Amazon defends sale of pedophile book

WorldNetDaily ^ | October 2, 2002 | Art Moore

[scripter]

Amazon.com continues to claim First Amendment grounds for its sale and promotion of a book advocating adult-child sex but has removed an e-mail link to a self-proclaimed pedophile amid mounting pressure organized by a non-profit legal action group in California.

Last week, WND reported that Amazon.com has been accused by the United States Justice Foundation of "contributing to the potential rape and molestation of children" through its online sale of "Understanding Loved Boys and Boylovers," by David L. Riegel, who has responded to questions submitted by WND.

The USJF has given Amazon 30 days to remove the book from its site or face "protracted litigation."

Meanwhile, a search by WorldNetDaily of other pedophile-related books sold by the Seattle-based Internet retailer turned up a title apparently published by the North American Man-Boy Love Association called "Loving Boys."

In another development, the USJF has filed a criminal complaint against Amazon.com with the Seattle Police Department. Also, in one of many boycotts undertaken by groups and private citizens, a publisher has canceled its arrangement with the bookseller.

After WND broke the story last week, Philadelphia's NBC TV affiliate took a camera to the post office box of Riegel's locally-based publisher SafeHaven Press and informed the mail clerk of the company's distribution of pro-pedophile books, according to USJF litigation counsel Richard Ackerman. The clerk expressed disbelief and opened the mailbox, discovering that the only item in the box was a check to SafeHaven from Amazon.com.

SafeHaven Press has an affiliated Web discussion forum operated by Riegel "about responsible intergenerational relationships between males."

Right to choose

Amazon.com has issued a statement emphasizing that it does not endorse "Understanding Boys and Boylovers," but insists that "people have the right to choose their own reading material."

The bookseller says, "Our goal is to support freedom of expression and to provide customers with the broadest selection possible so they can find, discover, and buy any title they might be seeking."

Ackerman says Amazon can be prosecuted for unethical behavior under California's unfair business practice laws.

"I was honestly hoping, against all reason, that they would do the right thing and simply take this off their site," Ackerman told WND. "And so I guess what's going to have to happen from here on out is that we'll go to every possible source. If I have to go to [Attorney General John] Ashcroft, I will."

Seattle police Sgt. Brian Johnson, who oversees the department's Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, said he has not been informed of Ackerman's complaint.

He promised to research the issue with his legal department, but said that so far every one of his previous investigations has entailed actual images of child pornography.

"There is not much we have done with written words," Johnson told WND. "There is so much of the other stuff out there."

Regarding a case such as Amazon's, "a lot of it depends on the city, whether it's something they would want to pursue," he said. "My personal thought is, probably not."

In a letter faxed to Amazon CEO Jeffrey Bezos Sept. 25, Ackerman pointed out that beneath a description of the book was a customer review that linked to the e-mail address of a man who described himself as a pedophile. The reviewer said he found Riegel's book "to be enlightening in my quest to truly come to terms with my own sexuality."

Since then, the link to the e-mail address – which began with "minrfiend" – has been removed, though the review remains.

Ackerman said he was unaware of this development.

"I wish they would have told me that," he said of Amazon. "I've gotten no response from them, none."

"It's very saddening," he continued, "because they've hidden behind the First Amendment to justify what they are doing and yet they don't have the moral courage to actually respond to us."

Ackerman noted that Amazon declined an offer to join him in his appearance on the Fox News program "The O'Reilly Factor" last Friday.

WND's call to an Amazon spokesperson yesterday was not returned.

NAMBLA on Amazon

The book, according to Amazon, published by the North American Man-Boy Love Association was written by the late Edward Brongersma, a member of the Dutch Senate who went to prison for sexual contact with an under-aged boy. Later, Brongersma returned to public office and helped repeal the Netherlands' age of consent law.

For many years, he was on the editorial board of Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia, the Dutch-based advocate of adult-child sex.

In his book "Loving Boys" – which, according to other sources, has been published by Global Academic Publishers – Brongersma "eschews both the common Judeo-Christian belief that man-boy contacts are morally wrong and the traditional psychiatric premise (never honestly tested) that they are unnatural, perverted and harmful for boys."

Brongersma co-edited a book also carried by Amazon.com called "Male Intergenerational Intimacy: Historical, Socio-Psychological, and Legal Perspectives."

That book is one of a growing body of material that purportedly makes an academic and scientific case for acceptance of sexual relationships between adults and children. Earlier this year, the University of Minnesota Press published Judith Levine's "Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex," which seeks to challenge "widespread anxieties" about pedophilia.

Riegel, noting the emergence of "landmark studies and papers" in the past 10 years, said that Levine's book probably would not have been published by a university press "even as recently as two or three years ago."

