ROBERT A. BERTSCHE
Direct Line:  617-428-3488
rbertsche@hillbarlow.com
December 14, 2001 
BY E-MAIL, FAX AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL

J. Edward Pawlick, Publisher and Editor-in-Chief
The Massachusetts News
PO Box 812844
1 Cameron St.
Wellesley, MA 02482
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Re:       Libel 

Dear Mr. Pawlick:

This firm represents Metro Corp., owner of Boston Magazine.  I am writing to demand that Massachusetts News immediately remove from its website, its print edition, and from all other publications, in print or on the internet, the article headlined “Boston Magazine is Leader in Molestation.” Your failure to do so today will risk substantial liability for defamation.

As you have already been informed by Boston Magazine senior writer Benoit Denizet-Lewis, the article and headline are patently false. They falsely state and imply that Boston Magazine has somehow engaged in molestation of children and “approved” such molestation.

One can only imagine that this defamatory accusation stems from Mr. Denizet-Lewis’s article (not “articles”) about NAMBLA in the May 2001 issue of Boston. However, nothing in that article even remotely supports the erroneous factual assertion contained in your account. Far from “approving” (let alone engaging in) molestation, the article notes that the NAMBLA group has achieved “universal loathing” and is likely to not survive as an organization.

By describing such an article as making Boston Magazine a “leader in molestation,” or as approving molestation, the Massachusetts News has recklessly disregarded the truth and engaged in unprotected libel. As I am confident your lawyer will advise you, there is no defense applicable to such publication.  Your having published and posted this item renders you liable to Boston Magazine in damages.

On behalf of Boston Magazine, I demand that you remove this article from your website and from all other publications, and that you do so by 5:00 p.m. today. Please contact me by the end of the day, or have your lawyer do so, to assure me that such steps have been taken. Should you fail to do so, my client will have no choice but to consider alternative remedies and to demand monetary damages and other relief.

I look forward to hearing from you or your lawyer by 5:00 p.m. today.

Sincerely, Robert A. Bertsche

December 17, 2001    
Robert A. Bertsche, Esquire
Hill & Barlow
VIA EMAIL  rbertsche@hillbarlow.com

Dear Attorney Bertsche:

I am delighted that Boston magazine has become concerned about its reputation now that we have made people aware of the magazine’s defense of the molestation of children.

It is only right that the magazine be worried. This is a very serious matter that affects not only our children but the whole society.

Since your client has not told you the reasons for its deteriorating reputation, please let me help.

1) In its December 2000 issue, there was a long defense of the infamous Fistgate molestation.

2) In the May 2001 issue, there was a long, “intellectual” defense of the North American Man/Boy Love Association, the members of which believe that the word “molestation” should be dropped because they are “helping boys” when they have sex with them.

3) A Senior Writer for the magazine is now advertising for “homosexual” children 14 and under so that he can interview and write about them.

In Receipt of Your Letter

I have received your letter sent by email last Friday, December 14, at 2:32 p.m. and which arrived at my desk at about 4 p.m. It demanded a reply from me by 5 p.m. and said it was, “Not for Publication.”

I am surprised that you believe you can restrict me from publishing your threatening letter. A copy of your letter and this reply can be found on the Massachusetts News website today.

This was done because the discussion of pedophilia is an important topic for public debate that can not be limited by you or your client. Therefore, we have not acceded to your demands.

Your letter to me was obviously sent in haste at the request of your client because of their concern about a letter which was sent to us by their Senior Writer, Benoit Denizet-Lewis. Their concerns are well placed because many more people will be disturbed with Boston magazine when they read that letter and our reply.

But your threat arrived too late in our offices because we already had the letter in our newest print edition. Even if your letter had arrived on time, it would not have affected our decision to air this important issue and give it the light of day.

Our Libel Action Against Boston Magazine

I would suggest that you slow your client down and remind them that they started this confrontation when they libeled Massachusetts News in December 2000. Please direct their attention to their description of Massachusetts News as "stridently anti-gay."

