Amazon Won't Shelve 'Boylovers' Book

Forbes,com ^ | 10.08.02 | Emily Lambert

[veronica]

Amazon.com is digging in its heels, refusing to take down a book being criticized as encouraging child molestation.

In late September, the United States Justice Foundation, a conservative group based in Escondido, Calif., threatened to sue Amazon.com (nasdaq: AMZN - news - people ) under California law for unfair business practices if the company doesn't remove from its Web site David L. Riegel's book, Understanding Loved Boys and Boylovers, within 30 days. Other conservative watchdogs are joining the fray, including the Rev. Jerry Falwell. The foundation's attorney, Richard Ackerman, went on Fox News Channel's O'Reilly Factor, saying Amazon is making it too easy to bring children into contact with "that sick world."

Amazon.com says pulling the book would be an abridgment of free speech, protected under the First Amendment. "There are no plans to take this book down," said Amazon spokesperson Patricia Smith. "We believe that providing open access to written speech, no matter how controversial or ugly, is one of the most important things we do. And we will continue to make controversial works available in the U.S. and every where else, except where they are specifically prohibited by law." For example, Amazon does not sell Adolf Hitler's memoir Mein Kampf in Germany, where it is banned.

Smith refused several times to discuss what person or committee decides what books should be removed from the site.

Amazon has come under fire before for selling books that critics claim support or encourage child molestation. Two years ago, it decided to stop selling a book called Varieties of Man/Boy Love: Modern Western Contexts. Amazon says that book had particularly graphic images, whereas Riegel's book has none. Three years ago, Amazon's U.K. site pulled The Committee: Political Assasination in Northern Ireland, written by journalist Sean McPhilemy, after Northern Ireland's First Minister David Trimble sued Amazon.co.uk for libel. The suit was settled. Amazon.com continues to sell books objected to by the conservative, Christian nonprofit American Family Association, including The Horseman: Obsessions of a Zoophile and Dearest Pet: On Bestiality.

Amazon says most of its more controversial works end up on its site through the Amazon Advantage program, which lets small independent publishers sell their wares on the site. Understanding Loved Boys and Boylovers was published in 2000 by SafeHaven Foundation Press, which, according to its Web site, tries to "publish, distribute, and retail nonfiction works on the subjects of boy love, loved boys, and boy lovers."

Reactions from readers on Amazon's site have been mixed. Several negative reviews have been posted, including one written by an Amazon employee who calls the book "pseudo-scholarship" and "amateurishly produced." A handful of positive reviews have come from self-proclaimed pedophiles.

Even though it refuses to pull the book, Amazon has kept the book's profile low and not advertised it on the site, says Patricia Smith. Amazon also removed an e-mail address included in a reader's review, which let Web surfers contact the reviewer directly.

Barnes & Noble (nyse: BKS - news - people ), which hasn't been threatened with a lawsuit, says it used to sell Riegel's book from its Web site. The book didn't sell well and was taken off the site, said Barnes & Noble's spokesperson Mary Ellen Keating, who said the company doesn't have stock of the book but also "doesn't censor inventory."

[yendu bwam]

In this country, people should be able to publish such crap as this.

But that isn't the issue. Nobody would deny the author the right to try to peddle his filth. The issue is whether a moral person or company would peddle his filth. There is NO consititutional right to have something you've written published. This has nothing to do with free speech rights. Namblazon is a virtual child molestor.

[yendu bwam]

Of course not. And the framers of the First Amendment never intended it to protect obscenity.

Agreed, Aquinasfan. The framers of the Constitution would be turning over in their graves at this. But Namblazon's helping out this author is not a First Amendment issue. There's no constitutional right for anyone to have someone else sell your speech. Namblazon is a virtual child molestor by aiding and abetting those who promote child rape.

[yendu bwam]

The only way for Amazon to stop selling this book is for people to start boycotting them. We can piss and moan all we want, but to get their attention we need to snap our checkbooks shut.

