Censorship or Business?

[wvcherrybomb]

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

you decide you don't want someone telling you what you can read, then you have to tolerate the pedophile book being for sale.

I don't mean to be picking apart your posts but this isn't really the case. Amazon is not/cannot tell people what they can read. They can only decide what they will or will not sell. That's their decision, just like what you read is your decision.

These ebooks are available elsewhere, right? And if not, why is only Amazon being called out for it?

I personally do believe that there IS such thing as a little censorship. There is a clear cut line that can, and should, be drawn. Anything that endorses the abusing of children is wrong. Anything that involves consenting adults is acceptable. Easy peasy.

Disclaimer: Personal opinion only. Yours may differ.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by wvcherrybomb

I don't mean to be picking apart your posts but this isn't really the case. Amazon is not/cannot tell people what they can read. They can only decide what they will or will not sell. That's their decision, just like what you read is your decision.

These ebooks are available elsewhere, right? And if not, why is only Amazon being called out for it?

I personally do believe that there IS such thing as a little censorship. There is a clear cut line that can, and should, be drawn. Anything that endorses the abusing of children is wrong. Anything that involves consenting adults is acceptable. Easy peasy.

Disclaimer: Personal opinion only. Yours may differ.

For you, it's easy peasy. That's why I think the decision belongs to me and you and anyone else who chooses to read and decides what they want to read. I believe a seller has a right to sell, or not sell, whatever he wants, too.

I do not think the government or a group of fanatics can tell me what I can read or someone else what they can sell.

I might have read the pedophile book because I spent thirty years arresting people and never did come close to figuring out the pedophiles. I'm still curious.

[wvcherrybomb]

Originally Posted by patrickt

I might have read the pedophile book because I spent thirty years arresting people and never did come close to figuring out the pedophiles. I'm still curious.

This perspecitve actually never dawned on me. It may very well be good insight into the mind of a sicko and therefore be of some benefit.

Although I'm sure there is plenty written on the subject by psychologists and such, there is nothing like hearing it straight from a deranged mind.

Even so, I still think this particular type of book has crossed the line and I'm happy to see retailers refusing to sell it.

[lene1949]

Originally Posted by wvcherrybomb

This perspecitve actually never dawned on me. It may very well be good insight into the mind of a sicko and therefore be of some benefit.

Although I'm sure there is plenty written on the subject by psychologists and such, there is nothing like hearing it straight from a deranged mind.

Even so, I still think this particular type of book has crossed the line and I'm happy to see retailers refusing to sell it.

I don't think Amazon 'refused to sell it', I think they were forced to take it down due to complaints from their customers.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

Yes, I chose it because it presents the choice clearly - censorship or 1st amendment. Of course Amazon can do what it wants for its business, and it isn't the government, so there is no 1st amendment argument. I just wondered, if given the choice between censorship or 1st amendment, which would you choose? It is like the parents who object to violence or sex on television - do you want someone acting as Big Brother, and saving you from this, or do you want to make the choice yourself? The Pedophile book is good, because if you decide you don't want someone telling you what you can read, then you have to tolerate the pedophile book being for sale.

Is that last sentence strictly true? Even in the US there are legal limitations effecting freedom of speech. Not being a legal expert myself I resorted to Wikipedia for this quote: "In the United States freedom of expression is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. There are several exceptions to this general rule, including copyright protection, the Miller test for obscenity and greater regulation of so-called commercial speech, such as advertising. The Miller test in particular rarely comes into effect." Whether the Pedophile book would be able to get hit with the Miller test I have no idea, but it seems like one possible option for removal on legal grounds ... or, given some of the more recent law changes in the USA and other jurisdictions, maybe it could be removed as being a treatise on terrorism.

I'm guessing the legal area is a minefield, so thankfully business is within it's rights to find some middle ground that meets with it's preferred customer base. It's a business decision. (Here I'm getting the image of Mr (Kirk) Milhouse being fired from the cracker factory on The Simpsons: "Kirk, crackers are a family food, happy families. Maybe single people eat crackers, we don't know. Frankly, we don't want to know. It's a market we can do without.") My only problem is that you didn't give me a simply "It's a business decision" option. I don't particularly want to say "good for them", nor to make a value judgment on a book I have never seen, I simply wanted to acknowledge that I support their right to make that decision.

ETA: To be clearer: I believe it's a business decision, I don't believe the term censorship applies to this situation.

[screwballl]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

You need a category for "It is not censorship, it is Amazon's private business and they can sell what they want."

That is the main poll question that is missing... and it would help to remove the predefined opinions too.

[Hellmark]

While I recognize Amazon's right to stop selling what ever they want, I think it is more sloppy practices on their part. I mean, if they obviously had a problem about that, why wasn't it rejected right off the bat? Shouldn't someone have been like "Hey, that's probably not something we want to sell." and blocked it before sale? Do they not have anything in place for allowing that, all books submitted are automatically for sale until they decide otherwise? If the latter is the case, then they are asking for incidents like this to happen.

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

While I recognize Amazon's right to stop selling what ever they want, I think it is more sloppy practices on their part. I mean, if they obviously had a problem about that, why wasn't it rejected right off the bat? Shouldn't someone have been like "Hey, that's probably not something we want to sell." and blocked it before sale? Do they not have anything in place for allowing that, all books submitted are automatically for sale until they decide otherwise? If the latter is the case, then they are asking for incidents like this to happen.

It's already been stated in one of the other threads that their policy is to "publish everything, ask questions later", with only minimal filtering at the start. I can see why it's more efficient on the front end but it makes them reactive rather than proactive, which leads to messes like this.

