Amazon Boycott/Censorship

nursemom77 · Post by **nursemom77** » 12 Nov 2010, 05:33

On my local morning news program today, there was a story about a woman from Lexington, North Carolina, who had gone on Face Book and initiated a boycott of Amazon due to the fact that they were selling an ebook titled "The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure". Apparently >10,000 people (including national organizations for children/missing children) have joined this cause. Amazon released a statement stating that it will continue to sell this book because it does not believe in censorship, however according to my news program, they later pulled the book.

I just wanted to know what you thought of the issue of censorship.

Aspasia · Post by **Aspasia** » 13 Nov 2010, 03:04

I think it is a totally heinous book from what I have read/seen, but I think censorship is a potential slippery slope. While I don't think it should be required reading for anyone, I don't agree with censorship even in this case.

Lennoc · Post by **Lennoc** » 13 Nov 2010, 19:49

Amazon choosing not to sell a book is not equivalent to censorship.

Consumers have the right to make their views felt and boycotts are a (sometimes) effective way to do this.

Personally I think that anything that attempts to normalise paedophilia is far more dangerous than bookstores refusing to carry a certain book. Censorship would be disallowing a person from self-publishing and selling. As far as I know in this case that isn't what happened.

Bookstores and publishers make decisions all the time about what to carry or publish. This is not censorship, this is business. Don't confuse the two. For Amazon to carry a book that outrages a large number of their customers would be a poor business decision.

Carusmm · Post by **Carusmm** » 13 Nov 2010, 20:59

It sounds like an extreme case, it sounds like some idiot's idea of fun. There is a fine line between civil disorder and civil order, and the active encouragement of criminal acts crosses it, but as I said, it is a fine line.

Aspasia · Post by **Aspasia** » 13 Nov 2010, 22:38

Lennoc wrote:Amazon choosing not to sell a book is not equivalent to censorship.

Consumers have the right to make their views felt and boycotts are a (sometimes) effective way to do this.

Personally I think that anything that attempts to normalise paedophilia is far more dangerous than bookstores refusing to carry a certain book. Censorship would be disallowing a person from self-publishing and selling. As far as I know in this case that isn't what happened.

Bookstores and publishers make decisions all the time about what to carry or publish. This is not censorship, this is business. Don't confuse the two. For Amazon to carry a book that outrages a large number of their customers would be a poor business decision.

I agree that their decision not to sell it is not censorship. They would have been idiots to sell it with that many people complaining. Personally, I would never boycott them for selling it though.

Carusmm · Post by **Carusmm** » 14 Nov 2010, 04:03

Aspasia wrote:
Lennoc wrote:Amazon choosing not to sell a book is not equivalent to censorship.

Consumers have the right to make their views felt and boycotts are a (sometimes) effective way to do this.

Personally I think that anything that attempts to normalise paedophilia is far more dangerous than bookstores refusing to carry a certain book. Censorship would be disallowing a person from self-publishing and selling. As far as I know in this case that isn't what happened.

Bookstores and publishers make decisions all the time about what to carry or publish. This is not censorship, this is business. Don't confuse the two. For Amazon to carry a book that outrages a large number of their customers would be a poor business decision.
I agree that their decision not to sell it is not censorship. They would have been idiots to sell it with that many people complaining. Personally, I would never boycott them for selling it though.

Whatever that book was a book of science or religion, would it be "It's only business" then?

Tip the Bottle · Post by **Tip the Bottle** » 14 Nov 2010, 16:39

So it would be okay then if Amazon decided to self censor, and it is censorship, by not selling Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses because it offended the Islamic world or To Kill a Mockingbird because of it's depiction of racial intolerances in the south? What Amazon is doing is showing us that if enough people have a contrary opinion and complain then any and every book can be banned from their site and is tantamount to book burning.

Aspasia · Post by **Aspasia** » 14 Nov 2010, 17:53

Tip the Bottle wrote:So it would be okay then if Amazon decided to self censor, and it is censorship, by not selling Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses because it offended the Islamic world or To Kill a Mockingbird because of it's depiction of racial intolerances in the south? What Amazon is doing is showing us that if enough people have a contrary opinion and complain then any and every book can be banned from their site and is tantamount to book burning.

yes you make a great point.