As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Amazon Screws Up. Allows, Then Takes Down Book on Man/Boy Love

MimMim I prefer my lovers…dead.Registered User regular
edited December 2010 in Debate and/or Discourse
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.
“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.”

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.

Mim on
«13

Posts

  • Dread Pirate ArbuthnotDread Pirate Arbuthnot OMG WRIGGLY T O X O P L A S M O S I SRegistered User regular
    edited November 2010
    This was basically a guide for rapists, on the subject of rape.

    Good on Amazon for taking it down.

    Dread Pirate Arbuthnot on
  • DeShadowCDeShadowC Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Here's a page from the book since we're randomly tossing them in.
    The best advice I can give pedosexual-pedophiles is this: recognize that masturbation is your best friend and avoid becoming sexually involved with actual minors of any age.

    DeShadowC on
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Taking the book off their virtual shelves must have been a symbolic gesture. The end result would have been the same with no one buying such a book if they left it up for sale.

    emnmnme on
  • MimMim I prefer my lovers… dead.Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Here's a page from the book since we're randomly tossing them in.
    The best advice I can give pedosexual-pedophiles is this: recognize that masturbation is your best friend and avoid becoming sexually involved with actual minors of any age.

    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.

    Mim on
  • DeShadowCDeShadowC Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Oh and for those who say it wasn't Amazon back peddling. Here was what Amazon initially had to say about removing the book.

    DeShadowC on
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Oh and for those who say it wasn't Amazon back peddling. Here was what Amazon initially had to say about removing the book.

    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?

    emnmnme on
  • DasUberEdwardDasUberEdward Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    I'm not going to say that it's a screw up. But generally we do prevent things that contain harmful material from being freely available for purchase.

    DasUberEdward on
    steam_sig.png
  • DeShadowCDeShadowC Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Oh and for those who say it wasn't Amazon back peddling. Here was what Amazon initially had to say about removing the book.

    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.

    DeShadowC on
  • MimMim I prefer my lovers… dead.Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Oh and for those who say it wasn't Amazon back peddling. Here was what Amazon initially had to say about removing the book.

    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 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.

    Mim on
  • NATIKNATIK DenmarkRegistered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Personally I am ambivalent on it. I don't think we should ban books just for being about criminal activities, at least not as long as it doesn't encourage illegal activities.

    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.

    NATIK on
    steam_sig.png
  • SenjutsuSenjutsu thot enthusiast Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Oh and for those who say it wasn't Amazon back peddling. Here was what Amazon initially had to say about removing the book.

    So amazon didn't feel bound by the response of some 1st-tier CSR. Outrageous.

    Senjutsu on
  • DeShadowCDeShadowC Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Mim wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Oh and for those who say it wasn't Amazon back peddling. Here was what Amazon initially had to say about removing the book.

    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 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.

    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.

    DeShadowC on
  • DasUberEdwardDasUberEdward Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Mim wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Oh and for those who say it wasn't Amazon back peddling. Here was what Amazon initially had to say about removing the book.

    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 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.

    The Anarchist Cookbook very much in detail describes how to break many laws and get away with it.

    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.

    DasUberEdward on
    steam_sig.png
  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    edited November 2010
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Mim wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Oh and for those who say it wasn't Amazon back peddling. Here was what Amazon initially had to say about removing the book.

    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 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.

    The Anarchist Cookbook very much in detail describes how to break many laws and get away with it.

    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.

    Deebaser on
  • SenjutsuSenjutsu thot enthusiast Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Or their standard response to "Why do you sell X" wasn't felt to apply to a book so far outside the norm that they felt that continuing to sell it was significantly detrimental to their brand.

    Senjutsu on
  • CokebotleCokebotle 穴掘りの 電車内Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Taking the book off their virtual shelves must have been a symbolic gesture. The end result would have been the same with no one buying such a book if they left it up for sale.

    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.

    Cokebotle on
    工事中
  • oldsakoldsak Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    It's not as if this book gave child predators any more information than the internet does.

    oldsak on
  • DeShadowCDeShadowC Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Deebaser wrote: »
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Mim wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Oh and for those who say it wasn't Amazon back peddling. Here was what Amazon initially had to say about removing the book.

    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 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.

    The Anarchist Cookbook very much in detail describes how to break many laws and get away with it.

    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.

    Except Amazon itself calls it these things.

    DeShadowC on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    Or their standard response to "Why do you sell X" wasn't felt to apply to a book so far outside the norm that they felt that continuing to sell it was significantly detrimental to their brand.

