal?

[Blu]

I have heard of Gary Ezzo before, and today discovered the horrific Michael Pearl. Pearl and his wife actually advocate beating children under the age of one with 'switches' from a tree, and describe horrendous incidences where they have beaten other peopel's children. He instructs parents to beat children relentlessly.

Since incitement to other kinds of violence is banned, and the beahviour this man admits to is presumably legally child abuse, why is it permissable that he openly encourages people to beat children. To beat babies? (he proudly describes beating an 11 month old on his bare leg with a stick).

I really, really want him arrested.

exactly red zuleika. Anyone with half a brain can distinguish between works of literary merit [Marquis De Sade, and as for Lady Chatterly's Lover well that is hardly undermining of the fabric of society!] and dangerous instruction manuals on how to treat children. I can't really see any comparison between this and any work of literature.

I think drawing some sort of line between "has literary value" and "has none" is basically impossible and unwise. If people can tell the difference between Lady Chatterly's Lover and this, then why was there a big trial attempting to ban LCL? (Oh, and have you read de Sade? What little I've read had very little artistic merit, by my lights.)

agree NQC but not relevant in this instance
the book in Q is not art and doesn't purport to be - it is a parenting manual/religious treatise on how to train a child. so the art/not art thing doersn't come into it.
De sade is shit, btw. totally unreadable imho

Hmmm, but does it have psychological/scientific/sociological value? I'm just saying, it's hard to classify a text as having no value at all.

(I'd be happy with the idea of some sort of gov't warning on the outside of the book. "This book suggests childrearing methods that are dangerous, unwise and evil." Or words to that effect.)

I think DH Lawrence is unreadable as well.

Sorry, tangent

Henry Miller also purports to be erotica but is just tiresome instead.

'dangerous and unwise and evil' - the gvt health warning - nice one, NQC, good idea, and it made me laugh, too!

ladyoracle: "Perhaps we should try to stop Amazon selling the bible"

Good call. I have to say I find a lot of the Old Testament very offensive and it does encourage violence. I mean stoning is not even legal anymore in this country (afaik). Add it to the list, I say!

Damn. And I did love to go stoning on a Saturday night...

parp on htis htread

have to admit i haven't read Marquis De sade, just saw a rather interesting film of it [well it was interesting when i was 18.] But disagree totally that you can't distinguish between works of literary value, even if it is questionable, and stuff like this. I think Harry Potter is derivative and badly written, but I don't think it is dangerous and penned by Satan.

sorry, i mean i saw a film of the Marat/Sade - with Glenda Jackson as Charlotte Corday. It was rather good. Glad to see you still policing threads cod.

its just its descended into hysteria imo form a perfectly valid intital arguemnt

well i'm not hysterical thanks.

I'm beathing slowly into a paper bag to calm myself

Oh God I hate Glenda Jackson as Charlotte Corday.

So bloody sixties.

NO SHE IS NOT SHE IS BLOODY FANTASTIC! sorry, must try to go off and take my sedatives...

Oh she's so po-faced and worthy.

Such a serious ack-tore

LOL @ morningpaper

i can't remember actually Caligula - i was doing drama A level at the time and was a bit po faced and worthy myself...

ok, so what's changed...