Author of pedophilia how-to book arrested

[The Straight Story]

Author of pedophilia how-to book arrested

WINTER HAVEN, Fla. -- Florida sheriff's deputies have arrested on obscenity charges a Colorado man who wrote a guide for pedophiles.

Polk County deputies arrested Phillip Ray Greaves II at his home in Pueblo, Colo., early Monday on a Florida warrant.

Polk Sheriff Grady Judd says his office was able to arrest Greaves on Florida obscenity charges because Greaves sold and mailed his book, "The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: a Child-lover's Code of Conduct," to Polk deputies. Judd says Greaves even signed the book.

In November, Greaves garnered national attention because his self-published book for sale on Amazon offered advice to pedophiles on how to make a sexual encounter with a child as safe as possible. The website later removed the book.


http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/12/20/1981878/author-of-pedophilia-how-to-book.html

[Demeter]

1. It Begs the Question: Safe for Whom?

and I'm not asking for an answer, because I'm busy losing lunch...

[Bluzmann57]

2. Good.

Cut his damn cajones off. The asshole needs to do life without parole.

[Dogtown]

7. For what?

Exercising his right to free speech?


I saw nothing in that article indicating he'd harmed a child. I find the concept of the book repulsive, but no more so than the christian bible, and I'd object to any of those authors being maimed for their perverse thinking.


I have to ask: are you vicious enough to perform this vigilante surgery?

[comtec]

10. it is the same as if he published a book saying how to rob bank

with a technique that would work.
it's a manual on how to perform a felony. (keeping it strictly technical)

the first amendment allows free speech to the point of public safety.

this publication goes well past that line to HARMING the public.

this is not protected speech, because the intent wasn't informational, but a guide with intent to perform.

The anarchists handbook, while controversial, does not say GO OUT AND DO THIS!
which is why it's distasteful and dubious to many, but still quite legal as it should be.

that is the difference.

i hope that was clear enough for you.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[superduperfarleft]

13. But that's not what he's being charged with. He's being charged with "obscenity." n/t

[mainer]

15. Publishing a manual for crime isn't the same as doing the crime

Is publishing a book on how to kill yourself the same as actually being there to assist someone's suicide?

When words and thoughts alone are outlawed, where do we draw the line as to what's acceptable thought?

[comtec]

18. the point isn't the how to as much as the GO DO IT

it's not that a manual was made.

it's that even the title of the book, was ENCOURAGING the crime.

I'm not going to defend this, one way or the other.
the question was why.
i answered that.

right or wrong, that's why.

[Dogtown]

21. The query was:

Why castrate?


Obscenity laws are very provincial, and I wouldn't bother to argue the merits of censorship. The poster I objected to wants to castrate a man and lock him up for life because he wrote a book. I must wonder about the vehemence.

You are assuming some intent on his part to "go do it", have you read the book?

But, more importantly, do you support castration for authorship?

[comtec]

22. aside from the clarification above im avoiding this thread

thank you for trying

[Dogtown]

37. Perhaps you should have avoided it earlier.

Before you insulted me with out cause.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Green_Lantern]

31. castration? no because that'd make the vigilante a sex offender too..

But I certainly support prosecuting this author and registering him as a sex offender.

But I think I'd pity him too much to hurt him.

However if he touched my kids it'd be a different story.

[Dogtown]

36. Sex offender?

For writing a book?

[Green_Lantern]

42. yes for writing and distributing a book...

If he is convicted of obscenity. I mean if they prove he wrote the book to sexually arouse readers of the book with stories of children being abused. That'd be child pornography.

In that case yeah he should have to register as a sex offender.

[Dogtown]

57. Obscenity.

What's obscene to some is merely mundane to others. For example, fervent Christians and Muslims would consider the portrayal of two men kissing to be obscene. Are they therefore Sex Offenders? Who gets to decide?

Pornographic images of sex with a minor is prima facie evidence of a crime, but is the non-specific discussion of such an act? I see no evidence in that article that a specific child was violated.

You're willing to condemn someone to pariah status because they wrote *about* an act you find repugnant. You choose to assume because the taboo was mentioned, it assuredly took place. That's puritanical and judgmental.

You're displaying a purely emotional reaction and I tremble to think that anyone can be judged and convicted based on public emotion.

[Green_Lantern]

61. you're actually right...obscenity laws have been left to

Subjective community standards and usually only overruled when it violates constitutional protections.

One reason for gay rights advocates supporting constitutional for gay marriage is the fact certain communities have used obscenity laws to target gay couples.

No, I didn't say I wanted the author registered as a sex offender for just discussing child abuse. I'm saying if this fits the definition of child porn.

