We are free to criticize our President, our Famous and Wealthy, CEO’s of powerful businesses, the Pope, World Leaders from around the globe, heck we (as a nation, not individuals) are even allowed to invade countries and dispose of their leaders, but the one thing apparently citizens of the U.S. are not allowed to do: express anything negative about a science fiction writer who created a religion for the sole purpose of generating money and controlling people.

I am genuinely concerned with the path the internet has taken, which by most people’s standards is the last bastion for the exercise of free speech.

A book reviewer and concerned citizen has been working on a story with me about Amazon.com’s policy of censoring negative reviews on all books by Scientology found L. Ron Hubbard.

We wrote about this is brief a few days ago, but now there have been more developments. And I must admit, I am shocked and disturbed by the heavy-handed manner in which those who run Amazon are willing to side with the Church of Scientology. Not only is it alarming, but it serves to eat away at the fabric of our most closely held doctrine for which this country was founded on: free speech.

This is long, but I saw no way to edit it without altering the whole picture of what has happened:

Greetings from Amazon.com.

originally had two different reviews of Dianetics on amazon.com’s website.

The first:

If You Are of African Descent

Dianetics makes laughable attempts to sound “scientific” by using obscure words to express mundane ideas while at the same time completely ignoring the basics of scientific method. The book also contains several frightening examples of cultural bias. Potential readers should be aware of them.

Perhaps the most disturbing example is on page 195, wherein Mr. Hubbard discusses the Zulu tribe of Africa. According to Mr. Hubbard, the Zulu would escape his “reactive data” if he were moved out of his “restimulative” area and taught English. But left in his native habitat, a “Zulu is only outside the bars of a madhouse because there are no madhouses provided by his tribe.”

The book is ludicrous scientifically, and a nightmare as a piece of social commentary. Avoid.

The other:

Presented in the package of a simple self-help book, “Dianetics— the Modern Science of Mental Health” is actually a frightening political diatribe. You may want to familiarize yourself with a couple of quotes:

“Once the child is conceived, no matter how “shameful” the circumstances, no matter the mores, no matter the income, that man or woman who would attempt an abortion on an unborn child is attempting a murder which will seldom succeed and is laying the foundation of a childhood illness and heartache. Anyone attempting an abortion is committing an act against the whole society and the future; any judge or doctor recommending an abortion should be instantly deprived of position and practice, whatever his ‘reason’”.
(page 190, 1992 edition)

And perhaps even more frightening:

“The sexual pervert (and by this term, Dianetics, to be brief, includes any and all forms of deviation in dynamic two such as homosexuality, lesbianism, sexual sadism, etc., and all down the catalog of Ellis and Kraft-Ebbing) is actually quite ill physically. Perversion, as an illness, has so many manifestations that it must be spread over the entire gamut of classes from 1 to 5 above. Overdevelopment of the sexual organs, underdevelopment, seminal inhibition or magnification, etc., are found some in one pervert, some in another.”
(pages 149-150 1992 edition)

(Anyone familiar with genetic cleansing theories from the 1930’s, in which various political and social minorities were purported to display tell-tale exterior characteristics useful to the ruling class for singling them out, will find this second passage particularly disturbing.)

“Dianetics” is chock full of this kind of ignorant psuedo-science. It would be funny if so many people weren’t taking it seriously.

Both reviews were on the amazon.com website for a number of months. Then they suddenly disappeared.

I emailed amazon.com to ask why. I was told that I could only have one review on the site, and that reviews could ONLY speak to the specific book. I revised the review to read:

“Dianetics” is full of scientific assertions and frequent allusions to research, but where is that research? The book tells us nothing about the scientific methods used. What were the sample sizes? What were the experimental controls? Was this research ever published by anyone other than the author? Perhaps in a reputable journal? We’re left to take Mr. Hubbard’s conclusions at face value.

