5 ms·

They haven't removed Lolita yet, or Philosophy in the Boudoir? I'm outraged!

lotusleaf1987 16y ago
Those are not at all in the same context, those are literature and satire, not a how guide on how to find condoms for 11 year old boys. This is not a 1st amendment issue at all. Amazon, as a private corporation, has every right to sell whatever they want and conversely, not sell whatever they want. Why should Amazon help out this disgusting pedophile author? If RackSpace were hosting NAMBLA do you think they would pull it? Yes they would. Why? It's a business decision, the same reason Wal-Mart doesn't sell porn or sex toys.
- joelmichael 16y ago
  I don't think they should pull it, because I believe in the principle of freedom of speech. That concept doesn't apply only to governments, you know. Obviously they have the legal right to pull it, but I don't think it's the right thing to do. Philosophy in the Boudoir was not a work of satire. And I disapproved of RackSpace pulling that preacher, too. I have lost respect for Amazon for buckling to pressure by book banners.
  - ewanmcteagle 16y ago
    What is the principle of freedom of speech here? How do you view it? What do you view as Amazon's obligations? What rights does Amazon have and how do those rights interact with the principle as you see it?
  - glhaynes 16y ago
    So when is it ever right for a store not to carry a product? Should all stores carry all products?
    - joelmichael 16y ago
      Amazon is a long tail book seller, not a specialty store. I'd hope it would have every single book it possibly could. It needs not be expurgated for my protection.
      - glhaynes 16y ago
        They're not doing it for your protection.
    - lwhi 16y ago
      I think distasteful publications should be available for sale unless their publication breaks the law. I find it difficult to understand how a guide encouraging paedophilia _doesn't_ break the law in some way.
      - philwelch 16y ago
        It doesn't break the law because, generally, it's only illegal to actually commit crimes, or to make concrete plans to commit a crime; it's not illegal to write a book about how to commit a crime.
        deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
  - lotusleaf1987 16y ago
    Furthermore, does Amazon not have a conflict of interest in selling a how-to pedophile guide when they also recently purchases Diapers.com? I wonder if all the parents shopping at Diapers.com will enjoy purchasing from a retailer who caters both to pedophiles and children? Also, this is not a 1st amendment issue at all. Amazon is not obligated by any means to sell/distribute the book. The issue is entirely economical.
    - gloob 16y ago
      I'm glad you've found a new sociological/psychological toy you can use to tell yourself that your discussion partners are too preoccupied with social signalling to actually have a position, but it would still be polite to at least pretend to engage with their arguments.
  - chc 16y ago
    It makes no sense to say that individuals and businesses must offer an open forum for any speech anyone can think of. Would you allow the KKK to hold nightly rallies in your home? How about Islamic terrorists? Freedom of speech is a requirement for some governments, but private parties are not required to make themselves a platform for anybody else's speech. He didn't offer detractors space in his book, and Amazon is not required to offer him space in their marketplace.
    - joelmichael 16y ago
      Comparing nightly KKK rallies to having a book available in stock if you search for it is hardly appropriate. Obviously free speech has its limitations, but absolutely none of those apply here.
      - chc 16y ago
        They're both examples of private parties offering a platform for free speech. You just disagree when it's your private property they want to use for their platform. And I agree it's a little bit unfair to compare the two: One is a bunch of ignorant people talking about how they don't believe in mating outside their race and the other is a guide to raping children. I don't think the distinction works favor of your argument, though.
        joelmichael 16y ago
        Should Mein Kampf be sold?
        chc 16y ago
        Yes, and it is.
  - anigbrowl 16y ago
    Freedom of speech is the liberty you enjoy to publish something - that is, make it available to the public as opposed to your immediate social circle. It allows you to speak your mind without legal restraint (subject to some narrowly tailored practical exceptions), but does not guarantee access to a platform from which to do so more effectively. In general, you're going to have a hard time finding an outlet for how-to books on illegal activities, which make no pretense of having literary or artistic value. Hence the popularity of the 'True Crime' genre, police procedurals and so on, which offer the reader a vicarious thrill. One minor benefit of this work being published, albeit an unintentional one if it is genuine, is that it will give investigators and mental health professionals a better insight into the methods and motivations of paedophilia than they might be able to obtain within the criminal justice system - that is, the author who feels free to express himself may be more informative than the one attempting to justify or explain himself to an interlocutor. It will find its most diligent readers at the FBI and among forensic psychologists.
  - ErrantX 16y ago
    Freedom of speech is that ungainly weapon rolled out in circumstances such as these. It is misdirection. Freedom of speech is a fundamental and inviolate right of the individual. If I wanted to hold the belief that people with the name tom are spawn of the devil and deserve 100 lashings every day, then, that is an inviolate right. However if I publish my thoughts in a book there is no moral or legal onus for any publisher or retailer to touch it. (Of course; if a retailer makes a habit of suppressing marginal books such as those, it will get a bad name, so social pressure might force them to be less restrictive.) I see no problem for Amazon to make either a moral or business decision not to carry this book; a book which contains unacceptable thinking to a large majority of the populace. If to carry it means negative publicity and possibly lost sales they have a duty to their shareholders to mitigate that.
hristov 16y ago
Lolita is not a "how to" guide. Lolita is a fictional novel in which the protagonist that does engage in pedophilia meets a very unhappy end.

