AZU Admit Responsibility For Vigilante Attacks

I was going to post this on the comments board at AZU but it's becoming increasingly obvious that to do so is nothing short of casting pearls before swine. Trying to have a rational discussion with these people is nigh on impossible as they're either unwilling or unable to calmly address points raised or answer questions asked. They instead choose to avoid answering questions by hiding behind personal insults which really don't bother me but I see no point in raising matters of discussion if they're not to be addressed.

The current cause celebre on the AZU site is that of the attempted boycott of Amazon.com for selling books which Stitches the Cunt (SC) and co believe promote paedosexuality. Now, the arguments about whether or not a book shop should refuse to stock literature that presents an unpopular or contentious point of view is a matter for discussion elsewhere. What really caught my attention was the following snippet of discussion:

Jeremy: I wonder how your shareholders would feel about that? Do you think they'd be so interested in profit that they'd sit by and let you trigger the pedophile next door? Because that is exactly what Amazon is doing.

SC: Please be sure and ask them that question. You are exactly right.

So why did this exchange catch my eye? It was because the implications of what was said are significant. Jeremy is saying that Amazon.com are directly responsible for child molestation because they sell books which may inflame a child molester's passions and cause him/her to attack a child. Let me make it clear: the claim is that if someone buys a book from Amazon.com and is incited by the literature to molest a child then Amazon.com are directly responsible for this despicable act. SC states that she considers Jeremy's assertion to be "... exactly right.".

This claim has significant repercussions for AZU, Perverted Justice/Wikisposure and the supporters of publicly available sex offender registries. What Jeremy and SC are effectively conceding is that if some redneck vigilante reads their posts and is incited by the content to attack someone then they (the poster) are directly responsible for the attack. It's important to remember that it's not just RSOs who get attacked by vigilantes but also innocent people who are unlucky enough to be mistaken for a RSO - after all, the sort of people who resort to vigilantism aren't particularly bright and tend to make mistakes. According to Jeremy and SC, the person/group who incited the redneck through their words are directly responsible for the attack. No wonder they hide behind pseudonyms.

As I said, I was going to post this point on the AZU comments page but don't see the point as I know from experience they won't address the issue but rather throw around a few insults and then pat each other on the back for being so clever. Instead, here's the link to their post for anyone to read it for themselves.