Figured this would start some 'lively' debate.

http://www.theledger.com/article/20101220/NEWS/12205011/1410?Title=Polk-Detectives-Arrest-Colorado-Pedophile-Author

I figure opinions will for the most part be divided into "He's a child rapist, he has no rights, string his ass up!" and "the laws the law and apparently hr broke Florida law so he's getting what's coming" and "the bigger issue is this is an assault on freedom of speech, like it or not, what the creep did isn't illegal."

I personally fall into the last category (which could change as details emerge).

From what I'm reading, this sicko has no alleged victims and simply put words to paper. I'm also not aware of any examples being presented where his book was used to commit a crime (not that, that would really matter). I don't like the content or the intent, but personally I think the bigger picture is preserving the right to free speech.

I think it's a freedom of speech issue. Like you said I know of no crime he's committed and just because he wrote a book doesn't mean he's making others commit crimes. There are White Supremacy books out there which I find repulsive as well as the Westboro Baptist Church but they have the right to spew their hatred. I almost forgot the book I almost forgot The Turner Diaries which has been described as "a thinly-disguised how-to manual for blowing up FBI headquarters in Washington along with other national monuments and how to disrupt or destroy America's infrastructure"

Whether New York v. Ferber or Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition control here will decide whether under the Florida law, this can go to trial.

In Ashcroft, the SCOTUS struck down two parts of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA). The first part contemplated "any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture" that "is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." The second contemplated "any sexually explicit image that was advertised, promoted, presented, described or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression it depicts a minor in engaging in sexually explicit conduct." These parts of the CPPA (and others since) have been held unconstitutional because they were too broad and would arguably prohibit a great deal of protected speech. For example, about half of the teenage dramas on FOX and other networks where teenagers are depicted engaging in sexual activity would be illegal. And let's not forget what we're famous for in Oklahoma--the Tin Drum, which has already been held to be protected speech, much to the chagrin of then-Representative Bill Graves.

In Ferber, the Defendant sold pornography to an undercover officer depicting an underage child masturbating. That was held to be over-the-line because depicting actual child exploitation and the exploitation of children in that manner fell outside the realm of protected speech.

It would seem then, that the case would turn on whether the sexual activity portrayed in this book actually happened--and even if it did, since the article is specific that the children can't be identified, unless the original underlying acts (the child rape) could be prosecuted, we're probably looking at protected speech, as ghastly and appalling as it is.

The book doesn't even have any pictures portray the child sex, it is 100% words. I just dont see how that even starts to approach obscenity.

Icky.

While I think he's got more than a tad bit of wiggle room legally , the poppa side of the brain concedes I wouldn't lose any meaningful levels of sleep if some giant jail hulk decided to hook himself the newest fish in the pond.

While I think he's got more than a tad bit of wiggle room legally , the poppa side of the brain concedes I wouldn't lose any meaningful levels of sleep if some giant jail hulk decided to hook himself the newest fish in the pond.

I agree. I just hate to see media hungry police sand prosecutors trample the 1st Amendment and take away more rights under the umbrella of "but we're making you safer."

If I had to guess (and I don't, but I'll guess anyhow), this is less about actually winning the case and more about some heretofore unknown prosecutor wanting to make some political bones. And who better to prosecute than this guy? Prosecutorial immunity is a wonderful and sometimes misused thing. Politically speaking, going after someone who writes a handbook on child molestation doesn't have much of a downside.

Could be Mid. Could also be it is their Sheriff who is needing a boost for one reason or another.

It could also be a heart-felt conviction by some officials that publishing such materials really ought to be considered a crime, ergo it will be .... at least until someone with more authority steps up and formally reminds them of a simple fact - what is and what ought to be don't always mesh up once you get outside a group of like minded thinkers.