    A how to murder book isn't too far outside the norm?

    Couscous on
  • WinkyWinky rRegistered User regular
    edited November 2010
    On the one hand, I am never for censorship. On the other hand, amazon, as a retailer, has the right to refuse to carry any material they don't want to.

    Winky on
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Amazon is also still selling this movie, which has one of the characters, a pedophile man, finding temporary happiness in a mutual sexual relationship with a twelve year old boy.

    http://www.amazon.com/Happiness-Jane-Adams-II/dp/B00000IC7G/ref=sr_1_1?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1289519357&sr=1-1

    emnmnme on
  • WinkyWinky rRegistered User regular
    edited November 2010
    That's besides the point em, the only reason this book is a problem is because it became popular.

    Winky on
  • MimMim I prefer my lovers… dead.Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Winky wrote: »
    That's besides the point em, the only reason this book is a problem is because it became popular.

    Maybe because that is fiction (like Lolita) while this one seems more instructional?

    Mim on
  • SenjutsuSenjutsu thot enthusiast Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    Or their standard response to "Why do you sell X" wasn't felt to apply to a book so far outside the norm that they felt that continuing to sell it was significantly detrimental to their brand.

    A how to murder book isn't too far outside the norm?

    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

    Senjutsu on
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Mim wrote: »
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Here's a page from the book since we're randomly tossing them in.
    The best advice I can give pedosexual-pedophiles is this: recognize that masturbation is your best friend and avoid becoming sexually involved with actual minors of any age.

    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.

    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.

    Quid on
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Mim wrote: »
    Winky wrote: »
    That's besides the point em, the only reason this book is a problem is because it became popular.

    Maybe because that is fiction (like Lolita) while this one seems more instructional?

    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!"

    emnmnme on
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    I'm as anti-censorship as you can get, but I also believe:

    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.

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • MimMim I prefer my lovers… dead.Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Mim wrote: »
    Winky wrote: »
    That's besides the point em, the only reason this book is a problem is because it became popular.

    Maybe because that is fiction (like Lolita) while this one seems more instructional?

    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!"

    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.

    Mim on
  • oldsakoldsak Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Drez wrote: »
    I'm as anti-censorship as you can get, but I also believe:

    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."

    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.

    oldsak on
  • DeShadowCDeShadowC Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Here's a post from another blog entry that I agree with. Seriously my FB wall is exploding considering most of my family was pro boycott and my cousin, who is also a mother, wrote the blog in the OP.

    "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."

    DeShadowC on
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    oldsak wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    I'm as anti-censorship as you can get, but I also believe:

    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.

    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'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.

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • ElldrenElldren Is a woman dammit ceterum censeoRegistered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Winky wrote: »
    On the one hand, I am never for censorship. On the other hand, amazon, as a retailer, has the right to refuse to carry any material they don't want to.

    Elldren on
    fuck gendered marketing
  • JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Wow. This author's about the be on the ass end of a kicking from someone. I'm conflicted about how I feel about that. On the one hand? Ass deserves kicking and no official censorship took place. Freedom of speech doesn't protect you from bearing the consequences of saying stupid things, after all.

    And this is far, far beyond stupid.

    JihadJesus on
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Here's a post from another blog entry that I agree with. Seriously my FB wall is exploding considering most of my family was pro boycott and my cousin, who is also a mother, wrote the blog in the OP.

    "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."

    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.

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Drez wrote: »
    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.
    So the Black List and the actions enforcing it by individual members weren't censorship?

    DevoutlyApathetic on
    Nod. Get treat. PSN: Quippish
  • MimMim I prefer my lovers… dead.Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    Mim wrote: »
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Here's a page from the book since we're randomly tossing them in.
    The best advice I can give pedosexual-pedophiles is this: recognize that masturbation is your best friend and avoid becoming sexually involved with actual minors of any age.

    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.

    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...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.

    Mim on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Winky wrote: »
    On the one hand, I am never for censorship. On the other hand, amazon, as a retailer, has the right to refuse to carry any material they don't want to.

    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.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Drez wrote: »
    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.
    So the Black List and the actions enforcing it by individual members weren't censorship?

    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.

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • stevemarks44stevemarks44 Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Amazon has a duty to their customers before they have a duty to be some beacon of free speech.

    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.

    stevemarks44 on
  • SenjutsuSenjutsu thot enthusiast Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    I think that if you are looking to businesses to be "good citizens" or make good moral choices, you are bound to be disappointed.

    Senjutsu on
Sign In or Register to comment.