- (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 Amazon.com,
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
<http://www.apa.org 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 <http://www.drlaura.com
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 <http://www.jewishworldreview.com/dr/laura080399.asp 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 <http://www.apa.org/monitor/sep99/rc.html
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 <http://www.psych.org
American Psychiatric Association.
-
- For its part, Amazon.com 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 Amazon.com, 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, Amazon.com 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 inventor@adan.kingston.net
-
- Dear Jeff,
-
- I read with great trepidation, the story of Amazon.com,
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 Amazon.com customers are "seeking"
or want to "discover and buy," a "pedophile handbook?"
Where is the "value" for Amazon.com 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 Amazon.com 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 http://www.disobey.com/netslaves/991115/lies_03.shtml
From Ken McCarthy <ken@amacord.com 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
-
- SIGHTINGS HOMEPAGE
http://www.sightings.com
- This
Site Served by TheHostPros
|