There is a side of this not being discussed which is how reactive and stupid Twitter is. Like I said earlier, I saw slews of people retweeting their “boycott Amazon!” messages who a couple of weeks ago had tricked out their avatars in favor of “banned books week.” A lot of the books ALA calls “banned or challenged,” are a lot less like censorship than this one. So what it really boils down to is “I’m against banning books unless it’s a book I want banned.” I don’t think social networking action really gives people time to think before they pick up a pitch fork. It’s so automatic; you just click your outrage.
That’s a ridiculous analogy. We’re talking about a retailer who would like to stay in business and make money. If they’re selling something so vile that the majority of their customers register displeasure with it … why the hell would they even think of keeping it on their shelves?
This isn’t the government dictating anything. It’s the consumers. Free speech/religion issues, like the Mosque thing, don’t come within a country mile of this situation.
If you bought this book can you imagine the types of things Amazon would recommend for you in their emails? 
No, we’re talking about a mob bullying the retailer into dropping a product from their store. In every case the situation is one where a mob of people tried to stop someone else from exercising a legal freedom.
That “mob” as you call them have rights that they are exercising as well. I spend my money where I choose to spend it. If you have a store, and in that store is something that offends me, I will spend my money at your competitor’s store. I may or may not tell you that I am shopping at your competitor because of whatever you have that I find offensive. If I do tell you, then you, as a businessman, must decide whether you wish to win my business by removing the offensive material or not.
Amazon was not going to go out of business if it kept selling that book. You can also find Mein Kampf and the works of the Marquis de Sade (which includes graphic descriptions of the rape, torture and murder of toddlers) on Amazon and on the shelves of Barnes & Noble, yet B&N seems to stay in business.
My real issue anyway is not with Amazon, but with people who feel it’s their mission to monitor everything Amazon sells to other people – and why aren’t those people trying to get Amazon to pull Mein Kampf?
This continues to be a fatuous and irrelevant point. No one is saying they don’t have the right. We are saying they are douchebags. People at Klan rallies are excercising their rights of free speech as well. They doesn’t mean they aren’t douchebags.
Why do you care what that store sells to other people? How does it harm you?
Are you offended that Amazon sells Mein Kampf? Do you refuse to shop anywhere that does sell it?
I see someone has never gotten a paper cut.
That’s an illegitimate argument. You apparently object to Mein Kampf. Other people may feel that the book has some historical value. They are not required to submit their preferences to you for approval before voting with their wallets. I won’t shop at a store that posts big signs saying “Saints Fans Suck!”. I might shop at a store that posts big signs saying “Vikings Fans Suck!”. That’s my right, and my choice. You may very well avoid the anti-Vikings store, but have no problem with the anti-Saints store. Or, you may avoid both stores because you object to signs saying anyone sucks.
I don’t know that I’d go so far as calling these people “douchebags”, but my outrage meter towards Amazon is reading pretty damn close to Zero. I really don’t give a damn what they sell, as long as it’s legal. And if it’s not legal, then take them to court.
Look, it just isn’t true that Amazon carries “everything”. It doesn’t. Sure, it’s the largest bookseller in the country. That doesn’t mean that you can get every book ever written there.
And dudes, this is a self-published book.
Amazon can decide what goods it wants to sell, and we can decide whether to buy them or not. Amazon doesn’t owe it to America to sell every book ever published or self-published, and neither does America owe it to Amazon to buy from them.
Don’t like the way Amazon does business? Buy the book straight from the pedophile author, then. They didn’t censor his book, they just aren’t selling it.
People have done that. Well, maybe not Amazon and Mein Kampf (though I wouldn’t be a bit surprised), but every notable bookseller has faced objections to something they offered for sale. My college bookstore was once the target of a protest against their selling the Malleus Maleficarum, which was felt to represent bigotry against witches (it was published in 1486 and was required reading for a history class).
Usually the objections are coming from a small group and the seller judges that continuing to sell the item is worth more than the goodwill of the small group. Sometimes, as here, they make a different calculation.
Thank God SOMEBODY in this country is FINALLY taking umbrage over something!
But where DO you shop? Have you completely vetted the premises to make sure there’s not something that you find disagreeable?
Not in the least. I just wonder why those who wish to interfere with free commerce regarding the pervert book do not also wish to do so with Mein Kampf or The Turner Diaries or any number of other offensive or incindiary titles which have arguably had demonstrably negative effects on society (the latter book was the inspiration and the blueprint for the Oklahoma City bombing, and the other title also played a role in some unpleasantness in the last century).
No one is saying it’s isn’t your right. This continues to be a vacuous and meaningless point. Not one person in this thread is contending it.
Incidentally, the issue isn’t just people quietly choosing not to buy books from Amazon (who cares about that?), but the active, aggressive attempts to bully them into removing it, the self-righteous harassment, online petitions, etc.
Irrelevant. If I see something I don’t like, I may choose to shop elsewhere. I have no obligation to completely vet anything. I have no obligation to be “fair” to a merchant.
No one is saying you have an obligation to do anything. You are arguing with nobody.
Actually, I think he’s being pretty reasonable in this thread.
I think it’s an interesting issue. When it comes to a seller of books, they do have the right to self censor. But should they? I’m not really sure. When I look at the issue it’s usually from the perspective of a library, and usually to justify their purchases and things that they don’t purchase, a library will have a collection development policy. If they don’t buy a book or accept a gift, it could be just that that particular title doesn’t fit in with the library’s mission. Or that they only try to buy books of a certain quality–books that have gotten good reviews or won awards. Amazon, as a seller, is casting a wider net, though.
Though, as Dio notes, if Amazon passes on this book, I don’t really know that that’s a good thing. It’s not necessarily a bad thing, but for the people who are saying let’s protest this book…would you feel that way if, say, a conservative group was protesting the company selling And Tango Makes Three (a children’s story book about two male penguins who have find an egg and hatch/raise it together)? Or if people thought that Sendak’s In the Night Kitchen was pornography because the main character is naked in a few scenes. It seems a dangerous road to go down to say, “But our standards are RIGHT.” Personally, I think the pedophile book sounds gross and creepy, but from reading about censorship, there are people who have made ridiculous arguments about all kinds of books. There are any number of books that we could decide are wrong or creepy.
In any case, Amazon actually decided to sell it and were bullied into taking it offline. Yes, they did have the right to cave to public pressure, but it’s hardly the point being argued.
Slit said what I was thinking more betterer than I could have put it.
And I think it’s become hip to declare that Dio has somehow hijacked a thread even when all he’s doing is debating the very point of the thread in the debate forum.
You seem to want to say that somehow Amazon has done a bad thing by making a business decision they believe to be in their best interest. And/or that consumers who influenced that decision have done a bad thing. I disagree with both notions.