In his book, Riegel espouses "responsible boylove," which, he maintains, has nothing to do with molestation and abuse.

In an e-mail response to questions by WND, Riegel claimed that "fear, ignorance and intolerance" are at the roots of the public's "misunderstanding" about men involved in sexual relationships with boys.

"Understanding can only come about through dialogue," he told WND. "And dialogue is what people like Ackerman, [Pro-Family Law Center's Scott] Lively, and a host of other self proclaimed 'moral' crusaders, are afraid of. They do not subscribe to Voltaire's 'I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' Their motto is 'I disagree with what you say, and I will silence you one way or another.'"

Ackerman said, "My question for Mr. Riegel is, having been a victim of this stuff myself, I'd like him to openly come out in the public and talk about whether the First Amendment protects his right to engage in this type of authorship and promotion of, in my opinion, moral filth."

Ackerman argues that society has accepted that there are limits to free speech.

"We don't apply that same standard to hate speech, or hate crimes," he said. "We certainly don't apply that standard to plotting the violent overthrow of the United States government."

Boycott

In an e-mail response to a complaint about the book by a Texas-based group called Hands Off Our Kids, or HOOK, Amazon.com employee John Cameron wrote:

"Please know that, contrary to rumors that have been circulating around the Internet, this book is not a 'how-to' manual for molesting children. The author simply expresses his point of view about what he feels are 'misunderstood' relationships between men and boys."

But Ackerman believes Amazon has a responsibility to protect children from materials that expressly advocate what he and mainstream society – including businesses like Amazon.com – consider dangerous ideas.

"Exposing a child to the idea that they should be part of a 'misunderstood' relationship is as offensive as taking the boy to the back of a soccer field and explaining the exact same thing to him," Ackerman said.

Last week, Davidson Press informed WND that it will no longer sell its books on Amazon.com. The publisher of Bibles and related materials posted its new policy "within minutes" of reading WND's story last week, said Editor Charles Welty.

Author John Culea, a former TV anchorman who has three books on Amazon's site, decided to sever his relationship with the online retailer after hearing about the controversy last week on the San Diego-based Roger Hedgecock talk radio program. Culea also requested that Amazon remove Riegel's book, which he calls "a smoke screen for pedophilia."

Ackerman's group has posted an online petition at a website called Conservative Petitions.com. The petition has been forwarded by fax or e-mail to Amazon by over 1,200 people. Ackerman said, however, that the petition drive has not been fully launched yet and expects many more responses when Conservative Petitions alerts its list of about half a million people.

The issue also has been taken up by groups such as Focus on the Family and the Traditional Values Coalition. Ackerman says also he plans to take the issue to the American Family Association, which has the resources and network to launch a massive boycott drive.

On Friday, Kim Vandiver, founding director of Hands Off Our Kids, warned Amazon that it will promote a broad boycott through its constituency if the company does not remove "this filth, which is not only immoral, but a danger to the children we, as a society, and that includes corporations, have a duty to protect."

After receiving Amazon's standard reply, Vandiver wrote back, stating, "I do not appreciate receiving a form letter filled with rhetoric from Amazon.com on such an important issue. It does, however, indicate that Amazon.com does not take this boycott seriously and is not willing to work for the public good."

A third reply to Vandiver assured her that her previous correspondence had been considered, but said, "Please understand that the information provided in our last message correctly represents our policy at this time."

"I can't imagine that Amazon.com wants to come into the holiday season facing this," Ackerman said, "and I will do whatever I can to make sure this blows up in their face right in the prime of holiday shopping. I'm not going to let them get away with this."

Related stories:

Amazon.com accused of aiding molesters

Amazon offers pedophile handbook

Pedophile advocate featured at university

'Nothing new' in book condoning child sex

[scripter]

To find all articles tagged or indexed using Homosexual Agenda, click below:
	click here >>>	Homosexual Agenda	<<< click here
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)

[Texas_Jarhead]

added to my boycott list

[HiTech RedNeck]

I anticipate the publisher of this turd will end up pulling its book from Amazon (with a little secret payola from same for doing so).

[yendu bwam]

Namblazon is committing an ugly and disgusting immoral act in allowing this book to be sold. Not only are they contributing to the promotion of child rape, there is a high probability that they will actually encourage child rapists to carry out their desires. In not selling this book, they would NOT be denying anybody's first amendment rights. The creep writer of the book is free to write it, but has not constitutional right to have Namblazon sell it. Namblazon, and it's CEO, NAMBLA-Bezos, have turned themselves into pedophile creeps themselves. I will NOT ever buy a book from this company again, and will exhort everyone I know not to do so as well. Namblazon has joined the evil groups in this country who prey on our children.

