The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Amazon Screws Up. Allows, Then Takes Down Book on Man/Boy Love
Mim
dead.Registered User regular
dead.Registered User regular
So this is my second thread in D&D and I think it'll garner a lot of interesting discussion.
Recently, Amazon.com sold a book called "The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure" written by a Pedophile who's reasoning for the book was:
“This is my attempt to make pedophile situations safer for those juveniles that find themselves involved in them, by establishing certian rules for these adults to follow. I hope to achieve this by appealing to the better nature of pedosexuals, with hope that their doing so will result in less hatred and perhaps liter sentences should they ever be caught.”
Now, without reading the description of the book, I thought it might have been about a pedophile telling other pedophiles how to not hurt children and maybe deal with their problems in a more constructive manner (therapy, what have you). However, I read this page from the book and I quickly changed my opinion:
THIS IS SPOILED FOR NSFW CONTENT. NO IMAGES.
Some claim this page is taken out of context, but even if this book was about how pedophiles should not harm children, I can't imagine an author back peddling super hard from suggesting the type of condom alternative a child under the age of 13 can use back to "but don't harm children!"
So what's your take D&D do you think people simply overreacted and this book should still be sold through Amazon or other book retailers because it's protected under the first amendment? Or do you think Amazon did the right thing in listening to their customers and that this book nor are pedophiles protected under the law in any fashion?
Frankly, I think Amazon was right to listen to their buyers. This book, to me, seemed instructional and a handbook to cause more harm than good. DeShadowC says a family member of his read the book and that it wasn't instructional, her article can be read here.
Recently, Amazon.com sold a book called "The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure" written by a Pedophile who's reasoning for the book was:
“This is my attempt to make pedophile situations safer for those juveniles that find themselves involved in them, by establishing certian rules for these adults to follow. I hope to achieve this by appealing to the better nature of pedosexuals, with hope that their doing so will result in less hatred and perhaps liter sentences should they ever be caught.”
Now, without reading the description of the book, I thought it might have been about a pedophile telling other pedophiles how to not hurt children and maybe deal with their problems in a more constructive manner (therapy, what have you). However, I read this page from the book and I quickly changed my opinion:
THIS IS SPOILED FOR NSFW CONTENT. NO IMAGES.
“When precautions are needed, however, standard condoms go a long way.
Unfortunately, they are too big to fit boys younger than thirteen. Luckily, there is a product that is identical to the adult condom, in almost every way, which will do the trick.
Latex, finger coits, intended to protect finger cuts from becoming infected, can provide the same level of protection as the adult latex sheath. They come in three sizes, small, medium and large, one of which is sure to fit any child under thirteen.
Pinup pictures of fully clothes juveniles in your bedroom (the cops may arrest you if any of these pictures show underage children nude), and use them as masturbation material. Also, include (in your fantasies, not on your walls) any children you have actually been with, in the past.”
Unfortunately, they are too big to fit boys younger than thirteen. Luckily, there is a product that is identical to the adult condom, in almost every way, which will do the trick.
Latex, finger coits, intended to protect finger cuts from becoming infected, can provide the same level of protection as the adult latex sheath. They come in three sizes, small, medium and large, one of which is sure to fit any child under thirteen.
Pinup pictures of fully clothes juveniles in your bedroom (the cops may arrest you if any of these pictures show underage children nude), and use them as masturbation material. Also, include (in your fantasies, not on your walls) any children you have actually been with, in the past.”
Some claim this page is taken out of context, but even if this book was about how pedophiles should not harm children, I can't imagine an author back peddling super hard from suggesting the type of condom alternative a child under the age of 13 can use back to "but don't harm children!"
So what's your take D&D do you think people simply overreacted and this book should still be sold through Amazon or other book retailers because it's protected under the first amendment? Or do you think Amazon did the right thing in listening to their customers and that this book nor are pedophiles protected under the law in any fashion?
Frankly, I think Amazon was right to listen to their buyers. This book, to me, seemed instructional and a handbook to cause more harm than good. DeShadowC says a family member of his read the book and that it wasn't instructional, her article can be read here.
BlueSky: thequeenofchaos Steam: mimspanks (add me then tell me who you are! Ask for my IG)
Mim on
0
Posts
Good on Amazon for taking it down.
