I’ll bite and go ahead and say that I don’t get how it’s immoral. As elucidator pointed out, this is not going to make anyone into a pedophile or put any more children in harm’s way. It seems to me like a publicity stunt by the author.
And if this book is immoral so are about a billion other things. What about radar detectors? Those also help you break the law. Should we all be out protesting them?
Like Dio said, however you want. I think you’re missing the point.
Out of curiosity, for those who think this book should be allowed to be on sale, are you OK with a book called “5 easy steps to kidnap nine-year-old girls without getting caught” (with detailed instructions inside) being on sale?
The debate we’re having is whether it’s obnoxious to protest/boycott Amazon for stocking the item. Even with Amazon having pulled the title it’s still “allowed” to sell it. If a book is legal I don’t have a problem with it being stocked. I’m not entirely sure about the legality of “5 easy steps to kidnap nine-year-old girls without getting caught” though I’m sure a lawyer will be present soon enough.
Forget the lawyers. Do you think it should be legal to sell “5 easy steps to kidnap nine-year-old girls without getting caught”?
Yes. Do you?
If not, do you think it should be legal to sell books advocating race wars or the subjugation of women? Because I’ve read many of them. Entertaining, if nothing else.
Only if you haven’t bothered reading even the scantest news report on the story. He just threw it out there. Nobody noticed or cared until Twitter went nuts and the media went after Amazon in their predictably gleeful way. The “author” didn’t have the cunning to engineer something like that; it just happened.
Which is why some people speak up when there’s any form of censorship.
I did, Sir. But, due to lag time in starting and finishing my response before I saw yours, I thought it wouldn’t hurt to post mine anyway. Glad to see we agree.
Perhaps lost in between the “we have a right to bully stores into not selling stuff, and we have a right to call it something other than bullying or censorship,” and “this was a publicity stunt by the author, even though I’m not going to explain how,” is the very important detail that the protestors turned this piece of crap book into a bestseller and gave the author fifteen minutes of fame, with generous help by the media who went about covering the story in a typically salacious and mean-spirited way (Amazon has become one of their favorite companies to hate in 2010, surpassed only by Facebook.)
Without the protestors, this book would be dead in the water. Not one of us would know or cared it existed.
It is censorship only in the same sense that choosing one’s words in conversation is censorship; one may well feel constrained in talking to certain audiences out of an interest in not making them angry or hurting them. Some such “censorship” is good and in fact necessary for civilized society.
The book is still allowed to be sold. People are still allowed to buy and read it. Amazon just made a decision that it wasn’t in their company interest to be known for selling it. I expect they are right, as far as that goes. But…
Exactly. “Censorship” efforts in the age of internet are going to backfire more often than not, leading to broader distribution for the objectionable material. If you find such protesters “obnoxious,” be cheered: they’re also stupid and counter-effective.
The main reason I found them obnoxious in this case is precisely because they were stupid and counter-effective.
Then you should start a thread on censorship.
#101. Top of the page. It can’t be that hard to find/read/grasp.
Maybe you can all just start prefacing your observations and opinions with, “I’m not a censor, but…”
Nobody is forcing Amazon to do anything. If they don’t want to sell a book because they find it objectionable, or because their customers find it objectionable it is their right.
No more than the school yard bully forces the kid with the back brace to shell out his lunch money, no. All people did was shake their fist and make threats, while the media took a highly slanted position (mostly to the effect that Amazon was “running into more public relations problems.”)
Well, it’s about time SOMEBODY said that! My lord, here we’ve waded through three pages of this, and not ONE PERSON has said that Amazon has the right to withdraw the book. Whew, I thought it would never come up. Well, now it has, and all we need to do is cast around for anybody at all who disagrees.
It’s called the First Amendment. I don’t have to buy it.
No threats were made to Amazon.
Threats were made to hurt its business through continued harassment and boycotts.