[EdReform]

Bump

[mhking]

I can't fault Amazon; I would much rather have an idea of A: who writes/supports the book, and more importantly B: who buys such trash.

I'm not in support of censoring anything - if we do that, then we haven't a leg to stand on when/if Hitlery and her disciples get into power and want to shut us up. But that doesn't mean that we can't make life VERY difficult for those who DO buy such crap.

[mhking]

So are you going to boycott each and every book store/library that sells/makes available things that don't agree with you? Don't kill the messenger, go after the source. Make life difficult for the author; the publisher; the readers of this filth.

Don't shoot the messenger.

[yendu bwam]

So are you going to boycott each and every book store/library that sells/makes available things that don't agree with you? Don't kill the messenger, go after the source. Make life difficult for the author; the publisher; the readers of this filth. Don't shoot the messenger.

No, I don't boycott everyone I disagree with. I DO boycott and fight people who contribute to the promotion of moral atrocities. Namblazon is contributing to the promotion of child rape. It's unbelievable to me that that's OK with you - but, of course, you represent much of what society is today. If a man turned over his property for another man to give a speech encouraging adults to have sex with children, a moral person would excoriate both men. This is no different. Namblazon and Jeff NAMBLA Bezos have no morals. Your idea that you don't go after the messenger is horribly misplaced. It's bad enough that our schools, churches and society are now filled with child sex molestors; now we have 'respectable' organizations contributing knowingly to the promotion of such. Be strong, there, mhking. Take a stand on this, if you can find the tiny bit of moral courage you need.

[yendu bwam]

I'm not in support of censoring anything - if we do that, then we haven't a leg to stand on when/if Hitlery and her disciples get into power and want to shut us up. But that doesn't mean that we can't make life VERY difficult for those who DO buy such crap.

You suffer, mhking, from a fundamentally mistaken notion of the idea of censorship. The author's first amendment rights are fully in operation if Namblazon declines to sell this book. Nobody is stopping the author from writing this filth, or from trying to sell this filth, or from standing on a street corner and shouting out to the world that child rape is all well and good. Jeff NAMBLA Bezos' declining to sell this book would NOT censor the author. The author could continue to write and say whatever he wants. It would simply be a moral stand to not actively help the author in disseminating this disgusting and horrific child-harmful trash. Our society has fallen very far when we feel we have to give succor to those who would rape children.

[mhking]

Be strong, there, mhking. Take a stand on this, if you can find the tiny bit of moral courage you need.

This book is vile. I can't stomach even the thought of reading it. But at the same time, I cannot condone censorship of any sort - and that's what you're asking, no demanding, that Amazon does.

Your stance is no better than going off on a news outlet for reporting about this kind of filth. You're going after the wrong people. Amazon is not promoting moral atrocities. Amazon is not putting ads out promoting this.

If you're successful in getting this crap pulled from Amazon's shelves, then are we truly safe? This publisher is still out there publishing and making money. This author is still out there and making money from this.

If Amazon carries this, then we at least know who the authors are; who the publishers are - we can deal with them on that level. In this case, Amazon actually becomes an asset; a tool for us to discover who is perpetrating this crap. I'd rather that than to have them secreted away under the woodwork. There's a much better chance of getting this crap done away with overall that way.

The larger issue is that if/when someone like Hillary Clinton comes to power, what happens then? If we succeed here, who's to say that a Clinton or disciple of hers doesn't put the kybosh on any critical or contrarian books/authors? Are you ready for that precedent? Are you ready for that slippery slope? I'm not.

Moral courage? I've got plenty. I'm courageous enough to let everyone know that the better way to get rid of this filth is to remove it at the source. Otherwise, they'll go to ground and put even more vile stuff out there. I'm willing to be courageous enough to have people go after the publisher and author directly. Are you?

[mhking]

The author's first amendment rights are fully in operation if Namblazon declines to sell this book.

The hell with the author. I'm talking about censoring the rights of others. You don't want to buy the book? Great! Neither do I. But you telling me that simply because they make it available, that Amazon (and according to you, Jeff Bezos) is guilty by association, is simply not so.

This is not an issue of supporting the exploitation and assault of children. You must separate the two. You appear either incapable or unwilling to do so.

[ValerieUSA]

Define censorship. I think you give the term far too broad a meaning.
When a merchant assumes responsibility for the quality of the products he sells, that is not censorship - that is good, ethical business.
Determining that the quality of a book is worthy of your business establishment is not censorship.

If Amazon dropped the pedophilia book from its inventory, that wouldn't be censorship - it would be responsible citizenship.