I'll certainly never buy from Namblazon again.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

No problem. I won't buy from those companies that carry the book. Capitalism in action. Simple problem, simple solution.

[yendu bwam]

I bet Amazon.com wouldn't sell a book that glorified and encouraged child suicide bombers, or a book that described ways to torture and murder gays.

Right. Because that would be 'immoral.' But helping to promote child rape is not for Namblazon. Good-bye, Namblazon. You're deep into your own filth.

[two23]

"In this country, people should be able to publish such crap as this.

But maybe the people who buy, sell or POSSESS the books should be finger printed, have background checks run on them and have to pay a fee for a permit to carry the book around?

Pedophile Material OK--Gun Ownership, NOT ok--sickening huh?

[snippy_about_it]

Excellent response. I hope you don't mind if I use it in my own letter to Amazon.

[HiTech RedNeck]

This is an evil book and if Amazon jettisoned it yesterday it would not be too soon.

That being said, Amazon could stop the firestorm just by taking the listing off its site, and could yet continue to sell this sleaze as "special order." They probably sell even worse things that aren't listed, as long as they have an ISBN number.

[Justice]

It would not be censorship. I'm sure there are thousands of titles in the world Amazon does not carry, for whatever reason.

Every book seller does not have to sell disgusting books. It's their choice.

[Lizard_King]

Isn't child pornography a crime?

 

Yes, it is, but not because *thinking* or *writing* about sex with children is against the law, but because child pornography requires the actual exploitation of an underage human being, not old enough to legally consent to peddling their flesh. Hence, it is the material crime of sexually exploiting a child that is necessary to the creation of child porn that makes it illegal, not thinking about it or writing about it or advocating it.

 

See the recent court decision that *virtual* child pornography, created entirely via digital means, is legal as it does not involve the exploitation of a minor.

 

Mind you, I am not arguing for the morality of writing such garbage, I am just saying that criminalizing thought or discussion has not yet happened consistently, hate crimes legislation notwithstanding. Such a criminalization of freedom of conscience would make our legal system incredibly complex and unfair, since you would have juries and judges convicting people not on material acts but on what they *think* those people may have thought, said, intended, etc, which is more properly the role of social pressures rather than the coercive power of government.

 

Should writings encouraging illegal acts with children be legal?

 

There is a big difference between inciting an act directly or conspiring to commit a crime directly and these awful books, legally speaking. I have little doubt that the authors are up to no good in their filthy lifestyles, but there is no legal grounds for action until they try to harm an actual child.

 

I bet Amazon.com wouldn't sell a book that glorified and encouraged child suicide bombers,

 

Well, here’s Noam Chomsky’s “9/11”

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1583224890/qid=1034129002/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/103-2795119-2158203?v=glance&n=507846

 

A pandering bio of Yasser Arafat

 

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1883642108/qid=1034129072/sr=8-4/ref=sr_8_4/103-2795119-2158203?v=glance&n=507846

 

or a book that described ways to torture and murder gays.

 

Can’t think of any offhand, but there are plenty of fictional stories featuring such sordid acts, whether in a positive light or not.

[agrace]

Thanks for your post - very thought-provoking. I had forgotten about the virtual porn case and remember reading the threads on it here when it was first decided. A VERY tough call, and that's an understatement. And you're right, there is a legal difference between using actual children as pornography subjects and writing about illicit acts with them.

I disagree with one point you made, however. You included "thinking" in with "writing" - of course thought cannot be legislated, thank God. But writing can, and justifiably so in certain circumstances. I doubt I'd get away with writing a manual on how to assassinate the president.

Quite possibly my mistake is to look at the legality of the situation rather than its constitutionality, as other wise FReepers have done. As another pointed out, Amazon is not violating anyone's free speech by refusing to stock a book, and like I said, there are limits to free speech. I heard a lecture tape regarding the ACLU recently, done by a Mr. Donahue from the Catholic League, during which he outlined the framers' intentions for free speech. He very clearly demonstrated that freedom of expression is an entirely different thing than free speech. As Aquinasfan said earlier, the framers never intended for it to protect obscenity.