[mainer]

38. So if I write a book about how to kill someone

I should be arrested for murder?

[comtec]

50. are you going to advocate someone do it?

How to murder!
is different than
How to murder your neighbor: Go and do it now!!!

that is the fine point on it.
making a book showing how to kill (bad example because of how it's glorified in our roman society) is "ok", but in that book and title, ENCOURAGING one to go out and kill, that is not.

why is this such a hard concept for people to grasp?

This is exactly like yelling fire in a crowded theater!!!

it is BLATANTLY harmful to society!

[Green_Lantern]

28. he wasn't arrested for his thoughts he was arrested for

Writing and selling allegedly obscene material.

If you write a book for the purpose of using children to sexually arouse others that goes beyond thought or protected speech.

[jmowreader]

54. Or the same as a book on growing pot, right?

The difference is, any harm a book on growing pot could cause would be to the reader, a book on pedophilia cannot help but cause harm to another person. Hence it should be illegal.

[Green_Lantern]

23. you're comparing the Bible to a book on how to molest kids?

You're really making light of pedophilia.

You find "love your neighbor as yourself" to be repulsive?

[Dogtown]

40. There are some bits in that book

that aren't offensive.

There's a lot of repugnant shit in it as well, your cherry-picking notwithstanding.

I find stoning to be as reprehensible as child-molestation. Your views may differ...

[Green_Lantern]

46. which specific verse on stoning?

Comparing stoning over 2000 years ago(common punishment then) to child molesting now is a really faulty comparison.

It'd be more accurate to say putting a criminal in jail is as bad as abusing a child, which is ridiculous.

By your standard using black people as slaves is much worse than banning gay marriage so that means banning gay marriage isn't that big of a deal.

We need to judge by today's standards.

[Dogtown]

58. You're reading into my statement.

And I won't allow you to sidetrack the discussion.

What crime is there in a discussion of a taboo, other than your outraged sensibilities?

If the book under discussion must be suppressed then the Bible, with its fictional tales of depravity, violence, and, yes, child molestation, should likewise be banned.

Your temporal arguments are fallacious. Should a book that promotes violence against gays be protected just because it was written by ignorant and brutal men in an ignorant past?

[Green_Lantern]

59. it has nothing to do with a discussion of taboos...

I'm saying that if the book uses the depiction of children being abused to sexually arouse readers it'd fit the legal definition of child pornography.

Comparing that to the Bible is silly and a total distraction.

[Dogtown]

64. Only in your opinion.

"Intent" being the key, and, lacking a statement from the author, intent can only be assumed. It's subjective.



I don't accept registration of sex-offenders, as I've stated many times before. To capsulize my arguments, it most often casts the government as a mechanism for determining morality. It also stigmatizes some individuals for life for minor morality offenses.

Rape and the actual act of child-molestation are acts of violence with real victims, but "obscenity" is much too vague and the definition of "pornography" you've supplied is entirely subjective. Unless it's evidential of a real molestation, ie a photographic depiction of a child being molested, it shouldn't be a crime.

For example, the very popular cartoon show "Family Guy" depicts child-molestation frequently. Should Mr. McFarlane et al be charged with "obscenity"; prosecuted, censored, and registered as sex offenders?

[Green_Lantern]

66. no and I said that up in the thread...

It isn't illegal if the account of abuse is fictional.

I don't know which Family Episode depicted sexual abuse...or how it does that "frequently."

Secondly I think there have been local tv stations that have pulled "Family Guy" from broadcast over indecency.

I'm doubting an obscenity charge on McFarlane would stand because it's a local charge unless he violated FCC rules, but then Fox would be responsible.

I am surprised Family Guy gets away with some of the stuff they do on Prime Time Fox.

[Dogtown]

67. They get away with it

because they're smart enough to get past the FCC. Here's a clip for your edification:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NDPT0Ph5rA

Yes, they have been censored locally due to the whining of zealots. In overwhelming Republican, Fundy-dominated locales only, of course.

As to the pedophilia episodes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_%28Family_Guy%29

Herbert's sole purpose is pedophile humor. I'd guess he appears in over half of the episodes, maybe more.

Besides its obvious entertainment value, FG promotes *real* morality. You should find it educational, but I suspect you haven't the stomach for it.



Frankly, this is getting tiresome. Obscenity laws violate the 1st Amendment, but puritans support them for their own purposes. They'll even cloak Justice in a sheet, fearful she'll incite lust.

[Green_Lantern]

69. according the Burger court and SC precedent, no, obscenity laws

Don't necessarily violate the First Amendment.