Besides failing to support its scientific claims, the book frequently veers into the political. Feminists may want to familiarize themselves with this quote:

“Once the child is conceived, no matter how “shameful” the circumstances, no matter the mores, no matter the income, that man or woman who would attempt an abortion on an unborn child is attempting a murder which will seldom succeed and is laying the foundation of a childhood illness and heartache. Anyone attempting an abortion is committing an act against the whole society and the future; any judge or doctor recommending an abortion should be instantly deprived of position and practice, whatever his ‘reason’”. (page 190)

And those working to assure civil rights to gays, lesbians and the transgendered may want to familiarize themselves with this one:

“The sexual pervert (and by this term, Dianetics, to be brief, includes any and all forms of deviation in dynamic two such as homosexuality, lesbianism, sexual sadism, etc., and all down the catalog of Ellis and Kraft-Ebbing) is actually quite ill physically. Perversion, as an illness, has so many manifestations that it must be spread over the entire gamut of classes from 1 to 5 above. Overdevelopment of the sexual organs, underdevelopment, seminal inhibition or magnification, etc., are found some in one pervert, some in another.”
(pages 149-150)

While everyone is welcome to their political and/or social opinions in our great democracy, this book is presented not as opinion but as science. Presented with the trappings of scientific research but without any evidence that real scientific methods were employed.

Proceed with a healthy skepticism.

This review was also removed. I was told in an email that legally, quotes from a book could not contain more than 18 words.

I revised my review to address this issue. That review was posted and stayed on the site for a number of months.

Then it disappeared again.

I called amazon.com to ask why. (One can’t speak directly to the reps who decide which review get pulled down. They will only communicate with customers by email.)

I received an email saying I had violated the stated guidelines for reviews. I asked for specifics. I received an email saying I had not, in fact, violated the guidelines. The review was reposted. A few weeks later it disappeared again. I contacted them. I was told the review had been inadvertently removed during system maintenance. It went back up. A few months later it disappeared yet again.

Given my commitment to free speech and the vile nature of this book, I’m ashamed to say I was involved in other things by that point. I let it go.

I recently ran across an item online accusing amazon.com of removing 1-star reviews for the site, accusing all 1-star reviews of violating the guidelines, even when they clearly did not. I looked at the Dianetics page on amazon.com. There used to be 30 or 40 negative reviews of Dianetics. THERE WAS NOT ONE. NOT ONE. Hundreds of 5-star reviews. A book this controversial, and NOT A SINGLE ONE-STAR REVIEW.

I got angry again.

I dusted off my old review as well as my review of another L. Ron Hubbard book, Science of Survival, which had also been deleted. I sent both in to be posted. Here is the review of Science of Survival:

Science of Survival: While neither debating, nor even criticizing, the socio-political assertions L. Ron Hubbard makes in Science of Survival: Prediction of Human Behavior, a working knowledge of them may help you to decide if this is the book for you.

First, Mr. Hubbard asserts that there are only two ways of handling people who fall at 2.0 or below on Mr. Hubbard’s “tone scale” (this includes gays and lesbians, who are at level 1.1). The first is raising them on the tone scale by “unenturbulating some of their theta”. The second is to “dispose of them quietly and without sorrow.” (See page 157, section 1)

Later in the same paragraph, he tells a story about a Venezuelan dictator, who, wanting to eradicate leprosy in his country, notices that many of the lepers in his country were also beggars, and decides to round up all the beggars and destroy them. By this “simple expedient” he puts an end to leprosy in Venezuela. It’s not clear what Mr. Hubbard intends to teach by citing this act of genocide. (See page 157, section 1)

On page 119, Mr. Hubbard informs us that any society in which women are taught anything but (anything and but being italicized by the author) family management, the care of men, and the creation of the coming generations, “is a society which is on its way out.” (Page 119, section 1) Later in this paragraph, Mr. Hubbard asserts that historians can pinpoint when a society begins to degenerate by finding the exact point where women begin operating on an equal footing with men in the business and political realms.

Whatever its sociological and political themes, the book is also rambling and poorly thought-out.. Not recommended.

Neither review showed up online.

I called customer service. I told the rep that my reviews of Diantetics and Science of Survival had been removed multiple times, despite my (saved) emails from amazon.com acknowledging that neither review violated the terms of service.

I told the rep that there used to be 30 or 40 1-star reviews of Dianetics and now they were all gone. She admitted that it seemed odd.

I asked the rep if there might be an individual removing reviews Scientology doesn’t like. She said, no, that the people who would remove reviews had oversight and that they couldn’t just do that. I asked, then, was this a policy by amazon.com, to simply remove negative reviews of this book? She didn’t have a good answer.

