I wanted to post an addendum. While I still hold that Amazon's actions are censorship, I do agree that they're within their rights to censor certain content and

I wanted to post an addendum. While I still hold that Amazon's actions are censorship, I do agree that they're within their rights to censor certain content and I believe they have to do so at certain times in order to maintain their image and appeal. From the description of the books given by the author, I don't think Amazon should have removed these books, but I understand why they did. Amazon needs to fight the perception that it's a purveyor of sickening material. Amazon could choose to take a stand for the First Amendment without regard to the loss of business, it could do so in hopes that it's position would attract new customers, or it can do what it's doing now. Each option has a valid argument. Ultimately Amazon has to do what it thinks is right, and as a business, that generally means doing what will have the least negative impact on profits. Fair enough. If Amazon's actions aren't acceptable to some, then those people can shop elsewhere or band together to give Amazon incentive to shift their policy.