You tell 'em sister. The best way, as all SDMBers know because we are the smartest people on the internet, to make Amazon aware of your opinion of one of their products is to rush here and shout, “Look at the poopyheads! Look at the poopyheads!”.
The reasoning behind it is that children need to learn that they can’t have everything they want, right when they want it. And that’s true, but NOT when they are newborns.
Whenever I find these books at rummage sales and book fairs, I buy and recycle them. 
ETA: Most of them appear to have never been opened.
I’ve also heard that Gary Ezzo is estranged, probably permanently, from all of his children.
No, it doesn’t. Unless you think Amazon is limiting speech every time it decides not to offer a particular book, film, record, artistic print, or whatever.
Thanks.
I’m not clicking the link because I’m afraid of what it would do to my recommendations from Amazon.
First review off the Amazon site:
Doesn’t Amazon.com sell Mein Kampf, as well?
I am glad to see there are books that are, er, teaching the controversy around child abuse! I have been overwhelmed by undoubtedly biased media reports that child abuse is BAD, and I look forward to opinions to the contrary.
If it takes 8 you’re not hitting hard enough.
No one is owed access to Amazon or Facebook or the Dope or any other media outlet. I co-run a Facebook page for my book. I will not delete anti-vax posts. I have deleted personal threats, vulgar language and attacks on my kids.
FYI, Amazon has a very lenient policy about what books it will allow on the site and what comments it will allow posted on books. I’ve been trying to get a certain Cynthia Parker to stop using my book as her personal blog for every anti-vax conspiracy theory she can dream up. I was told they will not delete her idiotic posts unless it contains an actual threat of some sort. Instead they argue that posts are subject to voting procedures and that determines their worth.
I understand that policy but I do not agree with it. It gives credence to people who do not deserve to be heard. For example, there’s a certain anti-vax moron I have argued with in the past. Said anti-vax nut has self published dreck on Amazon. His collection of lies is given the same credence in a search as my book or a book by Dr. Paul Offit.
I think Amazon needs to rethink their policies in this matter. A book like that of the OP or the one written by an anti-vax moron or Ezzo does not deserve a place on the shelf. Depriving it of such is not censorship. It is merely a reasonable determination that not all people deserve to be heard a place in the public square. We make such determinations all the time. I fail to see why it would be so outrageous should Amazon officials decide to do so as well.
You have the right to own your own printing press. You do NOT have the right to get access to my printing press.
Somewhere there just has to be a sequel, To Train Up a Spouse.
I’m not taking issue with your argument, but that is exactly what censorship is. Governments aren’t the only things that can censor.
Sure, but if an author was allowed to delete whatever they wanted what would stop them from deleting anything uncomplimentary? And if that was the case how would those posts be helpful at all for people deciding to purchase your book? Let the nut crow, I assume your book educates the public, trust in finding people who want to be educated.
A father was standing in line waiting to be checked out while his toddler was yelling and wailing. The man behind them was annoyed and making faces and finally said to the father: “If that was my kid I’d beat the crap out of him”.
The father sighed and said “Yeah, if it was YOUR kid I’d beat the crap out of him too”.
There’s a difference between uncomplimentary and actively dangerous. Someone who dislikes J.K. Rowling merely dislikes J.K. Rowling and poses no threat to the public. Someone who tries to convince people to let a month old baby go without food or vaccines can literally kill that baby.
There’s also a difference between polite criticism and, as someone has done to me, calling my baby girl ugly or implying that my eldest child is vaccine damaged and mentally retarded. Or, as another person did, writing that they want to come over and physically hurt me.
Do books that encourage people to let a two month baby go without food deserve a place on the table? Websites that cheer on anorexia deserve a high google ranking? Sites where blacks are called the n word and Jews are called kikes deserve access to Facebook?
I think we can all understand the nuances involved in this debate and where obvious lines can and should be drawn.
What’s your book called?
Censorship, it seems to me, implies that you are not being allowed to speak or access to something and you have a valid point of view. I personally have been censored. I was supposed to speak at the West Orange NJ public library about my book. The event was cancelled. Why? Because the librarian told me they couldn’t get an anti-vax nut to speak at the same event! I was also told that I couldn’t speak at the West Caldwell library on the same day as someone was allowed to speak about the bullshit known as the paleo diet. The librarian, who stocks the library with anti-vax books, just waved me away imperiously when I tried to talk to him about it.
So I’m firmly and fiercely against censorship because I have literally been a victim of it. But there’s a huge difference between having a valid point of view and simply being a crackpot. If someone writes a book about the holocaust is it censorship to refuse to let a denier speak in opposition to that author? Do we owe crackpots and dumb people and the mentally ill the right to be heard everywhere? To write garbage in the newspaper? To speak at the local public library?
Your Baby’s Best Shot: Why Vaccines are Safe and Save Lives.
I did not intend to use this forum to promote it. I am merely trying to speak from personal experience in this matter. Because I have had to think carefully about some of the answers raised in the OP myself. It has not always been easy.
I’ll give people another example. An anti-vax moron named Markus Heinze has been mad at me ever since I cleaned his clock in a debate in January. He wrote a screed against me personally on a popular anti-vax site. The screed was picked up by the Facebook page of the NVIC or National Vaccine Information Center. I called them up and got it taken down from their page.
Why? Not because it was bullshit which it was. Because several of the comments contained threats of physical violence against me. Should comments where people said they wanted to hurt me personally have been allowed on widely viewed Facebook page?
I read the 9 comments of people giving your book a 1 star, though admittedly my eyes glazed over with one of the wall of text ones.
They have their opinion, but I don’t see anything written nearly as egregious as:
[QUOTE=LavenderBlue]
"There’s also a difference between polite criticism and, as someone has done to me, calling my baby girl ugly or implying that my eldest child is vaccine damaged and mentally retarded. Or, as another person did, writing that they want to come over and physically hurt me.
[/quote]
The answer to your questions are: Yes. No. No. No.
The definition doesn’t change just because you really, really disagree with someone. Restricting their ability to say what they want to, whether as a government or private entity, is censorship. Whether a view is valid or not doesn’t really enter into it. I assume, in fact, that many times a view is censored, it is also declared to be invalid/a crackpot idea/harmful to society.
But that doesn’t make censorship illegal or, necessarily, immoral. Like I kind of said, I’m not saying that it’d be wrong in this case. But I do think it’s wrong to explicitly argue for censorship while claiming to not be advocating censorship. That feels creepy.
It’s good to know that you enjoyed that, Clothahump; however, it does raise the question of whether you’ve been reading this thread.