Amazon Offers Pedophile
Handbook - Is US On A
'Runaway Train To Hell'?
By Jon E. Dougherty
© 2000
(Note - Among comments received: 'This culture is on a runaway freight train to hell.')
One of the nation's largest online book retailers is offering a title promoting homosexual sex with children.
According to a description by the book's publisher, <iink "Understanding Loved Boys and Boylovers," available on, attempts to debunk the "myth" that it is harmful to youth to engage in "intergenerational male/male sexual activities" -- or men having sex with young boys.
"The long assumed 'harm' of such activities has failed to be supported by research, and the sociocultural 'wrongness' based on this 'harm' is therefore left without any rational basis," said the review.
Written by David L. Riegel, the book also claims that despite "howls of protest" over its conclusions -- from "right wing radicals all the way up to and including the United States House of Representatives" -- earlier "no harm done" suppositions have "been judged to be true, accurate and objective science" after "having been subjected to intensive examination at every level."
Riegel states that he has spent years moderating websites "devoted to examining these issues." He said, "early on ... it became obvious ... that the men -- and a few boys -- who participate in these sites are not the stereotypical monsters that the media portrays."
Instead, he said, "they are sincere, concerned, loving human beings who simply have -- and were probably born with -- a sexual orientation that is neither understood nor accepted by most others."
"The condemnation and reprehension these boys and men are dealt by society are primarily the result of misinformation that has become institutionalized over time by those who are in positions to deceive and mislead public thinking and policy," Riegel added.
The author cites a controversial study published by the < American Psychological Association in the July/August 1998 edition of the Psychological Bulletin called, "A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples."
The report was widely criticized, most prominently by nationally syndicated talk host and columnist < Dr. Laura Schlessinger, who said the report "states that sexual relationships between adults and willing children might be positive to children."
So offensive were the conclusions in the report that a year ago Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz., sponsored House Concurrent Resolution 107, condemning and denouncing all suggestions promoting boy-men sex contained in it. The resolution passed 355-0, with 13 abstentions, Schlessinger reported in her < column last August. House Majority Whip Tom DeLay also participated in a press conference denouncing both the report's conclusions and the American Psychological Association for publishing the findings.
After the uproar over the report, the APA said that though it did not support child sexual abuse, it could not "censor [its] journals and avoid articles that might cause controversy."
"However, we have to realize that in the age of Internet, cable and instantly accessible information, our journals no longer speak only to scholars," said American Psychological Association CEO Raymond D. Fowler, Ph.D. He also hinted that the report had been "misinterpreted" and that his organization "must work harder to explain psychological research to policymakers and the public."
"If our scientific publications, sometime written in arcane language difficult for non-psychologists to understand, are likely to be misinterpreted by the public, we have to find ways to explain them or we will pay dearly for their confusion," Fowler wrote in a < column explaining the APA's position on the research involved in producing the report.
Several psychiatric professionals agreed with Schlessinger and debunking the report as "junk science," including Dr. Paul Fink, head of the Leadership Council and past president of the < American Psychiatric Association.
For its part, takes the issue of what kind of content to offer "very seriously," according to company spokesman John Schommer.
"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," Schommer told WorldNetDaily.
"That selection includes some titles which most people, including employees of, may find distasteful or otherwise objectionable," he said, quick to point out that the online bookseller "does not sell pornography or child pornography."
Schommer said the company "believes it is censorship not to sell certain books because we believe their message repugnant, and we would be rightly criticized if we did so." He added that unless prohibited by law, would continue to make controversial titles available.
"It's important to note that we do not endorse any opinions expressed by individual authors, musical artists or filmmakers," he said.
From Lea MacDonald
Dear Jeff,
I read with great trepidation, the story of, in which the company insists that placing such 'literary' garbage as a "pedophile handbook" is just a 'corporate decision' weighing in on the side of supporting 'Freedom of Expression.' By any other name is it nothing less than "Anything-for-a-buck big business." This is another sad textbook attempt to defend an otherwise indefensible position of foisting such material on the American public and claiming it is a "Freedom of Speech issue."
John Schommer: "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,"
I wonder just how many customers are "seeking" or want to "discover and buy," a "pedophile handbook?" Where is the "value" for customers/shareholders, in such an offering? The ONLY value in such a position would be to pre-empt a competitor from enjoying -- presumed -- "sales," unchallenged. Again, "anything for a buck," or more aptly put, "If our competitors have no moral compass, then, by God, neither do we!"
The issue is NOT Freedom of Expression at all. The issue is big business developing a backbone and becoming a moral leader by finally drawing a line in the sand.
Sadly, I can now be labeled a 'right wing extremist.' But actually, I'm a father of 3 boys, ages 6, 7, 8. They can't fend for themselves against the likes of and John Schommer's position of intending to sell a pedophile handbook, wrapped in a 'Freedom of Expression' candy coating.
One last question: Mr. Schommer, will you please let us know how sales of this book go on Father's Day? Indeed.
Spare the Net, Spoil the Child?
(AOL and Child Predators) Internet Case Study #2
By Steve Gilliard
From Ken McCarthy < 6-13-00
It's late, 12:50 at night and I'm watching the rebroadcast of Oprah. Usually, I don't and I have no love of Oprah, per se. But tonight, they're talking about child sexual predators...
