I gave 2 negative reviews for the following films, Roger and Me, and Broke Back Mountain. Both Reviews contained no foul language.

What did your review contain?

As you said, this speaks to a much more sinister thing at work here than a mere “policy”….that is an agenda. And it would appear that this agenda is much more complex and far-reaching than I imagined.

You have a choice.

It sounds very much like the pedo arguments in the debateguide ‘pedologic for dummies book’. You have seen that of course haven’t you?

NO ONE is “censoring” this material by refusing to sell it.

Why do you think they should refuse to sell it? I’m sure you would agree that the term “objectionable” is a gross understatement. Guess what the definition of “censor” is? (I mistakenly cited “censorship” earlier)

to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable

It’s probably fair to assume that this book was added to their inventory through normal channels, so why do you feel it should be removed? Because it’s objectionable. You’ll notice the definition above doesn’t put any limitations on who the censor needs to be. Pulling it from their catalog after it was previously determined to be a marketable product would clearly be an act of self-censorship.

There’s nothing wrong with that. I routinely censor myself in my business and personal lives. This business has chosen not to. They have a policy that says they’re not going to pull a book just because some people don’t like it. So be it.

Stephen and Jeff: I find your claim of censorship strangely ironic.

As I repeated above, I never said it would be illegal censorship. Self-censorship is entirely legal.

Stephen and Jeff, you respect Amazon’s right to decide to make this product available. Perhaps you should respect our right to decide what corporate behavior is acceptable to us and who we will buy our books from.

Of course. I stated such in the last sentence of comment 6. A boycott would be very understandable.

You’re asking them to self-censor.

If Amazon or the government were to enter the child-rapist’s home and burn all of his books, that would be “censorship.”

That is certainly one form of censorship and we all know it is completely illegal.

In addition, I find the book’s homophobia offensive. To say that harming young children should be OK if being Gay is OK just leads to the conclusion that Gay people ought not to be allowed to exist.

If I may add a few things to your conversation.

Stephen and Jeff: I find your claim of censorship strangely ironic. You see the Rake challenged CafePress for refusing to publish his book and took his complaint to the ACLU. This is the response he got from them:

“Thank you for your e-mail concerning CafePress. Under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the private press has the right to make its own decisions on what it chooses to publish or not to publish. The government, through the courts, cannot force a company to publish material it does not wish to print. We know of no legal theory to force CafePress to publish your book.”

I personally find it hard to imagine that the ACLU would pass up the opportunity to defend a child molester on censorship grounds. The fact that they refused him and recognize it is not a censorship issue speaks volumes. The fact that you do not recognize it also speaks volumes.

loboinok: you are exactly right regarding child porn laws in Commonwealth countries such as Australia and Canada. The US is also moving towards this notion of a “story” being classified as child porn with the indictment of Fisher (see US v Karen Fisher).

In many countries where this book is available through Amazon, it is ILLEGAL…transportation and sale are also illegal.

Stephen and Jeff, you respect Amazon’s right to decide to make this product available. Perhaps you should respect our right to decide what corporate behavior is acceptable to us and who we will buy our books from.

Once again, to the authors of this blog, thanks so much for running this piece. If I can be of any assistance, please let me know.

Thanks,
Daydreamer

NO ONE is “censoring” this material by refusing to sell it.

You get so caught up in trying to contradict people you lose sight of very easy-to-grasp ideas.

If Amazon or the government were to enter the child-rapist’s home and burn all of his books, that would be “censorship.” Not selling his book is not.

“Same thing with any conservative book.”

Oh come on. As if they are the same thing.