Controversial Pedophilia Book on Amazon.com

A controversy is brewing on the internet, as Amazon.com continues to sell "Understanding Loved Boys and Boylovers," while anti-pedophilia groups protest. As part of Amazon's reader review process, their web site also publishes commentary about the book. This includes the opinions of pedophiles who want to increase the book's readership, as well as outraged readers, and a critical review by Amazon staff.

The United States Justice Foundation, a California legal advocacy group, has accused Amazon of "an unfair and unethical business practice," and threatened "protracted litigation." They have already filed a criminal complaint in Seattle, where Amazon is based. They object even more strenuously to publicizing the pedophile reader reviews than to the selling of the book.

Amazon refuses to remove the book from its offerings, claiming First Amendment protection. They have reportedly removed email addresses from the pedophile reviews, in response to the complaint that they were providing a public channel for pedophile solicitation.

Author David L. Riegel argues in his book that "Men who sexually pursue young boys are not monsters, but sincere, concerned, loving human beings who simply have a sexual orientation that is neither understood nor accepted by most others." The book apparently has no sexually provocative content, but centers on promoting the idea that consensual, "responsible intergenerational" homosexual relationships are wholesome and should be legally permitted.

Currently, each state has "age of consent" laws that set an age below which a child may not legally consent to sexual activity. That makes consensual sexual activity between children and adults legally impossible. Riegel and other proponents of pedophilia want to remove this restriction.

I hope that American culture has not yet devolved to the point where we need to debate any possible merit in Riegel's arguments. Clearly pedophiles are vile predators, and our age of consent laws are one necessary line of defense against them.

What is controversial is the decision of Amazon and any other book retailers to sell books such as Riegel's, and the legal approach being taken to force them to stop offering the books for sale. Does the First Amendment protect Riegel and Amazon? What are proper approaches to combating the evil effects of books such as this? Regardless of what they are legally permitted to do, what is the right way for Amazon to handle such material?

If it is true that Riegel's book attempts to change public opinion while avoiding advocating illegal activity, I believe the First Amendment does protect his right to publish. If, on the other hand, he incites pedophiles to approach children for sex, he is beyond the protection of the Constitution. Someone with a strong stomach would have to study his book to make that determination. If the First Amendment protects Riegel's right to publish his book, it also protects Amazon's right to sell it.

Not everything that the law allows to be done should be done. Amazon protests that it would be "censorship" not to offer such a book for sale. Censorship is a legal restriction on publication. A private decision to avoid doing business with a publisher is not censorship. In this case, it would be quite proper for Amazon to decide not to be associated with Riegel's arguments.

On the other hand, I think the United States Justice Foundation is taking the wrong approach to the problem. Attacking Amazon's bookselling practices in court gives the pedophiles an opportunity to bring First Amendment advocates into their corner.

Amazon lives in a very competitive on-line world. There are hundreds of companies selling books on the internet: BarnesAndNoble.com and FatBrain.com, for example. How long could Amazon stand up to a determined publicity campaign against their pedophilia-neutral policy? They could be damaged in a matter of days by such a campaign, and ultimately put out of business if they were to persist in selling pedophilia-promoting books.

Let's stop relying on the courts in cases like this, and apply a little "dollar diplomacy" to the problem.