On getting older

One of the benefits in being young is the ability to see things clearly.  There is wrong, there is right.  There is right, there is left.  There is up, there is down.  There is no gray, no indecision, there is my way or the highway.

And then you age.  And then you tend to see nuances, to see the shadows in the light.  You understand that what you think is subject to constant revision, if not indecision.  You can follow the logical course of an action and figure out what may be the end result.  As our parents told us many years ago, you learn to think before you act, or at least understand possible ramifications in your actions.  But if you’re like me, you have the impulse from time to time to just do it, just take the action, regardless of the outcome.  That can be a bad thing.

So it’s in this mindset of shadows and light we look at a recent event that’s caused some agita for a lot of thoughtful people.

Before I begin, it must be said that I have no personal knowledge of the events to be described.  I’m only taking it on the word of others, and what’s been published.

Apparently there was a e-book for sale on Amazon.com called "The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: A Child-Lover's Code of Conduct".  According to the author, it was written to ‘address what he considers unfair portrayals of pedophiles in the media.’  Further, he maintains that true pedophiles would never hurt a child.  This, of course, is pure baloney.

The self-publication of this tome along with the listing on Amazon.com prompted a furious backlash.  One doesn’t have to think very much to figure out why this has led to many attempts to organize boycotts against Amazon.  There have been calls for banning the sale of this as well as other actions.  It would not be surprising to hear that someone finds out who the creep was who wrote it and assassinated him.

Well meaning people have taken these types of actions before, on various subjects.  Does anyone remember Tipper Gore before Al gave her the kiss at the convention?  She led the fight to get what is now commonly seen on CDs – the ubiquitous Parental Advisory.  Some countries where civil liberties are not part of their national identity burn books.  Salman Rushdie published “The Satanic Verses” and is still under fatwa. 

This is in no way a defense of the subject matter of the e-book.  It is as reprehensible, as despicable as anything I can imagine.  The parent part of me wants to destroy the practice as well as the author.  On the scale of evil, this certainly must rank near the top.  And as the father of a victim of pedophilia, there is no worse anguish imaginable to see your child go through.  Even though several years have passed, it is constantly on my mind.  And internally I cry often for what my daughter has lived through and the impact it has made on her life.  She will never be able to erase the memories, and the memories will are a constant companion for her.  In some ways, it has destroyed her life.  Thankfully, she does not have the victim mentality.  But the person responsible for this is to this day walking free.  I cannot tell you how often I’ve dreamed of maiming him, of extracting more than a pound of flesh for his crime.  Fortunately, I do believe in eternal judgment, and have to trust that he will pay the price for what damage he has done.

But.

I am also mindful of the liberties we enjoy.  And those liberties include the right of free speech, regardless of the content, regardless of how disgusting it might be.  One of the problems with a boycott are that it creates a ‘crash scene’ mentality.  It draws undue attention to the subject of the boycott.  It gives the author the notoriety they crave.  And that by itself may lead to bigger sales than would occur if ignored.

Banning the e-book?  Absolutely foolish.  People are drawn to what they are forbidden to see.

From a marketing standpoint, Amazon initially took the position (at least publicly) that they would never infringe upon the sacred right of free speech.  From a public relations standpoint this was about as dumb as you could get.  What did Amazon hope to gain?  If it was to prove that they would stand for free speech, guess again.  As of today, the e-book has been pulled.  So much for standing on principle.

My concern is that when people talk about banning anything, the civil liberties portion of my brain starts to tingle.  This is not an endorsement of the ACLU, however.  That organization has, in my opinion, crossed over the line far too often to be of any real value.  But I would not deny Robert Mapplethorpe the right to display his “art”, I would not have denied Anton La Vey his right to espouse whatever doctrine he chose, I would not deny the Klan the ability to perpetuate their putrid hatred.  Because at the end of the day, who would be the one to decide what is acceptable?  If, for example, an administration somehow got a law passed to deny the right to protest their decisions, we would be far worse off than now.

This is not a time to stick our heads in the sand.  It is the time to make sure we are vigilant in protecting our rights – even the right to be wrong.