The line between Censorship and Freedom

[Doty152]

http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/amazon-regains-senses-pulls-pedophile-how-boo

Amazon regains senses, pulls pedophile how-to book

By Paul McNamara (http://www.networkworld.com/community/user/227) on Thu, 11/11/10 - 8:18am.
http://www.networkworld.com/includes/styles/r08/img/nl-signup-btn.gif


Share
Tweet This
Email this page (http://www.networkworld.com/community/forward?path=node/68464)
Comments (7) (http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/amazon-regains-senses-pulls-pedophile-how-boo#comments)
Print (http://www.networkworld.com/community/print/68464)


Digg Slashdot Fark Stumble Reddit MIXX del.icio.us Newsvine Technorati Facebook Buzz up! (http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzz?targetUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.networkworld.com%2 Fcommunity%2Findex.php) Tweet This Close

It appears as though reason has won out at Amazon.com today as a how-to manual for pedophiles that sparked a furious protest yesterday has been pulled from company's virtual shelves.
The self-published e-book -- "The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure" - had been on Amazon since Oct. 28 without a ripple or significant sales. That changed dramatically yesterday when word of its availability raced across the Internet, generating boycott threats, and reportedly launching the title to number 80 on Amazon's bestseller list.

(2010's 25 Geekiest 25th Anniversaries) (http://www.networkworld.com/slideshows/2010/011110-buzzblog-geekiest-anniversaries.html)
While I have not read the book, based upon excerpts I have seen online, its content covers exactly what the title would suggest: a how-to manual for child rapists.
Yesterday, Amazon appeared unmoved by the gathering firestorm. However, what had been a link to the book now turns up a blank page (http://www.amazon.com/Pedophiles-Guide-Love-Pleasure/dp/B0049U4CF6/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&s=digital-text&qid=1289423528&sr=1-2).
Accounts of an initial statement being widely attributed to Amazon have been unclear as to its origin, with at least one that I read indicating that it was a customer service representative's reply to a complaint. Here it is:
"Amazon believes it is censorship not to sell certain books simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable.
"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."
As I've written before (http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/rackspace-pulls-plug-koran-burning-church%E2%80%99s-w), these decisions are not about "censorship," not by a long shot. Government's censor; private entities do not. Companies such as Amazon not only have a right to decide what goods they will and will not sell, they have a responsibility to do so, expressly if not primarily a fiduciary responsibility to stockholders.
Moreover, Amazon already does exactly what the statement claims it refuses to do - apply editorial judgment - as its terms of use prohibit the sale of pornography among other things. From the Los Angeles Times (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2010/11/amazon-pedophile-book.html):
The company issues guidelines banning certain materials, including offensive content, illegal items and educational test solution manuals. However, Amazon does not elaborate on what might be considered inappropriate content, stating that "what we deem offensive is probably what you would expect."
A how-to for test cheaters? Not acceptable.
A how-to for child rapists? ... Fine?
That's not what I would expect.
Those who defend the book on free-speech grounds and believe Amazon needed to hold firm appreciate the complexities of neither free speech nor corporate responsibility. The book's author does indeed have every right to express his heinous views (within existing law), but he has no right to every megaphone or any specific one, such as Amazon's.
And, of course, Amazon has a right to sell any legal book it pleases.
The public has the right to shop elsewhere.
Amazon needs to address the issue publicly with a full explanation of how the book was made available in the first place. It should also determine what revenue accrued to it through the unavoidably hyped sales, multiply that amount by 10 or 100, and donate it to a charity that helps abused children.
And it should promise that such an inexcusable breach of its corporate responsibility will never happen again.

[OverkillZJ]

They're a business, censorship was never really an issue - I can't imagine why they tried arguing that.

[Doty152]

I know it is a business, but say they aren't, I just want to hear opinions of whether, assuming they weren't a business, are they right to leave it up? I think he is withing his rights to write the book and publish it. Assuming he can find a publisher and retailer to sell it.

[Muzikman]

The Author has the right to write the book and Amazon has the right to sell it. Right or wrong is a moral issue at this point, not a legal one.

[Aran]

I disagree with all forms of censorship.

[mangotango]

Freedom of Speech -- never a dull moment.

[Deadman 94 xj]

As I've written before (http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/rackspace-pulls-plug-koran-burning-church%E2%80%99s-w), these decisions are not about "censorship," not by a long shot. Government's censor; private entities do not. Companies such as Amazon not only have a right to decide what goods they will and will not sell, they have a responsibility to do so, expressly if not primarily a fiduciary responsibility to stockholders

[mangotango]

Paul McNamara needs an editor.
He argues at one point that Amazon has the right to sell whatever legal books it chooses, then goes on to say it now should pay some sort of penalty for doing so.
He also argues that Amazon has a fiduciary responsibility to stockholders (which means it's management's job to make as much money as possible to drive up share value) then argues against selling material that's 80th on the company's best-sellers list -- in addition to his suggestion that all profits made on said product be given away.

So, what I read here is: Do whatever you want as long as you say you're sorry when it's over.
THAT'S a scary argument.

[SirFuego]

expressly if not primarily a fiduciary responsibility to stockholders

fiduciary. What a fun word.

This is nothing new and no different than what department stores have been doing for years to ensure what they sell is "appropriate". Private entities can do whatever they want. They may not always be 100% consistent in what they deem "appropriate" or not (or even change policies), but that's just because there isn't always a bold/dividing line between what is and isn't appropriate.

Wal-mart chooses alll the time which products it sells or not -- especially video games and music. Remember when you would get the cool, new {insert rap artist here} CD when you were younger for your birthday or christmas -- only to be gravely disappointed when you realized that all the swearing was edited out because it was purchased at a department store (K-mart, Wal-Mart)?

Remember when Nintendo refused to allow any blood in their video games? Something about playing Mortal Kombat with no blood just never felt right. The amazing thing is that even after playing the Sega Genesis version (which did have blood) over a friend's house, I still never had any urge whatsoever to try to punch or kill someone.