[yendu bwam]

The hell with the author. I'm talking about censoring the rights of others. You don't want to buy the book? Great! Neither do I. But you telling me that simply because they make it available, that Amazon (and according to you, Jeff Bezos) is guilty by association, is simply not so.

You are completely and totally wrong. There is NO right to have others sell your books. NONE. There's NOTHING in the Constitution (or anywhere else) which confers such a 'right.' As for Namblazon being guilty by association, anybody with a sliver of common sense knows that when you give a (HUGE) platform to a man who promotes evil, you are complicit in that evil. The people who gave Adolph H. a platform in pre-war Germany were just like Jeff NAMBLA Bezos.

[yendu bwam]

This is not an issue of supporting the exploitation and assault of children. You must separate the two. You appear either incapable or unwilling to do so.

When you aid, big-time, in the dissemination of the idea that child rape is OK, you are complicit. Jeff NAMBLA Bezos is an enemy of children.

[mhking]

Determining that the quality of a book is worthy of your business establishment is not censorship.

When you are dealing with a limited inventory situation, I would agree with you completely. Amazon, however, has taken on the unenviable task of attempting to make available every single book and publisher available for sale in the nation.

Under the example here, they would say, 'OK, we'll carry every single book in the US, except that one - because it's filth.' So what happens if/when someone takes this to an extreme and says, OK, let's remove every book that someone finds offensive? With two or three titles, how soon would they go under?

All I'm saying is to go cut off the pipeline at the source, not at the end of the line. Go after the publisher. Hell, get Amazon to come up off the names of the reprobates who have purchased this drek! Go after them! There are several folks who have published supporting reviews of this trash - go after them! Use this as a tool to get this off the streets entirely!

[yendu bwam]

If Amazon dropped the pedophilia book from its inventory, that wouldn't be censorship - it would be responsible citizenship.

Come over to the good side, Jeff NAMBLA Bezos and mhking. Find the courage to fight people who lend great advantage to those who promote child rape.

[scripter]

I can't fault Amazon;

I think I understand from where you're coming but I disagree. While I think it's within someone's first ammendment rights to write the book, asking Amazon to stop selling the book is a different matter. (That's if I understand the first ammendment correctly. A lawyer once told me the first ammendment was written to protect the citizens when speaking against the government. I have a copy of the Constitution on my wall and don't see that interpretation myself.)

Is that censorship? I don't know - the author can still write the book yet Amazon can do the right thing and not sell it when politely asked by those who disagree. Homosexuals exercised their first ammendment rights and went after Dr. Laura. In a similar way I believe politely asking Amazon to stop selling the book is my duty, so to speak, in protecting children.

In high school 25 years ago we watched a movie called *Future Shock* which showed homosexual marriage. At the time everyone laughed at how ridiculous that was yet it's an issue today. We are sliding downhill morally and I feel compelled to do something about it. Posting articles, talking about it here and not buying books from Amazon is my way of doing something about it.

I would much rather have an idea of A: who writes/supports the book, and more importantly B: who buys such trash.

Well, we know who wrote it (David L. Riegel). And we can see while Amazon may say they don't have to agree with every opinion in every book they sell, they are supporting the book indirectly and directly profitting from it as well.

I got a laugh from reading the reviews on the book as:

1 person recommended NIV Study Bible in addition to Understanding Loved Boys and Boylovers

Now that's funny, IMO. Well, at the same time and in a different fashion it isn't funny. As a huge privacy advocate I disagree with being able to know who buys the book.

[mhking]

You are completely and totally wrong. There is NO right to have others sell your books. NONE. There's NOTHING in the Constitution (or anywhere else) which confers such a 'right.' As for Namblazon being guilty by association, anybody with a sliver of common sense knows that when you give a (HUGE) platform to a man who promotes evil, you are complicit in that evil. The people who gave Adolph H. a platform in pre-war Germany were just like Jeff NAMBLA Bezos.

I'm not claiming a 'right' in that regard; however, I am saying that in running a legitimate business, which violates no laws, there is nothing preventing Amazon from doing this.

And let's take your Germany metaphor one better - how much worse off would we be if "Mein Kampf" had been censored? If we weren't tipped off to just how bad Hitler was?

So let's get back to my other question: are you ready to go after the publisher and the author of this trash?

[yendu bwam]

Amazon, however, has taken on the unenviable task of attempting to make available every single book and publisher available for sale in the nation.

So Namblazon's business goals excuse it from helping (greatly) in the promotion of child rape? Let's see, which is more important, Amazon's business goals, or not promoting child rape? Can't decide, can't decide...