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.

agree totally with HC. There is no moral relativity here.

Really, after the Muslim cartoon furore you were all banging on about Freedom of Speech and our marvellous country.

Now you want this book banned!

You are all very fickle.

I think there'e a huige difference between books on illegal drugs and bomb making and those advocating beating babies with sticks and the paedophilia ones.

What about Lolita? That's about a grown man's sexual love affair with a 12 year-old!

That has to go on the barbecue too, surely?

You're not going to stumble across a book on bomb making by accidnet are you? This is a book about parenting. You really only look for parenting books if you are struggling or feel you don't know how to raise a child or don't trust your own instincts. This books says "Hey! It's OK to whip your child with a switch!"

That's fiction, MP. It's not giving advice is it?

but mp, I don't see this as being about freedom of speech (= freedom to express an opinion), but about incitement to physical abuse of babies and children. IMO there's a big difference between that and the Muslim cartoons. Agree with harpsi.

(And Rosie Nieper have some lovely \link{http://www.rosienieper.co.uk/product.aspx?CategoryID=VinMag&ProductID=VMLOLST&language=en-GB\Lolita Tee Shirts} if you want to wear a lovely paedophile film shot on your chest. WHY would you do that?)

i know MP. I've been thinking about that a lot since this thread started and Blu mentioned freedom of speech. It is tricky. I know that this issue may be on a par with depcitions of the Prophet for Muslims. But i see books/acts/language that avidly encourages harming people a threat to civilized society. Criticizing other people's beliefs [as we are doing here, criticizing a particular kind of lunatic christianity, for me is a vital part of free speech. But it is probably a subjective argument for many.

OK so it's okay to publish fantasies about having sexual intercourse with children (as long as it's proper English of course!).

Are the books which justify and recommend the child-love (paedophilia) movement okay, or should they be burned too?

no, i don't think it is ok, because it encourages paedophiles to dwell/act their fantasies. That involves harming people.

OK so we are banning Lolita then.

Gosh I did it for A-Level!

you could argue that if we were not able to say what we think about religous beliefs, then we would not be able to slate these people who advocate child abuse as a legitimate method of child rearing because it is part of their religious beliefs.

Ah you are talking about Lolita - sorry. Must read properly. As someone said, it is a [very good] work of fiction. Not the kind of thing a paedophile would dig out to satisfy his fantasies, probably, unless he is particularly well read.

Ruty that's one reason that I think it's good to have these books available - so that people can see how mad/bad the people that believe these things really are.

yes it is a tricky issue MP.

horrific

Dh spends a fortune with Amazon each year (and me a bit). Will boycott and email.

Well done Mumsnet team. A line has to be drawn somewhere in respect of censorship and freedom of speech.

This book is beyond vile and I could not even finish reading the quotes but I hate to say that NQC is right. If he is allowed to publish such writings, then Amazon should stock them. Things get very dodgy indeed when huge powerful companies set themselves up as moral arbiters. I am thinking particularly about the indirect censorship imposed on musicians who cannot sell their music in Walmart and similar because it is allegedly immoral. The far Right in America are pulling a lot of strings by deciding what is sold and where.

Amazon are not the ones you should be angry with here, IMO.

\link{http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0262700832/qid=1147721641/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_0_1/202-7819232-4531830\What about a book that justifies rape as being a wholly understandable and natural sexual behaviour?} The second review clarifies why this is bad, if you are unsure.

Haven't read beyond the first 3 posts of this thread - that was enough to bring tears to my eyes (visualised the 11 month old as my litle boy in that situation) so daren't delve further into this thread.

These people are sick doing that to a baby. Cannot bare to think how cruel some people can be. There was a true story bout parents starving a child to death...imagine ? So so sad !

I for one did not realistically expect Amazon to ban the books :( - their response to shellybelly was pretty much as I anticipated. As others say, there is plenty of other nasty stuff legally for sale, and do we really want Amazon or any other large company arbiting what we can and can't read.
I still feel it was a good idea to write to them drawing their attention to the deeply unpleasant and offensive nature of Pearl's writing. After reading the quotes blu posted, I just didn't feel it was an issue I could ignore.
I should think if any one of our messages gives them pause for thought, it will be MNHQ's!

but hold on:
I am not saying ban these books
I am certainly not saying burn them
I am not saying that Amazon should (or indeed could) stop people from reading this kind of stuff
if people really want to read about how best to whack their children with lengths of rubber piping then - if there is a market 0 then they can be sure that need will be met. people who hear about it can apply through their churches or direct through the author's website.
BUT imo by providing a commercial channel for these books, Amazon is legitimizing their sale and offering comfort to those people trying to buy these books.
don't make it easy. There is such a thing as corporate responsibility and a company as big and powerful as Amazon should exercise it.

I think who we should really be aiming our ire at are the people who say:

"Light, swatting spankings, done in anger without courtroom dignity will make children mad because they sense that they have been bullied by an antagonists. A proper spanking leaves children without breath to complain. If he should tell you that the spanking makes him madder, spank him again. If he is still mad…. He desperately needs an unswayable authority, a cold rock of justice. Keep in mind that if you are angry you are wasting your time trying to spank his anger away."

That is just disgusting. Am ... but I am not surprised about Amazons attitude although I have to admit I am tempted to boycott too.

Also if you read the bit on their trip to England it says that they can't preach there as smacking is not allowed... not true but it says:

"We are told that in England it is a crime to spank your children. Therefore Christians are not able to openly obey God in regard to Biblical chastisement. They are in danger of having the state steal their children. Christian parents do not want to be seen at an event that might be distributing literature advocating spanking."

GRRRRRRRRR.

very clear headed and very true HC.