lotusleaf1987 16y ago

Those are not at all in the same context, those are literature and satire, not a how guide on how to find condoms for 11 year old boys. This is not a 1st amendment issue at all. Amazon, as a private corporation, has every right to sell whatever they want and conversely, not sell whatever they want. Why should Amazon help out this disgusting pedophile author? If RackSpace were hosting NAMBLA do you think they would pull it? Yes they would. Why? It's a business decision, the same reason Wal-Mart doesn't sell porn or sex toys.

joelmichael 16y ago
I don't think they should pull it, because I believe in the principle of freedom of speech. That concept doesn't apply only to governments, you know. Obviously they have the legal right to pull it, but I don't think it's the right thing to do. Philosophy in the Boudoir was not a work of satire. And I disapproved of RackSpace pulling that preacher, too. I have lost respect for Amazon for buckling to pressure by book banners.
- ewanmcteagle 16y ago
  What is the principle of freedom of speech here? How do you view it? What do you view as Amazon's obligations? What rights does Amazon have and how do those rights interact with the principle as you see it?
- glhaynes 16y ago
  So when is it ever right for a store not to carry a product? Should all stores carry all products?
  - joelmichael 16y ago
    Amazon is a long tail book seller, not a specialty store. I'd hope it would have every single book it possibly could. It needs not be expurgated for my protection.
    - glhaynes 16y ago
      They're not doing it for your protection.
  - lwhi 16y ago
    I think distasteful publications should be available for sale unless their publication breaks the law. I find it difficult to understand how a guide encouraging paedophilia _doesn't_ break the law in some way.
    - philwelch 16y ago
      It doesn't break the law because, generally, it's only illegal to actually commit crimes, or to make concrete plans to commit a crime; it's not illegal to write a book about how to commit a crime.
      - deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
- lotusleaf1987 16y ago
  Furthermore, does Amazon not have a conflict of interest in selling a how-to pedophile guide when they also recently purchases Diapers.com? I wonder if all the parents shopping at Diapers.com will enjoy purchasing from a retailer who caters both to pedophiles and children? Also, this is not a 1st amendment issue at all. Amazon is not obligated by any means to sell/distribute the book. The issue is entirely economical.
  - gloob 16y ago
    I'm glad you've found a new sociological/psychological toy you can use to tell yourself that your discussion partners are too preoccupied with social signalling to actually have a position, but it would still be polite to at least pretend to engage with their arguments.
- chc 16y ago
  It makes no sense to say that individuals and businesses must offer an open forum for any speech anyone can think of. Would you allow the KKK to hold nightly rallies in your home? How about Islamic terrorists? Freedom of speech is a requirement for some governments, but private parties are not required to make themselves a platform for anybody else's speech. He didn't offer detractors space in his book, and Amazon is not required to offer him space in their marketplace.
  - joelmichael 16y ago
    Comparing nightly KKK rallies to having a book available in stock if you search for it is hardly appropriate. Obviously free speech has its limitations, but absolutely none of those apply here.
    - chc 16y ago
      They're both examples of private parties offering a platform for free speech. You just disagree when it's your private property they want to use for their platform. And I agree it's a little bit unfair to compare the two: One is a bunch of ignorant people talking about how they don't believe in mating outside their race and the other is a guide to raping children. I don't think the distinction works favor of your argument, though.
      - joelmichael 16y ago
        Should Mein Kampf be sold?
        chc 16y ago
        Yes, and it is.
- anigbrowl 16y ago
  Freedom of speech is the liberty you enjoy to publish something - that is, make it available to the public as opposed to your immediate social circle. It allows you to speak your mind without legal restraint (subject to some narrowly tailored practical exceptions), but does not guarantee access to a platform from which to do so more effectively. In general, you're going to have a hard time finding an outlet for how-to books on illegal activities, which make no pretense of having literary or artistic value. Hence the popularity of the 'True Crime' genre, police procedurals and so on, which offer the reader a vicarious thrill. One minor benefit of this work being published, albeit an unintentional one if it is genuine, is that it will give investigators and mental health professionals a better insight into the methods and motivations of paedophilia than they might be able to obtain within the criminal justice system - that is, the author who feels free to express himself may be more informative than the one attempting to justify or explain himself to an interlocutor. It will find its most diligent readers at the FBI and among forensic psychologists.
- ErrantX 16y ago
  Freedom of speech is that ungainly weapon rolled out in circumstances such as these. It is misdirection. Freedom of speech is a fundamental and inviolate right of the individual. If I wanted to hold the belief that people with the name tom are spawn of the devil and deserve 100 lashings every day, then, that is an inviolate right. However if I publish my thoughts in a book there is no moral or legal onus for any publisher or retailer to touch it. (Of course; if a retailer makes a habit of suppressing marginal books such as those, it will get a bad name, so social pressure might force them to be less restrictive.) I see no problem for Amazon to make either a moral or business decision not to carry this book; a book which contains unacceptable thinking to a large majority of the populace. If to carry it means negative publicity and possibly lost sales they have a duty to their shareholders to mitigate that.

hristov 16y ago

Lolita is not a "how to" guide. Lolita is a fictional novel in which the protagonist that does engage in pedophilia meets a very unhappy end.