Amazon defends sale of pedophile book

WorldNetDaily ^ | October 2, 2002 | Art Moore

[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...