She forwarded my concerns (including the fact that the review has been acknowledged multiple times to be within the guidelines) to the department that specifically handles reviews. She said I would have a response from them within 48 hours.

Here was the response:

April 12, 2008

Thank you for contacting us at Amazon.com.

This email is in response to your recent phone contact regarding the reviews submitted for ASINs: 1403144850 and 088404632X.

Your reviews for the above books were removed because your comments in large part focused on authors and their intentions, rather than reviewing the item itself.

Our guidelines do not allow discussions that criticize authors or their intentions. We encourage all voices to respond openly in our store, both positive and negative. However, we do exert some editorial control over our customer reviews.

As such, your review cannot be posted on Amazon.com in its current format. What I can suggest is that you resubmit your review, restricting your comments to critically analyzing the content of the
item.

Best regards,

[redacted]
Amazon.com Customer Service

I replied:

I have an email acknowledging that these reviews do not violate the guidelines. I insist that they be re-posted.

Go back and READ THE REVIEW. They say NOTHING about the author or his intentions. NOT ONE THING. I ONLY ANALYZE THE TEXT OF THE BOOK, EXACTLY AS THE GUIDELINES SAY.

I talk about the BOOK. I quote the BOOK. NOTHING ELSE.

I can forward you the emails from amazon.com acknowledging that the reviews do not violate the guidelines.

Please show me that Amazon.com’s sites are a place for the free exchange
of ideas when the guidelines are followed.

Thank you for your quick reply.

On April 13th, they answered that I was correct. The review could be posted:

Thank you for contacting us at Amazon.com.

I understand your concern with regard to the reviews submitted for the asins 1403144850 and 088404632X.

We have gone through the revised text of the review for the asin 088404632X [the Dianetics review] and found that this can be submitted. Hence I have submitted this review and will appear on the website shortly.

However, I wish to inform you that we will not be able to post the other review for the asin 1403144850 in its current format.

I understand that you are upset, and I regret that we have not been able to address your concerns to your satisfaction. Unfortunately, we will not be able to offer any additional insight or action on these matters.

Best regards,

[redacted]
Amazon.com Customer Service

The review went up.

Two days later, it disappeared again.

I called, insisting that the review be reposted, since I had their word in writing that it followed the guidelines. The customer service rep again said she would have the representatives who handled reviews email me.

I received this answer on April 16th:

Thank you for writing back to us at Amazon.com.

First, please allow me to extend my most sincere apologies for any frustration this matter has caused. It is certainly not our intention for our customer to have anything but a pleasant experience at Amazon.com.

After researching, I found that you have submitted 3 reviews for this title “Dianetics.” At this time, I am not sure which review you are referring to and would like to get posted.

Best regards,

Rox
Amazon.com Customer Service

I clarified for her.

In the meantime, there is a discussion board for every book on Amazon.com. There were 7 or 8 active discussions about he censorship of 1-star reviews. I made a post about the issue. I said I suspected that “a certain organization” was likely sending massive amounts of protest email until any and all 1-star reviews are removed. I received a reply there saying I was violating the terms of use of the discussion board and that my theory was “nuts.” I told the poster that I had read the guidelines and was not violating them, and that, anyway, he wasn’t in charge. I asked him, if my theory was “nuts,” for his theory on why with a book this controversial, there was not one single 1-star review.

A few hours later, the entire discussion board was erased.

When I saw that, I started a new discussion:

Not only have ALL the 1-star reviews of Dianetics been removed, now amazon.com has erased all the discussion boards ABOUT that fact.

The people at this company need to take a hard look at who they are. And what it means to host a public forum where people express honest opinions about a product.

What you’re doing is cowardly and unethical.

Another person posted this:

I have to agree. I was somewhat startled to see that a book as controversial as “Dianetics” had only one 2-star rating, but over 240 positive ratings.

Widening my search, I found that *all* L. Ron Hubbard books seem to have 5-star ratings.

Given the obsession with image Scientology has displayed, and their known and widely documented aggressive tactics (including ordering Sea Org members to take low-level jobs in any company, governmental office or organization they want information on,) I fear I’m going to sound as if I’m donning my tinfoil hat, but really…what’s going on?

