When the founding fathers drafted the Constitution, the intent of protecting speech was to give people a voice. The newly empowered voices were different, sometimes bothersome, sometimes inciting action and rebellion, sometimes trying to bring about peace. Whatever the message conveyed, the power to express an idea was no longer optional. As time went on, that power became threatened and even constrained. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater would incite an imminent threat of harm and therefore it became disallowed. Burning a flag or a draft card caused years of litigation and attack on the right all the way to the Supreme Court. Now, issues continually arise where people challenge authority and push the boundaries of what's deemed "obscene" speech--again, threatening that hard-pressed right. When one wears a t-shirt emblazoned with expletives to a court proceeding, she can be thrown in jail for contempt. When one decides to protest the war or gay marriage or any other hot-button issue too close for comfort to someone or some place, that speech can be restricted by time, place and manner.

So what's really going on here? Are we promoting some higher morality or greater societal good when we limit the speech that is likely to shock or to offend or even to emotionally injure? Is that silencing ever justified?

It's not a secret that I'm not only an avid proponent of the right, but I exercise it quite often. In fact, most of my speech tends to be aggressive, offensive and sometimes obscene. However, I know that there are just certain things that one doesn't say. Maybe this is from my religious and ethnic upbringing, maybe it's just my consciousness of those around me, maybe it's my empathy towards others--whatever it is, I just know that some things are better left unsaid.

That's true for the recently published book about pedophilic love. Amazon should be ashamed of even listing this crap for sale. The book, "The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: a Child-lover's Code of Conduct" by Philip R. Greaves II is now available on the website as an e-book. In it, the author purported gives advice to pedophiles who are afraid of retaliation. Really? They should be castrated and not protected--and certainly not advised!

What is Amazon thinking? Shouldn't the company vet the items it sells online? This isn't the run of the mill free speech challenge by some sexually explicit book or a strip club opening next to a school. Pedophilia is a crime. Protecting and even promoting those who would even consider undertaking such an act is reprehensible.

So, how about we all exercise our free speech and scream bloody murder about Amazon's misstep here? There's no excuse for the company to pass the buck as being merely a middleman for the author and his potential customers. If you list an item for sale on your site and you profit from it, you're implicated in the entire transaction. It's called common sense and business.

Amazon, grow some balls, take a stand and get this smut off your site.