|
I keep seeing at least three consistent ideas being carried forward in this thread, and sadly I've not really participated on all sides:
1) Retailer discretion and market-based censorship is not really a legal issue. For better or worse, Amazon caved to consumer pressure, and that's perfectly legit in the American marketplace (relevance is primary).
2) Pedophilia is evil and a book that condones, endorses, or advocates pedophilia is likewise evil and should not exist. Usually attempts some kind of emotional appeal, and condemns Category 3's position as detestable as well (personal judgment is primary).
3) Legal censorship that people under category 2 directly or indirectly advocate are wrong and the suppression of even reprehensible content in such a way is also wrong (reaction is primary)
Category 1 then tries to reiterate to Category 3 that it's not a legal issue at all, while Category 3 focuses on Category 2, hoping that Category 2 will not recruit more Category 2s from the periphery.
There are also people suggesting exclusivity of the topic to those with personal experience, and then using their personal experience (genuine or fabricated) to vindicate their rejection of other opinions. Then, there are those who claim to be reasonable by saying they support freedom of speech, then append it with but..., which is essentially not supporting freedom of speech.
Hope this is helpful for those Category 1s who keep pulling their hair every time a Cat2 or Cat3 post comes up, despite your best efforts.
|