I'm not sure how your examples about Noam Chomsky and Yasser Arafat indicate encouraging child suicide bombing. My point was, this book about man/boy lover relationships seems to say it's normal to do such things. It legitimizes it in an "I'm OK, you're OK" fashion. Such as if someone wrote a book outlining the benefits of using children as suicide bombers. Same with gay murder - agreed, we find tons of fictional examples of every horror, but they are hardly handbooks to that effect (except to a few fringe loonies maybe).

Anyway, I do appreciate what you're saying. But tolerating the sanctioning of such bile in the name of free speech is a bit much, imo.

[Lizard_King]

Writing is a form of speech, which is an expression of free conscience. The manual on how to assassinate the president would be treading a tendentious line, mostly because for the manual to be at all useful it would probably violate several cornerstones of national security, which is a different sort of restriction on speech and one sparingly applied. However, manuals on general bomb making, murder, etc are regularly published.
I agree that there is no legal argument for Amazon saying it "has" to stock the book, especially since it has already done so in the past. Market pressures can be far more effective than coercion in these matters. Now that it has been put before them, continuing to stock the book does constitute a moral choice on their part, and one that should be heavily criticized as such.

However, it does not follow that therefore that constitutes some sort of limit on free speech in the public domain. Whatever scholars may think the framers "intended" (which I think is a pretty thin argument), it is certain that in the media and in common parlance the legal term of obscenity is often bandied about for all sorts of things that it does not cover. The supreme court has ALWAYS erred on the side of liberty rather than censorship, as any form of scholarly or artistic meaning, however perverse, makes virtually any written or spoken or digitally imaged thing legal. Obscenity most often comes into play when an act is committed; ergo, writing about molesting animals, while abominable, is not legally obscene. Molesting animals in practice, especially in a public area, is likely to be found obscene.
The only legitimate exception I have heard is that of local standards, where a community can decide for itself what is obscene and extend the definition as it chooses to banning books, etc. It is rare for that to be applied in larger communities.

So, while I have not heard Mr Donahue myself, I can logically infer that I would very much disagree with his sentiment: freedom of expression and speech are inextricably linked. I see where he is coming from, morally, but I think the application of govt coercion in these matters is inevitably a two edged sword, and social pressure is the correct response.

Finally, Chomsky, in his own disingenuous way, legitimizes the acts of nearly every barbaric and cruel foreign nation that opposes the US, from the Khmer Rouge to the Taliban. He embraces the Palestinian cause and defends with complex semantical arguments the legitimacy of both their cause and their means.

Arafat, meanwhile, is the puppetmaster behind those bombers. TO praise him is to praise a monster, and to hide his evil is to aid his cause.

As for the "gay murder", I think the biggest reason there is not many books on this on Amazon is that there is absolutely no demand for it (beyond those fringes).

There is however, a large demand for these books trying to legitimize child abuse. Thus, we must make it MORE expensive for Amazon to keep them than to lose em.

[Bonaparte]

Letter to CEO of Amazon from USJF's lead litigator.

[fire_eye]

Amazon has only two options: Censor, or don't censor. If you want them to censor pedophilia, you're suggesting that someone there be appointed to decide what is pedophilia and what is not. If you want Amazon to perform that sort of "service", then you are tacitly approving - whether you like it or not - of their involving themselves in the content of what they sell. In such case, you give up your right to protest on the fundamental issue of whether they should impose personal opinions on the content of their inventory in cases where you DO NOT want something removed.

I recently posted something here proving beyond all doubt (in my mind, at least) that my local Borders store is censoring David Horowitz. I have no idea whether they also censor pedophilia, but if I had to choose between no censorship at all and censorship left up to Lieberals who will censor all political opinion contrary to their own, I will choose the former. I find it very, very interesting - particularly in the context of this latest flap - that no one on this site shared my outrage at Borders' censorship of Horowitz. In fact, the most common response was to refer me to Amazon as an alternative!!

