Drawing the lines

What do you do when you find that your most dearly held principles in conflict with one another? This seems to be happening to me a lot recently, in particular regarding free speech.

For example – where do you draw the line between free speech and incitement? Sometimes, it’s very obvious, other times, I’m not so sure.

Right after Israeli Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin was assassinated (15 years ago this month) I remember here in Israel “incitement” was almost on par with what “communist sympathizer” was in America during the McCarthy era in the 1950’s. Anybody who dared utter a negative word about the recently-martyred leader, or his heir-apparent Shimon Peres, was seen as being on the same level as Yigal Amir, the murderer that pulled the trigger.

Side note for true story: at a bank in Jerusalem a couple of weeks after the assassination, a teller who had just finished with one customer called out “Who’s next” (very common in banks, post offices, etc. before everyone had a “Pick-a-number”). One guy yelled out “Shimon Peres” – and he was arrested.

Now, don’t get me wrong – I think that this guy’s joke was in extremely poor taste, and wasn’t in the least bit funny. But last I checked, there’s nothing illegal about that. People like that can and should be ostracized for thinking that political assassination is acceptable, or even in some way funny – but that doesn’t diminish their right to their views – no matter how disgusting those views may be.

At the time that Rabin was murdered, his popularity was extremely low, and the majority of Israelis (including many from his own Labor party) disapproved of how he was handling the peace process and the direction that the country seemed to be going. But for several months after the assassination, nobody would even dream of saying anything bad about Rabin. Most of the Israeli right-wing, and in particular the Settlers (those who live in what we call disputed areas) were terrified to express what they felt politically. They were all under society’s microscope and being told that they needed to a serious soul-searching because of what “one of theirs” did.

This lack of freedom of speech and expression at the time, created an atmosphere and mood in the country that was even darker than the assassination itself created. It was terrible.

But there is such a thing as incitement that does go beyond the realm of “Free Speech”. When people are encouraging, and even assisting others to violate the rights of others, to break laws, to undermine societal norms, then the line is a grey one, but there are times when hiding behind the skirt of Free Speech, just doesn’t cut it.

For example, one of the theories surrounding the Rabin assassination was that certain rabbis and other spiritual leaders whom Yigal Amir greatly respected, had told him that it was right to kill the Prime Minister, and that by doing so he would be performing a mitzvah (good deed/positive commandment). This does not take away in the least Amir’s responsibility for being the one to pull the trigger, and it should not lessen his sentence and punishment at all. BUT – if a rabbi, teacher, or whatever was inciting him to do what he did, then that’s not “free speech” and that person also bears a certain amount of responsibility.

Again – where do you draw the line?

This morning, I saw an article online about a book which had been for sale on Amazon.com which has since been removed after a couple of thousand people complained and threatened to boycott Amazon if the e-book wasn’t pulled.

Considering that book in question is called "The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: A Child-Lover's Code of Conduct", my support of getting the book off of the shelves – virtual and real-life – pretty much goes without saying, as does my willingness to boycott anyone who would market such a book.

But you know what? Yes, I agree with Amazon’s decision to pull it, and yes, I support turning anyone who sells this into a pariah, it’s really not so clear cut. It’s a much a greyer area than at first I would have believed.

I am a huge believer in free speech and freedom to publish, as well as the freedom to disagree with anything that is said or written and the freedom to not buy a book that you find offensive or disagreeable.

So, if somebody wants to write a book about why they love doing that which is morally repugnant to what I hope would be all right-minded decent people, why should it bother me? I’m free to not buy his garbage and I’m equally free to talk, write and in any other way share with anyone that will listen why I think that he’s a sick monster.

But with this one, I can’t do that.

This one crosses certain lines that should never ever be crossed.

The issue isn’t simply that the book is promoting something that’s illegal. That in and of itself doesn’t really bother most people. Right? I mean, seriously – how much would anybody give a damn or threaten boycott if the book was about how to grow marijuana without getting caught, or use certain drugs without abusing them and endangering yourself and others?

But not with pedophilia.

The author, Phillip R. Greaves II, even tries to explain himself. He said in a phone interview with CNN that his book presents the proverbial do’s and don’ts of pedophilia. He provides what he sees as acceptable boundaries, and which lines one should never cross (for example, he says "Penetration is out. You can't do that with a child, but kissing and fondling I don't think is that big of a problem.")

In the Amazon.com product description, he explained that by appealing to pedosexuals’ better nature (no shit! He seriously wrote this!!), that if they follow his guidelines then there will be less public hatred of what they do and less harsh prison sentences.

Back to the whole free-speech thing – I will say that I completely support his right to truly believe this, and to say so. No question about it.

But to try to make acceptable and to encourage through publication of a book, perpetrating an act against victims that are helpless – No way. Forget it. That’s not freedom of speech.

If the book were about how to talk women (legal adults) into bed, I would still say that he’s a sick whackjob, but that would be less disgusting. The underlying assumption and understanding of why pedophilia is so completely unacceptable on every level is that even if children “agree” to such contact, it is not reasonable to assume that a child under a certain age or level of intellectual and personal development really understands what it is that he or she is “agreeing” to do (or to have done to them), or what the ramifications of it are.

Never mind the fact that in the heat and excitement of the moment, even a person trying to follow the so-called “guidelines” of kissing and fondling will almost never be able to put on the brakes and avoid crossing the line. Even when sexual activity with a child is theoretically “consensual” it is clearly taking advantage of a young person who really doesn’t know what the hell they are getting themselves into.

I’m no lawyer, so I have no idea if this would actually apply, but it seems to my layman’s mind that a book like this is actually guilty of conspiracy to committing a crime. Or aiding and abetting. I don’t know.

I do know that it is not practicing “free speech”. Period.

Practice free speech, and I promise to support your God-given right to be as wrong, as crazy and as down-right stupid as you want to be. But this isn’t it. Not by a long-shot.