(The issue of Boston about which we are talking has a pretty girl on the cover sucking her finger in anticipation of the gifts that were recommended to the readers. What terrible disrespect to imply that all women are anxious to provide sex for men who bring them gifts. This cover even goes beyond the genre of Playboy; it is more that of Hustler magazine.)

Their above comment about Massachusetts News was written solely for the intent of demeaning us. There was no other purpose for that language.

The statement was false and was meant to show that we have animus toward homosexuals. The words “anti-gay” are commonly used to denote hostility toward persons. It was used by your client to indicate that we are individuals who have anger and hatred toward people who practice the homosexual lifestyle.

A minimum attempt at research by the magazine would have indicated immediately that we do not have such animus. We do have grave problems with the lifestyle as do most people, but we have no animus whatsoever against the individuals who have fallen into it.

The full text of the reference to Massachusetts News talked about the infamous Fistgate scandal in this manner: “... [the] TeachOut conference sponsored last spring by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network in which one seminar somehow drifted to the finer points of fisting, mutual clitoral stimulation, and the spit-versus-swallow debate. The event was picked up and labeled ‘Fistgate’ by the stridently anti-gay Massachusetts News after it turned out to have been secretly taped by a member of the equally anti-gay Parents Rights Coalition.”

There are two items you should note about this. 1) This was defamation of Massachusetts News by your client. 2) Their attempt to defend the molestation of children at Fistgate was unique among Boston media.

Your Client’s Action

Before filing any libel action about the “Sightings” article in our December 2001 issue, I would suggest that you query your client a little bit more. It is my belief that they have not told you everything you need to know in this matter. The full text of our Sighting was:

Boston Magazine Is Leader in Molestation

The articles by Boston magazine which have approved the molestation of children by NAMBLA are apparently not an aberration, but part of an ongoing series. A staffer, Benoit Denizet-Lewis is now advertising in homosexual emails for children under 14 that he can write about. His email address is listed at Boston magazine.

I would suggest that you first acquaint yourself with NAMBLA and then read the entire screed that was printed in the May 2001 issue of your client’s magazine by Benoit Denizet-Lewis. If, after you understand the nature of this organization, you are not bothered by that article, I will be surprised.

You must also understand that “molestation” is a word of art and means different things to different people. What one person calls “molestation” is a positive attribute to others.

This entire subject of pedophilia is a serious one that must be debated by the citizens. Your client has chosen to enter this arena and cannot be surprised if someone else disagrees with them.  They cannot silence discussion in this area.

We will continue to encourage debate about this important area. We would hope that your client would finally participate in an intelligent discussion about the issue.

Congratulations to Your Webmaster

I send my congratulations to your webmaster in that your email arrived with the urgency expected from such an august firm. It was enough to startle anyone out of the humdrum.

It had the red flag, “The message is of high priority.” The message in large letters was: “URGENT LEGAL DEMAND.” 

Your actual letter arrived as a separate attachment because it had been scanned into the computer. It arrived on your letterhead, looking very official. Although the email was sent at 2:32 p.m., I was instructed to reply to you by 5 p.m. or face the consequences.

For the uninitiated, it would certainly strike terror in anyone’s heart. Your webmaster should be given a raise.

You might tell him, however, that the biographical listings of the lawyers on your website would not open. I had to go to Martindale and Hubbell to discover that you were magna cum laude at Harvard Law School. Congratulations.

It’s very troubling to learn that you categorize your employees at Hill & Barlow by their sexual activity. Doesn’t that violation of their privacy concern you? How can you possibly ask all of your employees about their sex life? How can you not be concerned about such an invasion of their personal life?

However, it’s comforting to learn that 8% of your associates are openly gay but disturbing that only 2% of the partners are. You should do better on getting more gay partners or the Massachusetts Discrimination Commission will be questioning you. You are not meeting your quota in that regard. But you know that. You also know that you are probably the firm with the highest percentage and the highest number of gay lawyers in Boston. That should help if any complaints are ever filed against you.

Please respond with suggestions on getting this discussion into a serious one about the issues.

Sincerely, J. Edward Pawlick, Attorney at Law