What do you consider the foundation and the gripe? That freedom exists, and that as a result some books are icky?
The foundation is that if pedophiles want a how-to book, find some other place to hawk it – and they’re free to.
The gripe, and I’m just going out on a limb here, is that child molestation is bad.
I think you probably switched those.
So are a lot of other things that get shelf space. The question is why is anyone taking it upon themselves to monitor what a bookseller sells to other people? The content of a whole LOT of books could be perceived as “bad,” starting with the Bible which. aside from occasionally commanding or approving of the murder of children and infants, also endorses such things as rape and slavery.
It would of course, be my right to write harassing emails to Amazon or start dickhole Twitter campaigns to pressure Amazon into dropping the Bible, but it would still be obnoxious. All books are exactly the same with regards to this issue. The exact book the mob gets worked up about is not relevant. It’s obnoxious and counterproductive for them do it with any book, and offense can be found in practically any book.
I don’t really think you grasp or appreciate it’s meaning. Freedom doesn’t just apply to Amazon or the author of the book. It also applies to those who wish to use moral suasion to get Amazon to stop selling the book. You’re wrong to think that I don’t defend the rights of this guy to publish his book. I just think it’s okay to boycott businesses that choose to sell it.
See I think it’s more “This product sucks and it makes you look bad by association for carrying it.” My mom’s email was not an attempt to have the man silenced, just to have Amazon not carry the book as she believed it tarnished them and, also by association, her own books. I’m still not seeing the dick move here.
The cranky old man yelling at librarians to remove Laurie Halse Anderson’s SPEAK is also practicing free speech. He has a right to yell, and he isn’t attempting to get a legal ban of the book. He is merely trying to prevent others from having access to it because he thinks the book is wicked and that he knows best what the whole world ought to be reading.
Most book bannings are of that sort. I know of few in America that actually imprisoned the author. It is always blocking distribution. This is not something other than censorship and book banning as it is always practiced in the US, and as far as I know, it almost always occurs legally – by replacing school board members with those who will drop offensive books from the curriculum, by un-funding libraries that carry objectionable books, by pressuring advertisers into pulling ads from magazines with unpleasant articles, etc.
I’m glad to see that we agree.
And being douchebags. OpalCat’s mom feels that only her side of the debate over pedophilia, such as it is, deserves to be heard. She thinks his book should not be sold, but hers should. Now I happen to feel that anti-free speech people’s posts should not be published on the Dope, as I think such people are evil scum bent on thought control. And I wont buy any of Cecil’s books unless this is done! And I’m not being a douchebag, oh nooooooooooo …
It would never occur to me in a million years to think other books at the same bookstore somehow taint mine.
Question – what if Amazon had decided orginally not to sell the book? When Greaver approached them they said no, we would prefer not to sell this.
Would Amazon be a “douchebag” in this instance? Would they be “violating freedom of speech?”
Just curious.
Does your mother believe that carrying The Turner Diaries, Tim McVeigh’s handbook for the Oklahoma City bombings and the admitted inspiration for the murder of James Byrd in Texas (the black man that two redmecks dragged behind a truck so they could, according to their own words, “make The Turner Diaries come early”) also “suck and make her look bad by association?”
How about Samuel Delaney’s Hogg, which features excruciatingly graphic and remorseless pornographic descriptions of children being raped tortured and debased in the most grotesque ways possible. It makes this particular pedophile handbook look responsible by comparison. Has your mother written sanctimonious emails about those books too? If not, why not?
Amazon is not being called the douche in either circumstance. It’s the busybodies who pressure them to stop selling books they don’t like who are the douchebags.
I’ve seen your books placed mere paces away from the Twilight books. Your books did not seem pleased.
Since everyone has agreed that Amazon has a right to drop the book anyway, and nobody has suggested it’s a legally defined “freedom of speech” case, I don’t know why you need to ask. None of us think that free speech has been violated. Just chilled.
For the first part… hmmm… well, suppose they had any selection criteria at all. They’d be entitled to enforce them. What those selection criteria are and how evenly they are enforced would be very important to judging how douchebaggy the company is.
- how would I know?
- her email was very polite and professional but thanks for putting your trademark emotional language into it.
Quite frankly, Evil, I literally could not care less about who is or isn’t a douche bag in this debate. It just doesn’t matter when it comes to the big picture.
But unlike with the Amazon situation, if the library gave in and decided to remove the book, this actually would fall into the category of censorship. Amazon is a private company and can do what they want. If we’re talking about a public library, the man has a right to voice his concerns but if the library opts to remove the book, they would be censoring it. Which is not to say that no library can ever remove a book but there are book collection and weeding policies for just that purpose. Removing a book because it’s falling apart is one thing, or because it’s a YA book placed in the children’s room, but just removing it because someone complains is censorship.
I seriously doubt your typical public library would have carried this book in the first place.