Amazon hasn’t caved to other pressures, keeping a firm stance on the Freedom of Speech issue so far. Please don’t disappoint now.

The next morning, I received the first truly human reply from a customer service representative, rather than the same run around, and signed with a first and last name (I have removed them here, but can provide them if necessary). I almost started crying:

Dear Mr. Bradley,

Hello, and thanks for contacting us back at Amazon.com. I deeply appreciate the time you’ve devoted to this issue.

Please know that your opinion is important. Our site isn’t of much help unless potential buyers get a chance to see a balanced range of opinions, especially where something as subjective as one’s taste in reading is concerned.

As I was just as uncertain why the three reviews you’ve submitted for “Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health” by L. Ron Hubbard were removed, I’ve contacted our Review Board for specifics. I was informed that the reviews were pulled because they either came across as somewhat spiteful, seemed to be an attack on the author’s methodology (which goes toward an author’s intentions, which we can’t know,) or seemed an attempt to cover the author’s political leanings.

Having read all three of your reviews, I must admit to being equally in the dark, as every one of the submissions seem to provide your opinion of a book you’ve obviously read–and this is all we can ask of our customers. Therefore, I’m seeking further clarification before going further. I hope to have specific examples, more helpful information, or to get your most recent review submission reinstated, within the next 7-10 business days.

My name is ————– ————-, and I’ll be personally monitoring your account until we can obtain more satisfactory information. I’m here Tuesday through Saturday from 5:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M. Eastern time. While I will see any correspondence you send, it’s possible that my colleagues may respond to you before I get a chance to do so. In such a case, please rest assured that you’ll be hearing from me anyway regarding any issues you’ve brought forth. While I don’t have a direct phone line, I’ll be happy to call you, should you wish it.

Mr. Bradley, I’d like to thank you again for bringing this to our attention in the first place, and for your patience and perseverance. Determined, loyal customers like yourself are the sole reason we’re still here today.

Thanks again for contacting us. You’ll be hearing from me within the next few business days.

Best regards,

————– —————
Amazon.com Customer Service

I replied:

Dear Ms. ———–

First, thank you. Amazon.com is incredibly lucky to have you.

I’ve looked at the guidelines carefully. There is nothing there that says a reviewer can’t criticize a scientist’s scientific method, nor is there anything about not criticizing the political aspects of a book. It’s just not there. These are the reasons given for removing my reviews. The people removing the reviews are making up new rules as the go along.

I also looked up a word mentioned in the guidelines: “spiteful.” The definition is, “Petty ill will or hatred with the disposition to irritate, annoy, or thwart.

My concerns are not petty. This book contains assertions that gay men and lesbians can be identified by their exaggerated or shrunken genitalia. A concern about this issue is warranted.

My interest in reviewing this book has nothing to do with hating or thwarting anyone. I celebrate the fact that this book exists. I strongly support this author’s right to say whatever he wants about gays, lesbians or anyone else. But MY right to be heard, and the rights of others who find this book disturbing to be heard, need to be respected, too.

I have a theory as to what’s happening. The reps working in reviews are likely being inundated with complaint emails and have decided it’s easier just to delete the reviews in question. While I sympathize, this is completely unethical and allows unethical people the unfettered ability to stifle free speech.

Thank you for staying on this. I will look for your email regarding this issue.

Truly, I leave you the reader to your own conclusions. I spoke at length with another associate about this, and he felt that Amazon may very well be applying a strict guideline policy across the board and are in fact NOT singling Scientology books. I am not sure I agree, but I respect this person’s opinion. I think now the test would be to find similarly controversial books and compare Amazon’s editorial policy on those authors/books.

I don’t wish to pick on anyone, even YouTube. They have procedures in place to protect the public. I am not sure WHY Mark Bunker’s account has continued to stay suspended, despite the high profile pressure being applied around the globe to have it back up. PEOPLE WANT TO HEAR FROM JASON BEGHE. What he has to say is relevant and significant to the discussion of Scientology, and its practices and alleged abuses. I would think YouTube, as a business, not an agenda-setting entity, would want that traffic. This is the issue. Perhaps this requires a new post. I encourage discussion on this Amazon issue. We want to be fair and not hurl canards and invectives falsely.