Amazon Pulls Book
- Started
- Last post
- 62 Responses
- jetSkii0
I think the biggest factor here is that nobody has ever read the book. We're all basing our thoughts on what we've heard in the media. Yet everyone is ready to pass judgement and quick to stomp out words on paper. The rest is history, because no one will listen any further.
No one will stick their heads out for a pedophile, otherwise, they might be labelled as a pedophile themselves, so Amazon is left standing alone against censorship. Everyone else is willing to sweep the idea under the rug and turn the other cheek. Having not read the book, people feel a good decision was made. I highly doubt the angry mob has even read the book. I highly doubt anyone who has posted on this topic on the hundreds of websites out there, has read the book. How could they? It's been censored by folks who also haven't read the book, so now were all just as stupid with them.
- thisdoublespaced
- as uncomfortable as I am with censorship your words are nonsense.monkeyshine
- that's because you're letting your emotions take controljetSkii
- ukit0
My guess would be that the book is pretty bad.
But at the end of the day its just a book. If the paedos can't buy it off Amazon they will just buy it mail order from an adult bookstore somewhere, or even download it online as PDF.
If the idea was that we shouldn't encourage them by listing it, well, the media attention around this has now created far more awareness of this book than would have existed otherwise.
At some point you gotta ask yourself whether it's worth the effort of trying to figure out what people should or shouldn't be able to read. How about spending the effort, like Moldero said, getting brutal in cracking down on actual pedophiles? Rather than arguing over whether a book can be for sale on Amazon.
- babaganush0
I agree with unit to some respect. Comparing it with catcher in the rye is ridiculous. We debate daily about the nature of media here - it has never been easier to self- publish etc.
No one has burned this book - if we want to read it we will still be able to access it. So really it hasn't been censored and it is up to Amazon as a brand to decide as they see fit...society obviously has an intolerance to child abuse - this can be crass and knee jerk but also there is a very real disgust with how it subjugates and ruins the future lives of human beings.
- ukit0
Comparing to Catcher in the Rye isn't a good comparison in terms of the content, but it does bring up the question, where do you draw the line? After all Catcher was dropped by many high schools due to the exact same issue, people being outraged by it.
The question is how do we decide what is banned and what isn't? You could take the "mob rule" approach (whatever the majority doesn't like) or the "First Amendment" approach (protect everything within reason, even if the majority finds it offensive). Amazon was trying to go to the "First Amendment" approach, which I think they deserve some credit for, until popular outrage forced them to backtrack.
- SteveJobs0
it's not black and white, but most of society has always and will always feel the same about this sort of thing. just as it will about any topic who's theme compromises the santity of life; particularly that of an innocent child. these values transcend any cultural or religious beliefs, and as such should be upheld as a vote of the majority.
- you, my friend, are talking from a very limited understanding of societies.pr2
- georgesIII0
WWJD?
- jetSkii0
Steve Jobs,
I think we've just witnessed the first digital book burning of our century. At least first on the Kindle and not the iPad:). Since everyone was quick to judge the book by its cover, we will never know the contents of that book. That book could have actually prevented the next kid from getting harmed and molested. Letting us peer into the mind of these individuals makes us smarter, not stupid. If we left things up to the majority, you and I know that doesn't mean it's right.
- scarabin0
didn't they pull 1984 also?
i remember people were upset because they straight up deleted files off of people's kindles
- ukit0
That was a little different, I think it had to do with a licensing issue (they sold a book from a company that they later found out didn't have the rights to sell it). If they actually pulled 1984 for content reasons that would be pretty insane.
- SteveJobs0
@jetSkii
regarding this book, i don't care really care either way, as i was speaking generally. however, i see your point, but i think you're sensationalizing this whole thing by comparing it to what the nazi's did. and suggesting the book may have prevented child molestation... perhaps, but could the opposite be argued? (that's rhetorical, btw, as i don't know much about the book... ironically).@pr2
educate me then? perhaps it's just my opinion, but no single man's ideals represent that of the whole, and no man's judgement should dictate the fate of the whole. but perhaps you know better than i.
- jetSkii0
@ steve jobs
You're right, a book like this, and any other book could have a positive or negative impact. But without the book, you would be shooting in the dark, looking for these individuals. Forcing the book underground is just going to make it that much harder to catch and change these individuals.
I don't think I'm sensationalizing the idea of book burning because in truth, that's what it is in digital form. in fact on a larger scale as it threatens the policies of future digital distribution for millions of people when an angry mob's beliefs, fears, and emotions override the freedom of one man's right to speak his mind, they can override it for everyone else.
Luckily, unlike the Nazi book burnings, we can flip a switch without any loss of data.
- monkeyshine0
I'm mixed. If I were Jeff Bezos and this were my business, I'd probably make the same call. My business, my rules. It's easy to stand on this side of the fence and poo poo someone for censorship but if this were your business, what would you do?
- monkeyshine0
I'm mixed. If I were Jeff Bezos and this were my business, I'd probably make the same call. My business, my rules. It's easy to stand on this side of the fence and poo poo someone for censorship but if this were your business, what would you do?
- SteveJobs0
@jetSkii
to clarify, i only meant that in the sense that this is not a government that is doing this, but a corporation. if it were the former, i wouldn't have said a thing. but since this is a profit seeking entity, i think it has little to do with censorship and more to do with appeasing the paying customer. business is business. again, just my opinion..
- ukit0
Here is what Amazon said yesterday:
"Amazon believes it is censorship not to sell certain books simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable," the online retailer said in an e-mailed statement.
"Amazon does not support or promote hatred or criminal acts, however, we do support the right of every individual to make their own purchasing decisions."
Then today they pulled the book. lol. Obviously they underestimated peoples' anger over this.
- ukit0
I still say unless they clarify their rules about what is banned and what is not, they are in for even more bad press. I'm sure there are books that are just as bad or worse than this one that just haven't been picked up on yet.
- jetSkii0
I wonder if its possible to still get a copy of the book somehow. You'd think sooner or later the book is bound to leak online. I hate even discussing the subject unless I was able to read some of the book. Every single boycotter I've talked to knows nothing about the book. It's like this imaginary book, that no one has read, yet they hate it.
- 25 out of 25 people who hates the book, hasn't even seen or read it.jetSkii
- ukit0
You know if you think about what happened here really ISN'T a case of a private business making their own decisions about what to carry. After all what Amazon wanted to do was keep selling the book. It was pressure from the public and tons of really bad press that led them to drop it.
People in America talk a lot about the idea that business should be able to make its own decisions separate from the government, but what about the idea that the public can actually force business' hand if they care enough about something?
That's really more of a socialistic idea. Note that people didn't say I'm going to take my money elsewhere, they insisted that this company has to reflect the views of society. Granted, Amazon wasn't legally coerced or anything, but with the wrath of the press and public bearing down on them, they didn't really have a choice. If people really believed in the first idea, they could have just noted their disapproval and moved on. I'm not saying its good or bad...just interesting.
- georgesIII0
@ all of you,
-