Note that my argument is not based on First Amendment rights, on my personal revulsion toward pedophilia and Lieberals, or anything else of the sort. It's a simple matter of logic and consistency - and I also find it interesting that not even Amazon makes this argument - they argue on First Amendment grounds, which arguably (as some have pointed out) are insufficient to justify their position.

[fortheDeclaration]

Amazon.com you just lost me as a customer

Ditto

[fortheDeclaration]

That was the same nonsense I received from them.

We do not endorse the book but we must ( for Freedoms's sake) sell it!!!

Shut them down!

[Orual]

Amazon.com Sales Rank: 6,347

A run-away best seller.

Smith refused several times to discuss what person or committee decides what books should be removed from the site.

What's she afraid of? I think I know.

[Lizard_King]

Amazon does "censor", or, since they are a private business, simply decide what books it finds acceptable to sell. I really don't think it is that big an inconsistency for a place to be able to draw a line at pedophilia advocacy (after all they pulled the last child molestation book, but I guess since this was has no images it is just dandy) while still remaining otherwise objective in its selection.
I am not tacitly approving that concerned people convince them not to peddle this trash; I am overtly doing so. It is well within the bounds of reason to think that one can publicize that a private company is profiting off this filth, and I have no reason to think that pedophilia how-to manuals are not beyond the pale of what views I will tolerate in others.
I really don't think there is a slippery slope here...I don't think Bezos is going to wake up one day and say "Aha! those whiny conservatives will see...making me censor pedophilia...well, next is Ann Coulter! MUHAHAHAHA!"
James Carville might come up with such an analogy, but there is a good reason that most people that run companies are not James Carville in their business practices.
I think your Horowitz analogy is inaccurate for a couple of reasons, just because I think that the idea of a bookstore advocating a certain political slant in its selection is vastly different in terms of offering a reasonably diverse selection of views than having child abuse manuals on its shelves. In either case, I would choose to let my opinion be heard, and vote with my dollar whether it is important enough to be heard...only a company run by a fool or a dyed in the wool radical would ignore enough such protest, and I would not want give any of those two my money anyhow.

[uncommonsense]

I just canceled my Amazon account. I also sent this to Toys / Babies R' Us at:

https://inc.toysrus.com/guest/contUs.cfm

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am deeply troubled by the irresponsible products that are being sold by your strategic partner - Amazon.com. Specifically, they are selling books that can justify and perhaps incite pedophilia (e.g. “Understanding Loved Boys and Boylovers” by David L. Riegel).

A company like yours that is dedicated to wholesome family values and the safety of our children should be VERY concerned that your corporate reputation will be severely tarnished by the actions of your strategic partner. The livelihood of your company is completely dependent upon the goodwill of family-oriented people who value the security of children. They abhor any person or company that exploits children or puts them at risk from predators.

As the information of Amazon.com’s irresponsible and dangerous position regarding the sale of this type of “product” become more widely known, I am sure the association of Amazon.com and your company will be made. I expect the backlash to be severe. Please reconsider your relationship with Amazon.com.

P.S. You can find information regarding this book at this link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0967699703/ref=pd_rhf_p_1/103-1427225-0665454?v=glance

I suggest to you that this "book" is nothing more than propaganda to legitimize criminal behavior. A quote from one of the reviewers:

Reviewer: Joe Gardiner from United States

“As a pedophile myself I found this book to be enlightening in my quest to truly come to terms with my own sexuality...”

[Aeronaut]

Amazon has only two options: Censor, or don't censor.

I can't buy that. If I personally don't offer to sell you a book it doesn't follow that I am censoring it. I may not even have an opinion on it. If I do offer to sell it to you, however, I certainly am promoting it.