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

[EatsBrainsAndLeaves]

www.amazon.co.uk/Age-Consent-Tourists-Guide-ebook/dp/B005S18YGS/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1343945440&sr=8-7

Hi Amazon are selling a book that tells you what counties you can visit and legally have sex with children. I am totally disgusted at this.

• there have been cases...

"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'.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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