I think it's not the decision itself that bothers me, it's the reactive approach they are taking. I just like to know what I'm dealing with, in the sense that I know that Walmart has a line it has drawn, and I know what they won't carry. The same is true for Christian retailers, and so on. Amazon's statement has been that they want to sell every book ever written, but the list of unspoken exceptions is getting quite a bit of attention. All of this doesn't make me think they are "evil" or make me hate them as a company or anything, I'm just wary of the inconsistencies. That's why I chose "buying fewer books" in the poll - I'm making a bigger effort to see what is available elsewhere so I really am buying fewer books from Amazon.

[CleverClothe]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

You need a category for "It is not censorship, it is Amazon's private business and they can sell what they want."

Yes, I think we do need an answer available for people who still refuse to accept reality. It could be very educational.

[Sydney's Mom]

I think this is very interesting. We seem to be evenly devided between "no censorship", "reasonable censorship", and "I am sick of discussing it".

All the commentators who questioned censorship and 1st amendment references - you are correct. Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre is not protected speech, but a Nazi group marching in a community filled with Holocost survivors was. And Amazon cannot be guilty of censorship - only the government can do that. Amazon is merely making a business decision to appease the majority of its customers.

I'm sorry my poll questions were so inartfully drafted. I was trying to get away from the whole discussion of whether Amazon could do what it wants (of course it can) to how people thought about the extremes. Lawyers are trained to go down that slippery slope, and so I see the question as censorship/business vs. 1st amendment/no to big brother. I think the thousands! of posts on Amazon censorship and Amazon defends pedophile book are interesting. In the beginning, I was all for pulling the pedophile book. But taking that to its logical extreme, that might mean Amazon pulled a book I was interested in due to complaints (after all, who could defend The Greek Billionaire's Reluctant Mistress?) Those Nazis marching in Skokie made me ill, but I understood why they had to be allowed to do it. I understand why we have to allow Birthers to distract us from the important economic issues facing this country.

But, in case you can't tell, I am a knee-jerk liberal and a member of the ACLU. I grew up in a very conservative household (I remember getting in a huge argument with my aunt when I was 12, when I told her if I fell in love with a black man, I would marry him. I was too old to spank, but I was punished for disagreeing.) NOT THAT ALL CONSERVATIVES ARE RACIST.

Not that the law is always right, either - may I offer up Bush v. Gore, and the recent USSCt case overturning the City of Chicago ban on handguns.

I'm sorry, this has turned into a liberal rant. I respect the fact that there are just as many conservatives on this board (at least when it comes to the 1st Amendment). I am currently reading Going Rogue, trying to understand all viewpoints.

Thank you to all that participated.

[kindlekitten]

here's a wrench in Freedom's gears. while it pains me to watch protesters burn the flag and so on, I dearly wish the westboro IDIOTS could be shut down . they want to protest at the little girl's funeral in Arizona ;o(

[Sydney's Mom]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

here's a wrench in Freedom's gears. while it pains me to watch protesters burn the flag and so on, I dearly wish the westboro IDIOTS could be shut down . they want to protest at the little girl's funeral in Arizona ;o(

Absolutely. But I thought they were keeping them pretty far away. That is the new trick - have to ensure safety for the protestors, so we have them so far away, no one sees it. It is easier to protect them that way.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

Absolutely. But I thought they were keeping them pretty far away. That is the new trick - have to ensure safety for the protestors, so we have them so far away, no one sees it. It is easier to protect them that way.

yes, but it is still heartbreaking and disgusting

[Belle2Be]

Originally Posted by patrickt

For you, it's easy peasy. That's why I think the decision belongs to me and you and anyone else who chooses to read and decides what they want to read. I believe a seller has a right to sell, or not sell, whatever he wants, too.

I do not think the government or a group of fanatics can tell me what I can read or someone else what they can sell.

I might have read the pedophile book because I spent thirty years arresting people and never did come close to figuring out the pedophiles. I'm still curious.

I thought about it for similar reasons, as a mother of 2 little girls it would be nice to know "what to look out for", if that makes sense.

OP, I chose "could care less", however that is stated wrong, it should be "I couldn't care less"

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

Absolutely. But I thought they were keeping them pretty far away. That is the new trick - have to ensure safety for the protestors, so we have them so far away, no one sees it. It is easier to protect them that way.

There's so much sad irony in all of this. The people who support Westboro will happily cry "1st Amendment" all day long, but they would be the last people to support an artist being suppressed. (I'm not talking about the people who defend their rights, I'm talking about those who agree with their sick message. Two different things.)

As much as a I dislike Westboro and the vile things they say, the tactic you describe is not much different than telling an author he can write and release any book he pleases, he just can't sell it here, here, or there or anywhere else people might see it. I'm not referring specifically to either of the current debates going on with Pedobook or Kyle's novels, but I can see it potentially ending up that way.

I have a friend who wants Westboro to be "disappeared". She thinks their web site should shut down, their protests to be shut down, everything. She told me that people filled with hate shouldn't be seen or heard. I pointed out that just the previous day, she posted a comment on a web site filled with her passionate dislike of a prominent politician. She claimed it's different. I said it's not. When I wouldn't agree with her, she deleted the entire conversation from Facebook. Naturally, the irony was lost on her.

Fortunately, especially in cases like Westboro, the 1st Amendment provides a built-in recourse. Where they are allowed to spew hate, we're allowed to show up and drown them out. For every awful but legal act they perform, we're allowed to do the same. But we're not allowed to just shut them up, nor should we be.

It sucks, but the 1st Amendment doesn't play favorites - only people do that. I despise Westboro. They make me sick. I have a feeling that there will come a point when the brains of their operation can no longer control their intent, and they will screw up in a way that's illegal. At least, that's my hope.