But see, then I'm still wondering how he back peddled from "Suitable condom alternative!" to what you posted in the spoiler. It seems odd, damned odd, if he were to give advice on what to use to prevent STDs from spreading but then tell pedophiles what you posted.
I'm not a person who seeks to ban people's form of expression. I'm still quite iffy on cartoons/stories that depict pedophile acts as a form of release to prevent the real crime from happening, but I sway more in letting them do that than them acting out on a child.
But this book seems really different.
Well, wait, why is the Anarchist Cookbook still up for sale on Amazon.com?
http://www.amazon.com/Anarchist-Cookbook-William-Powell/dp/0974458902/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1289518183&sr=8-1
I've never read it but that book contains information on how to make bombs and be a vandal and such - criminal activities, right?
I read it many times as a teenager and yes it describes in detail how to break multiple laws but passes the same Brandenburg test that the OPs book passes making it legal to publish and sell.
I think they track people who buy that book. Someone with that book may not be more likely to perform an illegal act, where instead with the pedophile book someone with that book giving them tips on how to actually get away with the act is more likely to do it.
That seems kind of weak, but that's a possible explanation.
I think the subject of the book is digusting and in my mind it isn't a book that should have been made in the first place, that said I am not comfortable making a moral judgement that the book shouldn't be sold, because basing such things on morals is a crappy basis for it.
That said it's Amazon's choice, if the book isn't illegal then they are free to sell it or not sell it as they see fit.
Basically I am not going to get angry at Amazon no matter what their position on it is.
So amazon didn't feel bound by the response of some 1st-tier CSR. Outrageous.
The Anarchist Cookbook very much in detail describes how to break many laws and get away with it.
Edit
@Senjutsu that's an obvious copy and paste answer they give to any inquiry about removing a book. So we have their own policy they later decided to ignore due to pressure from people who think we should censor literature they don't agree with.
That book is so horribly outdated. I am relatively certain if a modern and updated version of such exploits was released it wouldn't be allowed on shelves.
Fact is when things like this come about it makes it that much easier to know the tactics utilized in illegal activities.
and if a company decided that they did not want to sell it, that is 100% their prerogative and has fuck all to do with censorship, or appeasing members of the tea party.
But because of how well-known this book became due to Internet sites reporting on it, it made it to the top 100 selling books, though. It was listed as 80th around the time they pulled it. Probably all from morbid curiosity to see if it really was what the title said it was.
In the end, the book probably would've had its 15 minutes of fame, then largely be forgotten if it wasn't pulled.
Except Amazon itself calls it these things.
A how to murder book isn't too far outside the norm?
http://www.amazon.com/Happiness-Jane-Adams-II/dp/B00000IC7G/ref=sr_1_1?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1289519357&sr=1-1
Maybe because that is fiction (like Lolita) while this one seems more instructional?
Not if they don't feel that selling it is materially detrimental to their brand.
Besides, if you're talking about the anarchist's cook-book, banning it would probably create a backlash as a significant portion of americans believes it's their right to violently overthrow the government and that such speech is valuable and ought to be widely disseminated.
Whereas almost nobody gives a shit about Pedo-Pete's guide to fucking children
Not to defend the book or anything but even as someone who doesn't want pedophiles to have sex with kids by God do I want them to practice safe sex if they do. Kid's going to be screwed up enough as it is.
That's another thing - has anyone read this book? I've only seen two excerpts from it and I'm very sure I'm not getting an unbiased synopsis from them. Lack of information getting mixed with misinformation and BAM! we've got conservatives whining about needle exchange programs provided by the city and Amazon.com users who want to banish a book they haven't read past the title.
"You're just encouraging their illegal behavior!"
a) Society has a right to regulate their own media.
b) A business has a right to sell or not sell whatever material they wish to sell or not sell. I don't necessarily consider that "censorship."
If Amazon's decision somehow actively banned the book from dissemination, then I would be against them and their decision. But "Amazon" is not the arbiter of what media society can and cannot have, especially not in this modern age when it is both easy and of negligible cost to self-publish.
Neither society nor Amazon have to let any particular individual profit from their words. But there is nothing stopping this guy from speaking. I don't think censorship has any economic stipulation. The guy isn't being preventing from spreading his "message" or whatever.
