Are you forced to only buy and use a Kindle? If you don't like the fact that amazon modifies or remotely deletes your books, don't buy it. No, I'm not forced t

Are you forced to only buy and use a Kindle? If you don't like the fact that amazon modifies or remotely deletes your books, don't buy it. No, I'm not forced to buy and use a Kindle (a rather facetious question). I'm not forced to buy and use teflon-coated bullets either. That doesn't change the fact that these two items which currently are legal have properties that I believe are immoral and illegal. Current law (specifically Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution [1] and the Federal ban against armor piercing ammunition [2]) suggests that certain properties of these items are legal only because of technicalities. I can advocate against these items even if I am not forced to buy them. A rather basic and reasonable claim on my part, if you ask me. How exactly are freedom of the press or speech in danger? If society is saturated with items that allow companies or governments to take away natural rights, then these rights are in danger. Just because these items haven't achieved full saturation yet doesn't mean we shouldn't be protesting them now. The Internet pretty much has stopped any one governing body from taking that right away from anyone. In fact, it's destroying many newspapers. Apparently not, given the Chinese government's success in censoring the internet there. [1] http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8 http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8 [2] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/921.html#a_17 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/921.html#a_17