[mhking]

In a similar way I believe politely asking Amazon to stop selling the book is my duty, so to speak, in protecting children.

I've got no problem with asking Amazon to stop. I've got no problem with boycotts. That works for me. Where I've got a major problem is the threat of lawsuits to force Amazon to stop selling the book. That, to me, is akin to holding a gun to their head, and that, to me, is just plain wrong.

[yendu bwam]

I've got no problem with asking Amazon to stop. I've got no problem with boycotts. That works for me. Where I've got a major problem is the threat of lawsuits to force Amazon to stop selling the book. That, to me, is akin to holding a gun to their head, and that, to me, is just plain wrong.

If you agree that what Amazon's doing is a moral atrocity, why is is 'wrong' to use any existing law to get it to stop? We should use every legal available means to get Namblazon to stop aiding and abetting the promotion of child rape.

[ValerieUSA]

Why not have lawsuits that hold peddlers of smut partially responsible for the crimes committed in the production of the smut?
You advocate going after authors and publishers and buyers of pedophilia propaganda - but not the distributors? The profiteering middle man is exempt from all responsibility if his stated goal is to profit from sales of ALL books? I should think such an unethical goal deserves backlash.

[general_re]

I've got no problem with asking Amazon to stop. I've got no problem with boycotts. That works for me. Where I've got a major problem is the threat of lawsuits to force Amazon to stop selling the book. That, to me, is akin to holding a gun to their head, and that, to me, is just plain wrong.

Worth repeating...