DeShadowC's family member seems to have read it and gave her opinion on it. I posted a link to that article in the OP.
I think the controversy is not that Amazon decided not to sell the book, but that they first defended the book by saying they don't believe in censorship, and then quietly reversed their stance.
"I strongly believe you’re wrong, in part because I’m a first amendment scholar and spend my life thinking about this, and in part because you’re ignoring the massive power of commu...nity norms. I’ll try to keep this brief, since comments are hardly the place for nuanced argument, but you need to consider the following:
Local, independent bookstores rely on the patronage of locals to stay in business. This means they must stock books that locals approve of and will buy. This means that in the bible belt, you’re not likely to have LBGTQ books stocked in the local bookstores, even though you’re likely to have LBGTQ youth (and newly identified adults) who would very much benefit from access to such books. Where, then, should such people get access to these books? Amazon is a natural answer to that question– and the reviews and matching algorithms help these people separate the wheat from the chaff when deciding which book is right (and keep them from, by mistake, getting an “ex-gay” book or some such). So, large, non-local bookstores are highly beneficial for the dissemination of information that many communities deem offensive (and therefore no “diverse, local, independent” bookstore will stock such materials. This is my defense of large, non-local sources of a huge variety of information.
Now, I haven’t read any self-published books about child rape (which I haven’t read, and I’m guessing you haven’t either) available on Amazon for download, so I don’t know how it fails (or passes) the Miller test or other possible standards that could legally be applied to it—I don’t know if they book is protected by the first amendment as interpreted by SCOTUS – and neither do you. If it’s obscene under that test, by all means Amazon should stop selling it.
However, if it is legal, I believe that Amazon has nearly a duty to sell it (if they are going to be in that business to the extent they are) if they take corporate citizenship in America seriously. Amazon is the behomeath in the industry, with massive first mover advantage and market power, in some portions of its business, I venture to guess it has substantial market power. Companies with substantial market power should bear certain responsibilities, especially when that market power has the ability to silence unpopular opinion. A business can– and sometimes should– legitimately be concerned with “censorship” because this market power gives it quasi-governmental responsibility."
I'm editing back in the part you snipped out.
I don't think their original response is relevant. They are against censorship, great, I'm extremely happy to hear that.
But I don't think they engaged in "censorship" here. "Censorship," to me, is completely blocking someone from disseminating their work. Censorship does not mean that every retailer has to sell any given book or that everyone is entitled to profit from the things they create. So I find their original statement "we believe selling/not selling a book is akin to censorship" to be a bit retarded. Am I engaging in censorship if I refused to carry this book in my home, or refuse to recommend it to people?
I also think a company has a right to change their mind, especially when their original response is nothing more than a reflex.
And this is far, far beyond stupid.
While I agree with the spirit of the last paragraph, I think it is misguided. I think our current society is at the point where Amazon, while admittedly a behemoth, is irrelevant when the concept of censorship is concerned. The internet being what it is makes the act of publication almost trivial. The only thing Amazon does is provide a vending machine and de facto advertisement for authors and would-be consumers of literature. They don't actually matter insofar as the publication of said material is concerned.
And so, they have no "duty" or "near duty" in choosing to sell or not sell this particular book. Can the author be as successful in disseminating his book without the aid of Amazon? Probably not. But is his voice significantly stifled as a result of this decision? Not in my opinion.
That...actually...god I actually agree with that. As icky as that makes me feel. And while I guess worse comes to worse that is vital information to have, I still wouldn't want it in an instructional guide, I guess?
Now I feel all sorts of conflicted. I'm still opposed to the book and that page plus the author's intention behind selling the book solidifies that. But what you brought up actually made my head kind of hurt.
Pretty much.
I had a lot of respect for their initial response.
I have less respect for them now that they've taken the book down. It's their right, but they lost points in my eyes.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
What are you referring to in particular?
I am saying that in our current context, Amazon is not relevant in a discussion about censorship. Their decisions don't stifle dissemination in any meaningful way.
Amazon made a decision to defend the free speech of the book, and then when they received what I'm assuming is a great deal of backlash from the community, decided it was in their best interest to remove it.
The amount of people who would boycott Amazon due to this versus the amount that would choose to boycott because of them carrying it is probably a very different number.
Amazon made a business decision as a business and I can't really fault them for it.