While the (guest expert) is a bit clueless, and Oprah following along in her footsteps is kind of obvious, there is a serious point: child sexual predators lurk online and they harm children. Kids also get sex spam daily.
What is missing from the media conversation, hell what is critical to understand, is that this is a limited problem. Not in scope. It's a problem with a wide scope. But it has one source: AOL. America Online has allowed the words "the Internet" to coopt a problem that largely exists in their service. AOL is a breeding ground for sexual predators. Every story of "internet" child molestation starts at one place -- AOL. It is in their chat rooms, in their Instant Messages and their spam-ladened e-mail which has become home to all manner and shape of perverts.
Chat rooms are EXCLUSIVE to AOL. They exist NOWHERE else online. You can chat with ICQ or IRC, but it's not the same. Only AOL has a dominant position in open chat online. This is NOT an internet problem. For the most part kid-friendly websites and e-mail do not attract pedophiles. There are Usenet groups they frequent, but Usenet is not all that interactive. And you can post to Usenet with a fake address.
Also, on most websites, your chat is not nearly as fast as with AOL. Then there is the fact that you usually log on to these sites seperately. You can create a log in name and seperate identity and e-mail which will not be traced to your main account. Once you're on AOL, you're open to anyone on AOL. Can people chat outside AOL? Sure. Can they IM? Sure. But AOL makes all of these instant locator and e-mail services available.
On one hand, the company freely squashes the rights of users, releases their personal information, and assumes that they will work for free to enhance the value of their services. Yet, they do little, if anything, to prevent the widespread use of their services, not only as a prime hunting ground for child sexual predators, but for meetings and file exchanges among these people as well.
What does AOL do? Admit that they are the pedophile's favorite hunting ground? Whole communities of child molesters exist there and hunt children. Not in minutes, but in seconds. It's grown men and mostly teenage girls. Now, AOL knows this happens. Just the words "Chat Room" says AOL like Budweiser says Anheiser-Busch. They are also fully aware, as anyone who reads a newspaper could tell them, that bad things happen there. Not all the time, but enough.
The fact is that until AOL is sued repeatedly in Northern Virginia and have to face those juries of middle class minorities and retired army officers, they are not going to change their policies if it costs them a dime. You have to protect your own kids. What AOL won't tell you...
1) Don't use AOL.
While AOL is the simple solution to going online, their intergrated chat and IM are a simple playground for men who want to date your 12 year old. Chat and IM are only part of the web experience. Most people don't use them. And now that IM is independent of AOL, your kids can use it and not have an AOL address. Any other service will allow your kids access to e-mail, the web and even instant messages, but, without the AOL address you will avoid a bunch of spam and the hunting ground that AOL has become.
2) Sex websites may give your kid a peek, but it's like Playboy, worry less about the pictures than what you teach your kids about sex.
There are positive and non-erotic websites which teach about sex, but the dirtier the website, the more it costs. As long as your children don't have access to your credit card, you're safe. Is there sex online? Sure. But the odds are you read Playboy or saw a porn film and it didn't kill you. There is so many other things that your kid is more likely to spend time online for that sex is overrated as a concern. Same with making bombs. I learned that the old fashioned way -- reading books.
3) Use web-based chat on sites with passwords over service- based chats.
It is far safer to use a web-based chat, one where you can create a seperate password and identity, complete with a fake e-mail address, than one connected to your real e-mail address.
4) Don't be misled.
There are hundreds of websites designed for kids and I have yet to hear a report of them being used to track down kids. It's much harder using the web to do that than AOL integrated services.
5) Limit who gets your kid's e-mail address.
If they have to give an address, create one for the family and have the mail filtered into one central box everyone can use. Reserve the personal e-mail for friends you know or school work.
6) Place the computer in a central location or network them, so you can have access to your kids hard drive.
Networking solutions are cheap and it is a lot easier than any user based filter. You can also monitor their work assignments and website visits.
7) Most of all: learn how the internet works.
You have to know how to use the machine. You cannot leave this in your kids hands. That is a bad idea, no, a really stupid idea. Computers are easy to learn and there are books the size and shape of coloring books which can teach you.
This is why you, the adult, has to know how to use a computer: Sam Manzie was a 14 year old boy living in Central New Jersey. He liked AOL and he met a buddy on chat. The problem was this "buddy" was a 41-year-old fat slob who liked to fuck young boys.
Without his parents knowledge, Sam managed to get to Long Island, where the slob lived, and where the slob repeatedly sodomized him. The parents found out and the cops tried to use this poor kid in a sting. But being 14 and a victim of sexual abuse, his brains were as fried as an Irish breakfast. So he backed out of the sting, and now being confused and angry, he started acting out.
One Saturday, a 12 year old kid, Eddie Werner, was doing the school charity thing, knocking on doors. One of the last things he did was knock on Sam Manzie's door. Sam took this kid, beat him, raped him and killed him. Now, Sam is serving life in jail.
You have a choice: you can be a technophobe, accept AOL's crappy service and indifferent monitoring of child molesters or you can be proactive and protect your kids from tragedy. The choice is yours.
-- Steve Gilliard,
NetSlave Media Assassin

This Site Served by TheHostPros