Part of the argument against selling the book is that it presents a danger to children, which could (but is very unlikely to) affect someone.
I have not read the book, but the reporting on the book is that it is not just an argument for adult-child sexual relationships. The book also provides instruction on how to conduct sexual relationships with children in way that makes the adult least likely to be caught by law enforcement.
Nothing illegal, but possibly dangerous.
I think boycotts are more necessary when they are about labor practices or animal abuse. I frankly just can’t get behind a consumer boycott over content. It just seems like too small a step away from being one of those people who writes screeds to the editor because the library has a children’s book with lesbian parents in it, or won’t go to the mall because there’s a Christmas tree in the middle. I just don’t know where I owe it to myself to shut anyone else up.
Of course I don’t know to what extent this book would actually help people molest children, but there are plenty of books on how to do illegal things – a friend of mine (writing a book about a cat burglar) just bought a marvelous book about “careers in crime,” outlining everything from making and selling meth to brokering babies. The book has a healthy sales ranking and several five star reviews. I don’t think anyone is taking it seriously as a how-to manual; the people purchasing it are just crime buffs and probably a lot of authors, like him, who are using it for research.
Actually, but for the typo, that email looks like something he may have written. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if the author was our boy. Did he ever say that he lived in Colorado?
Most bookstores sell the world’s most dangerous book: the Bible. But does anyone care?
Amazon’s decision to self censor IS shameful. They built their reputation and business on being the place where you could get anything! They went to great strides to defend themselves for years against other attempts to censor and now gave up over some stupid little pervert’s book. What happened almost immediately? MORE calls to censor other “objectionable” work. Censorship is one of the few places where “slippery slope” philosophy can be fairly reliably applied. What is more, Amazon is synonymous with “The Internet” in many, many, people’s minds when they think about online retailers. It also represented a place where one could purchase unrestricted content. Can’t find it? get it online! Not anymore.
I saw a brief interview on TV with the author on the news yesterday. Yes, it’s a serious book, it’s not a satire or humor. The title says what’s inside.
Every post I made but the first one was made in direct response to somebody else. It is a debate thread. I was debating. I was debating on topic. I was debating civilly. There wasn’t any “show.” The poster who accused me of a show posted at me before I said anything to her. This whole stupid “Dio show” meme is just becoming a lazy way to avoid having to actually try to debate me on point.
ETA this is the last time I’m going to reply to this inane accusation. From now on, I will only post (and debate) on the actual thread topic.
Here’s an excerpt from the book description (taken from here):
I’m conflicted, and I can see why people are majorly bothered both by Amazon selling this book in the first place, and by their refusing to sell it.
I can’t help but be reminded of another venue that mostly promotes free expression of ideas, but that has a rule: " You agree not to post material that in our opinion fosters or promotes activity that is illegal in the U.S."
And you’d be out of business in an hour. When you sell you have to appeal to the broadest possible market.
Now I have no issue with self-censorship, but this isn’t. It’s caving to pressure. And I could even understand that, but if that book was selling and making Amazon a lot of money, somehow I doubt they’d cave and pull it.
If you don’t want to sell something, that’s fine, I have no problem with it, but don’t pull it because of pressure and then try to pass it off as a moral decision. Call it for what it is was, pressure.
And as I said, that’s their right, that’s everyone’s right to influene policy with economic pressure, but let’s call it what it really is.
Diogenes didn’t make this thread about Diogenes so let’s stop that line of discussion while we still have a thread.
Here’s the thing … remember a few months back when people were boycotting advertisers of Dr. Laura’s show because of her ‘nigger, nigger, nigger’ thing? Why is this any different? Sure, Amazon can sell whatever they want, but if the public in generals says, “Funk this. We aren’t going to patronized them if they do …” once more we see the Invisible Hand of the Free Market at work.
I’m sure there are plenty of online sites and seedy little bookshops where this little screed will do brisk business.
If it were the government practicing censorship I might be concerned. I don’t see how the slippery slope can be reliably applied here. Other people are clamoring for Amazon to drop more books, so what? There are always people clamoring for books to be dropped for a variety of reasons. That’s all part of the free exchange of ideas. There’s nothing wrong with Amazon saying “You know what? We really don’t want to be associated with a product designed to help people molest children.”
I expect this book is still and will remain available online.
The profits from a handful of the Amazon sales that have already happened should be enough for him to maintain his own site and sell them from his house if he wants to. Perhaps he is already doing that; I haven’t looked.
Losing the Amazon listing means he’ll lose a certain kind of exposure and cross-linkage. On the other hand, the news item itself is surely driving searches for the thing outside of Amazon. It may be an open question whether getting banned by Amazon is a net gain or loss for him.
It’s not any different.
I’m not a major online retailer, so I can only speak to what I’d do as a consumer. And that is to never boycott anything to enforce censorship. Whether it’s legal censorship or not, it is de facto censorship. And every single time in these cases, i feel like silence is better than censorship anyway. That’s never been clearer than now.
Don’t like Dr. Laura? Don’t listen. Ignore her. It seems like all the canning does for any of those people is make them media darlings. Suddenly it’s about their right to speak instead of the stupidity of what they said.
Stop feeding the trolls.
And if Dr. Laura doesn’t care about people boy-cotting her she should shut up about free speech, keep doing her show, and shout "nigger, nigger, nigger’ at the top of every hour. Or she can try to actually please her audience when she hears their complaints.
Same thing with Amazon. They have a choice. Keep selling the book and deal with the fall out, or try to please their customers … which it seems is what they are trying to do.
Until there is a DIRECT connection between this book and a convicted pedophile, then the book shouldn’t be banned. Until this book is actually found in the possession of a first-time convicted pedophile, then there is no warrant for its ban.
Boycotts=sheeple led by charismatic shepards
Nonsense. Most retailers, online and otherwise, are specialized in various ways. Online sellers in particular can survive with an exceptional degree of specialization, if their product has any real market at all. In many cases, specialization helps a small and scattered customer base find you.
Amazon, for all its vast selection and name recognition, still has “only” 8 percent of the U.S. retail media market, 0.3 percent of the total retail market. Wal-Mart gets 7.7 percent of the total retail market, which is enormous in a sense, but still serves to illustrate that most sales are through more-specialized outlets.
Diogenes, I must say I am very surprised at your opinion here, considereing your past posts regarding sex with underage girls.
That said, I agree with you. As repugnant as this book is (I assume), the whole censorship thing is indeed a “slippery slope.”
Actually, Amazon should sell it and every now and then the FBI can subpoena a list of people who bought the book. You know, just out of curiosity. 
And if Muslims don’t want Christians mad at them, they should just put their not-a-mosque somewhere else! And if bookstores don’t want fallout from customers, they should just pull every single book off the shelf that anyone finds objectionable! And so on.