Amazon defends sale of pedophile book

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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."

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."

"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."

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.

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."

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.

Except an teensy, tiny ounce of morality and concern for the well-being of children...

In a similar way I believe politely asking Amazon to stop selling the book is my duty, so to speak, in protecting children.

I've got no problem with asking Amazon to stop. I've got no problem with boycotts. That works for me. Where I've got a major problem is the threat of lawsuits to force Amazon to stop selling the book. That, to me, is akin to holding a gun to their head, and that, to me, is just plain wrong.

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?

Mein Kampf aside (one would have to get into specifics of that book), if someone wrote books promoting the annihilation of a particular race of people, like African-Americans, you know in a minute that Nambalazon would not (rightfully) sell such (and there would be an immediate uproar in our society). Or if someone wrote a book supporting the idea that all homosexuals should be elimnated, the same would (rightfully) ensue. But when it's the promotion of child rape, I guess it's a different story. Kids are used and abused, sexually and otherwise, in today's society. And we don't have the cojones to fight against such by every means available. Shame on us. And shame on virtual child molestor Jeff NAMBLA Bezos.

I've got no problem with asking Amazon to stop. I've got no problem with boycotts. That works for me. Where I've got a major problem is the threat of lawsuits to force Amazon to stop selling the book. That, to me, is akin to holding a gun to their head, and that, to me, is just plain wrong.

If you agree that what Amazon's doing is a moral atrocity, why is is 'wrong' to use any existing law to get it to stop? We should use every legal available means to get Namblazon to stop aiding and abetting the promotion of child rape.

Let's see, which is more important, Amazon's business goals, or not promoting child rape?

So, by your definition, in carrying "Mein Kampf," they support the aims and goals of Adolph Hitler; by carrying "The Communist Manifesto," they support the goals and tenants of communism; by carrying Anton LaVey's "Satanic Bible," they support Satanism; by carrying Andrew Vachss' books, they support the elimination of child prostitution, slavery and rape; by carrying various translations of the Bible, they support Christianity; by carrying books on sorcerery, they support witchcraft; by carrying books about white supremacy, they support racism; by carrying Ann Coulter's "Slander," they support conservatism; by carrying Michael Moore's "Stupid White Men," they support liberalism...

Sounds pretty damned schizophrenic, if you ask me...

Point is, that simply because they carry a book, they are not giving endorsement of what they carry - if you are going to blame them in that regard, then why not go the full distance, and have them pull every single title that you disagree with morally?

Why not have lawsuits that hold peddlers of smut partially responsible for the crimes committed in the production of the smut?
You advocate going after authors and publishers and buyers of pedophilia propaganda - but not the distributors? The profiteering middle man is exempt from all responsibility if his stated goal is to profit from sales of ALL books? I should think such an unethical goal deserves backlash.

if someone wrote books promoting the annihilation of a particular race of people, like African-Americans,

I must note, here, for the purposes of discussion that amazon.com also sells the infamous "Turner Diaries". Usually ships in 24 hours. No discount, though. I'm sure it's not the only revolting racist screed they sell. I guess, in addition to being a child molester, Jeff Bezos is also a Nazi?

If you agree that what Amazon's doing is a moral atrocity, why is is 'wrong' to use any existing law to get it to stop?

You and I disagree on how to handle Amazon's supposed complicity. Asking them to stop and holding a legal gun to their head are two different things.

That's a fair question, mhking. Yes, one does have to draw the line somewhere. And we live in a society where there is great disagreement on moral questions. But when something is so blatantly immoral, and may well actually lead to the increased sexual rape of children, that crosses my line - and a great many others' as well. Just like a book calling for the elimination of Jews, homosexuals or blacks would cross most people's lines (and, as I said, which I doubt Namblazon would sell). You object to the idea that society should have ANY generally agreed upon moral lines that should come into play in a situation like this. I do not. If but one kid is sexually molested by an adult as a result of this (not unlikely, given past evidence in these matters), the agony of that kid will rest on Bezos' head. Society, children and people with these disordered inclinations to rape children would ALL be better off without the sale of this book. Too bad that Jeff NAMBLA Bezos won't take a stand here. His moral line, if this doesn't cross it, is non-existant.

First, you can't put "Mein Kampf" aside, but even if you do, "The Turner Diaries" is there, at Amazon, for anyone to purchase. Last I checked, that book supports the elimination of ALL blacks.

Now. If Amazon is asked to remove this dreck, and refuses, then the next step is a boycott - not a lawsuit to force them not to do business with someone.

You advocate going after authors and publishers and buyers of pedophilia propaganda - but not the distributors?

The difference, in my mind, is promotion. The author and publisher are promoting the book. They are actively advertising the book. They are actively seeking people to purchase said book. In that regard, Amazon is no more complicit than the postal service. They are merely the conduit, the messenger, not the originators of the message.

So these cretins hide behind the 1st Amendment? Great--why not fingerprint and run background checks on people who purchase this criminal "material"...just like law abiding citizens have to submit to fingerprinting, FBI background checks and fee paying to exercise THEIR 2nd Amendment guarantees???

Law abiding citizens who want to purchase or carry firearms are treated like "Future Criminals Of America" while pedophilia pushers are protected.

Makes-Me-Sick

Worth repeating...

What legal grounds is there for a lawsuit?

None, and thats why these types of freepers resort to silly boycotts of publishers or television shows - whatever has struck their fancy this week.

The version of "Free Speech" they speak of is odd to me. They claim everyone has a right, which is fine. They claim that the right does not include the right to a "forum" or to force someone to publish their work. I agree, and that's fine. But, what they try to do is petition every possible distribution source to get them to deny publication or whatnot. They go after sponsors, web hosting services and even try to get zoning boards to stop the production altogether. Kind of scary sometimes if you ask me. Its kind of like, "Yeh, you have the right, but we will try everything possible to make it impossible for you to excercise your right".

if someone wrote books promoting the annihilation of a particular race of people, like African-Americans, you know in a minute that Nambalazon would not (rightfully) sell such (and there would be an immediate uproar in our society).

They do. It’s called the Turner Diaries. The author, Andrew McDonald is the nom de plume of William Pierce, former head of the National Alliance, the most organized Neo-Nazi group in the United States.

But when something is so blatantly immoral, and may well actually lead to the increased sexual rape of children, that crosses my line - and a great many others' as well. Just like a book calling for the elimination of Jews, homosexuals or blacks would cross most people's lines (and, as I said, which I doubt Namblazon would sell).

If the author’s book makes a political argument, it is perfectly legal to sell. If the author openly suggests the commission of crimes by the reader, that’s another. If you don’t want Amazon to carry the book you have every right to boycott them. Good luck. Amazon knows they will lose a lot more business if they decide NOT to carry such material.

I personally find censorship deplorable.

Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master
-Sid Meyer

I personally find censorship deplorable.

There's no censorship in this case. The author would retain his right to write or say whatever he wants. There's absolutely no right to have someone sell your book. And if you think there are more people who wish to read The Turner Diaries than are puking over Namblazon's decision here - I think you may be wrong! I can reach easily about 1,000 people in churches here - and who will refuse to go to Namblazon for books. A lot of others will be doing the same. Jeff NAMBLA Bezos is contributing to the rape of children. Society should puke.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.