Secondly I have the stomach for a lot worse than Family Guy and implying I'm a Puritan is really just amusing to me.

You "explaining" Family Guy to me as if I'm an 80 year old is just priceless.

[mainer]

41. The Bibles also advises when someone should be smited

It advocates execution for some pretty odd "crimes." If I go out and do EXACTLY as the Bible tells me to do and I kill someone for wearing mixed fabrics, that would make the bible an accessory to murder.

The bible is actually a "GO DO IT" manual for a lot of things.

[Green_Lantern]

43. specify verses please...

You can take any book out of context to justify anything I guess.

But by your argument you could never draw the line...we may as well allow people to sell pics of kids in sexual poses, either that or ban everything.

But still...please specify these Bible verses saying at any time anyone can murder someone else. (I'm begging you to mention Leviticus)

[mainer]

52. No pornographic photos are in this book in question

as far as I've heard. I understand the book is text. No children were exploited in the production of said book -- yet you equate it to posing underage kids in sexual poses?

You are saying that ANY TEXT that involves children in sexual situations justifies the author being jailed? You would jail Nabokov? Do you realize how dangerous your proposal is? Who will decide when a thought is "dangerous"? If an author writes lewdly about rape, should he be jailed for rape? If an author describes the killing of women, should he be jailed for murder?

Don't you understand the difference between WRITING AND IMAGINING and actually committing a crime? Who are you, the thought police?

As for Bible verses which call for capital punishment, there are numerous THOU SHALT PUT TO DEATH crimes.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/exe_bibl1.htm

Many people consider the bible the word of God, and He must be obeyed. So why isn't this considered an inciting document?

[Green_Lantern]

60. I'm not claiming anything about the book..

I'm saying IF it details the abuse of children to promote sexual arousal.

If the abuse is fictional I'm pretty sure it's legal.

[Capitalocracy]

44. You just said cut off his desk drawers.

cOjones.

Random, unrequested little Spanish lesson for you there.

[Bluzmann57]

47. You're right.

It was unrequested.

[mainer]

53. So should you be arrested for threatening someone?

You said to castrate him. You thought it. You're inciting violence.

How are you any less guilty than this author?

[ZombieHorde]

3. He should have called his book, "political speech."

He could have said he was protesting age of consent laws with his book.

Political speech is protected by the 1st Amendment, the specter of obscenity is not.

[comtec]

19. or "The Catholic priest's handbook" n/t

[ZombieHorde]

20. Ha! Good one. nt

[butterfly77]

62. The guy...

looks like Bork the nominee for Supreme Court..

[Speck Tater]

4. They need to throw away the key. nt

[lillypaddle]

5. good. n/t

[lonestarnot]

6. What took so long?

[Vickers]

8. Scumbag. n/t

[flvegan]

9. Grady Judd is making quite the name for himself here.

He's a tough, no-bs sheriff. Not a night goes by where he's not on the news talking about his latest sting. Drugs, sex and violence...not in Polk County.

[brendan120678]

17. Too bad for Judd this time he had to...

travel all the way to Colorado to find someone to arrest to make himself look good.

[csziggy]

27. Was he in office when the Polk County Sherriffs Department

Was doing stings for internet solicitation of underage girls?

On one level I am glad to see this kid of perv off the streets. On another, I worry about censorship.

[flvegan]

29. Yes, and they're still doing them. A lot.

They've got a sting going at least once every few weeks that you hear about on the news. The perp walks are impressive, although admittedly I don't know what tactics they're using, so I have no clue as to guilt or anything.

[csziggy]

30. Too bad the PCSD doesn't still come up here for visits

We used to put up their mounted units for the annual officer's memorial observance and I'd get to visit with them. It'd be interesting to get the officers' takes on this stuff.

I'm sure things have changed a lot in Polk Co. since I left Bartow 38 years ago. I still visit my parents down there but that is not the same as living in that cess pool.

[blondeatlast]

32. Arpaio-ish? apparently, the disease is epidemic among eleted LEOs nowadays. nt

[stray cat]

12. Clearly made up charges and really just political persecution

[WillowTree]

24. That would kind of depend on what kind of illustrations he included, wouldn't it?

[superduperfarleft]

14. If he was charged with "incitement," fine, I could see that.

But being charged with "obscenity" is absolute bullshit.

[sabrina 1]

16. And did Amazon cut off his Paypal account?

Airc, it was still available when they cut off Wikileaks account.

