I'm assuming that the vote for "Hell Yes!" was a joke (or GiC )...?
'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.'
I think that's pretty much the end of the debate.
But seriously, if you read the interview with the person who wrote this book, it looks like someone who was sexually abused as a child. Now you might not agree with his coping mechanism in writing books like this, in obsessing over this subject, etc. But the bottom line is that the people who are attacking this book are not attacking predators, they're attacking a victim.
There's no doubt that child rape is wrong and reprehensible, but attack the act itself and be consistent. Condemn cultures and societies that marry off 12 year girls, condemn societies with arranged marriages, there is no excuse or argument that makes these things justifiable; and just because they speak different languages doesn't make it any more acceptable than a 12 year old boy in the US being raped by a 40 year old man.
Speech, even speech in favour of an act, is not tantamount to the act itself. And this book is certainly not the equivalent of child rape. I can't say I've read it, but from what I've read about it, it seems like a victim trying to come to terms with a traumatic childhood experience...and the police (both 'moral police' and actual police) trying to find any excuse possible to punish him for doing so.