Amazon recently came under scrutiny for selling The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure. Amazon’s initial response was to continue selling it.
(This settlement is somewhat odd considering that Amazon refuses to sell graphic pornography.)
Amazon later pulled the book, and they are now getting calls to pull more books.
Now, there are no first amendment issues here, but should we be concerned that the largest book retailer is starting to self-censor books from their catalog based on content?
I think Amazon should continue to sell everything that is not illegal. I don’t think Amazon should self-censor anything, even if it is extremely offensive. I do, however, recognize that Amazon has to consider its bottom line.
An argument could be made that selling this book poses a danger that people will read the book and harm a child. But don’t other books pose even greater dangers? Think of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism). This book puts out false information about global warming that makes action against climate change more difficult. Should Amazon self-censorThe Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism)?
What are your thoughts on Amazon’s self-censorship?
It calls to mind a comment once made by Walt Kelly when one of his political, satirical comic strips was censored by a newspaper. “Quivering with courage,” he said, the editor yanked the strip. I always liked that phrase.
I’d say it’s certainly a valid concern but at this point I’m not too worried. If I were a retailer I wouldn’t allow that book to be sold by my organization because I wouldn’t want to profit off of someone I find so morally repugnant. There’s nothing wrong with self-censorship.
Is this a serious book or some kind of odd social experiment or attempt at very black humor (a la the pedophile episode of Chris Morris’s Brass Eye)? I’m having difficulty finding out anything about the book other than this news story.
Well, yes, I did that. I’m not getting anything useful about the actual content of the book, though–just the title, and that a bunch of people are pissed off about it, which is what I meant by “I’m having difficulty finding out anything about the book other than this news story.”
I witnessed this on Twitter, including several by people who were, a few weeks ago, celebrating “banned books week.” Heh. And I noted that they did the author a huge favor by taking a book he admits had only sold ONE copy before the storm. One story judged by the sales ranks that it then sold 100,000 copies before it was pulled. Wow. If anyone wants to start a boycott of one of my books, go right ahead!
I can see both sides. About the only thing I can say for sure is that if nobody knows or cares about something, it’s pretty dumb to make a big stink about it. Also, if Amazon was going to pull the title they should have done so without the self-righteous press release saying they wouldn’t. I’ve come to think that Amazon just doesn’t care what the public thinks. They’ve had so many public relations disasters in the past year and it just doesn’t matter.
I think once we wander into self-censorship, we have to consider these books, all of which actually exist (or did):
[ul][li]A book entitled “Steal this Book”[/li][li]A book (or article) about how to make nuclear bombs[/li][li]Books about lockpicking[/li][li]Books about how to cheat at cards or making change (“change-raising”)[/li][li]Books about sexual practices that were once illegal, but now aren’t[/li][li]Books about how to disappear and not be found by anyone[/li][li]Books about how to find anyone[/li][li]Books about sexual practices that are bizarre (to you), but may not be illegal[/ul][/li]
Please note that examples of most of these exist in my collection and were obtained legally. Also note that they make up an extremely small part of my library, so it’s not like I specialize in banned books and shit.
From what I’ve seen, the book is straight-up what it says to be. The author isn’t some PR genius. He’s unemployed and suffers from chronic depression (gee, I wonder why?)
I’m assuming it isn’t some masterpiece of Swiftian satire either.
If I own a business, I’ll sell or not sell what I damn well please. It’s a business decision. I don’t owe anybody space on my shelves unless I freely contract with them. And I ain’t gonna freely contract with kiddy diddlers. Or biographers of General William Tecumseh Sherman May-He-Rot-in-Hell. Or purveyors of Notre Dame jerseys. Or any-damn-body else that pisses me off.
Yeah, but are going to get all butthurt and indignant if someone else decides to sell it, and demand that they remove it?
This is not a First Amendment issue. Amazon can sell or not sell whatever it wants. I am more bothered by the fact that it emboldens douchebags to try to bully companies out of selling stuff that nobody is forcing the offenderati to buy. It’s a kiddy diddler book today, but tomorrow it could be The Anarchist’s Cookbook, Al Qur’an, Descent of Species, The God Delusion. etc.
It is not, nor should it be illegal for douchebag offenderati to do that, but I still think they’re douchebags, and I still think it’s an unfortunate (and unnecessary) drag on not just free expression, but free commerce.
Because you don’t have to buy it or sell it, yet you’re trying to control what other people buy and sell. What do you give a fuck if Amazon sells this book? That’s what I don’t get. Why do people want to interfere with commerce that doesn’t affect them? I thought this was America.
And people are free to show their displeasure with Amazon – boycotts have a long tradition. There are a lot of businesses I won’t patronize because of some of their policies and/or beliefs, whatever. Why should this be any different?
Amazon has a right to sell what it wants. And people also have a right to go elsewhere if they feel that’s wrong, or express their anger at Amazon’s policies. That’s not what I call “bullying.” Amazon could have told them to “go screw”.
I’m certainly trying to control what other people buy and sell but I consider that part of having freedom of expression and free commerce. Of course I’m trying to exert that control via moral suasion rather than force. Free expression and free commerce is a two way street. You can’t just do whatever you want and never expect to face consequences.
No maiden was ever ruined by a book, nor any child diddled. The fact of the book is that it, by its very nature, is harmless. If someone is sufficiently depraved that all the sanctions…moral, social, legal, etc…are only barely holding that perversion in check, I very much doubt that the existence of this book will tip the balance.
I would not like to see the book sold, purchased or read. But I don’t believe that there should be any impediment. We can only prosecute actions, not thoughts.
My own form of shameful depravity is that I am morbidly curious to know how many copies it would sell, if blandly placed on the sales floor at Border’s Books. And I would give almost anything to have a camera hidden at that display, recording people’s faces if they bother to look at this ordinary display of books** WTF! WTF! WTF!**