The KKK, a Pedophile's 'How To' book are okay to do business with, according to their 'terms of service'. But not an award-winning news organization. Will Amazon be prosecuted also, for peddling the book? I mean, this is the argument against Wikileaks. They didn't steal the documents, but they published them. I hope we are going to be consistent about these things.

[WillowTree]

26. Huh? Amazon doesn't have anything to do with Paypal.

[sabrina 1]

35. True, Amazon removed Wikileaks from their servers.

And my point still stands. They allow the sale of a 'how to pedophile book' but claim that Wikileaks, an award-winning news organiztion, violates their standards. So what are their standards?

Paypal also blocked their account.

[LuckyPhil]

25. Horrible but fair?

Even though I think this book is disgusting... at the same time do the police have fair reason to arrest him? I mean stop the book for sure because it promotes an illegal activity, but if there's not evidence of him actually doing anything then isn't it all just freedom of the press/speech/etc. ?!?

[Capitalocracy]

48. I think obscenity is a bad reason to arrest him

But inciting illegal activity is a legitimate reason for restricting freedom of speech which I'm guessing (not having read the book) would probably be appropriate in this case.

[Rochester]

33. Free speech!!

It's nasty crap but it should not be illegal to publish nasty crap.
Let the flaming begin.

[sharesunited]

34. Are words ever unlawful in print?

And over the airways, only subject to fine or loss of license as penalities levied against the license holder?

That's our system in the USA, right?

Or did something slip by when I wasn't paying close enough attention.

[cali]

39. certainly they can be. try writing a letter threatening someone.

[sharesunited]

55. Isn't it only unlawful if they can trace it back to you?

Ruh roh.

[Forkboy]

45. Looks like I better stop shopping around that cannibalism book I had in mind.

A pity, it was a charming coffee table book with pop up spleens and everything.

Back to the drawing board.

[Capitalocracy]

49. We in no way condone cannibalism, of course.

But if you are going to engage in cannibalistic acts, we strongly recommend that you cook the meat all the way through. And wear a condom. Don't share needles.

[alp227]

56. some things i wonder about this guy

is he really a creep or deliberately wrote this book as a publicity stunt as he was a bored umemployed man? anyway, free speech has its limits; that's why the US is hunting for Anwar al-Awlaki (radical Islam cleric who's advocated terrorism on Internet videos). Same applies to Creepy Greaves.

[mainer]

63. Has anyone here actually READ the book?

I saw a description in my newspaper today that says the book gives advice to pedophiles about how NOT to break any laws and how to control their impulses so that no child gets abused.

It's a self-help book for pedophiles to stay within the law and deal with their impulses in a safe and lawful manner.

It sounds more to me like a book helping addicted people channel their addictions in a healthy way.

[kimi]

65. I wonder how many people in this thread have kids

Do you all honestly think that this guy has NOT gone out and followed his own "advice"?? Come on. That's how he learned what he wrote.

Child predators are a danger. I don't care what f&*king excuse they use to go out and commit crimes against kids - oh, but kudos to this guy for flaunting the "right to free speech" BS in order to tell people how to abuse kids.

Abuse is abuse. Sexual abuse, for those of you who have been fortunate enough not to experience it (unlike some of us who HAVE been abused as kids) is a horrific and awful crime. How in the hell can you possibly condone this?? If he's giving advice on pedophilia, he's a F&*KING PEDOPHILE. Where is the ambiguity here? Wrapping himself up in "free speech" and "rights" -- oh, crap. He's just playing the system in order to allow himself and others to go out and abuse kids.

Geez. How is this even a debate? Crime is crime. End of story.

[mainer]

71. "Crime is crime." What is his crime? He wrote a book?

And no actual children were involved in the production of his book.

As far as I can discern, he committed the crime of having shocking fantasies and telling other people about them.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

72. i have a 13 yr old baby brother and was molested as a child

and i dont think we can arrest people without real cause.

unless you can prove he molested a child, you can't arrest him because you think he may have

unless you can prove a crime, you can't claim a crime was committed. has any kids stated that this man molested them?

we can't arrest people cos they are assholes. they have to commit a crime.

[lpbk2713]

68. Greaves is in Isolation.

I'd have to assume for his own protection.


Link: http://inquiry.polksheriff.org/cgi-bin/spwebinmatepub?book=2010029655

[La Lioness Priyanka]

70. how is this illegal specifically though. just cos i dont like the content doesnt deem it illegal

are there child porn images? anything that is specifically illegal rather than a "we dont like pedophiles, so we are arresting you" issue

[Donald Ian Rankin]

73. Free speech does not cover incitement to crime.

This one is fairly clear-cut, I think - it's a deliberate attempt to incite others to break the law, which is and should be illegal.