Amazon defends sale of pedophile book

Amazon knows they will lose a lot more business if they decide NOT to carry such material.

An important factor when business is all that Namblazon cares about.

There's absolutely no right to have someone sell your book.

I agree, and I thought I made that clear in my post.

And if you think there are more people who wish to read The Turner Diaries than are puking over Namblazon's decision here - I think you may be wrong!

Probably not, but a great many people and organizations will not patronize companies that refuse to carry books for political reasons. I’m one. The American Library Association, sponsor of Banned Books Week, is another.

I can reach easily about 1,000 people in churches here - and who will refuse to go to Namblazon for books. A lot of others will be doing the same. Jeff NAMBLA Bezos is contributing to the rape of children. Society should puke.

Knock yourself out. On the off chance you will succeed, so what? A thousand other on-line retailers will still carry the material and you wont keep it from a single person who wants it.

An important factor when business is all that Namblazon cares about.

Maybe so, and there’s nothing illegal about that. But there are also a lot of booksellers who believe in the free marketplace of ideas. An advocate may present the case for any idea, no matter how deplorable most think it. That is the core of your First Amendment rights. Let the author make his case. If the argument has merit, it may be embraced, if not it will be abandoned. Either way, it is the publics’ decision.

An advocate may present the case for any idea, no matter how deplorable most think it. That is the core of your First Amendment rights. Let the author make his case. If the argument has merit, it may be embraced, if not it will be abandoned. Either way, it is the publics’ decision.

It's not just the author. It's Jeff Bezos joining in. And you're right, it is the public's decision. It's sad, though, when we actively aid and abet those who promote child rape. Someday, something like that will hit home close to you, and you will think differently. As for the American Library Association - it's a scummy organization which could care less if kids are exposed to pornography in libraries and would turn our town libraries into porno shops. But, hey - who else would be supporting Jeff NAMBLA Bezos? Two peas on a scummy pod, I would say.

We ARE talking about censorship. Notice that Ackerman says he'll "go to Ashcroft" if he has to. This is all the subject of a suit he's filing to FORCE Amazon to remove the book. Go to this story for information about how this is attempted censorship. I agree, the book is disgusting, and Amazon should think twice about posting books that have no intellectual/historical value and a vast majority, 99.99% of the people, find absolutely disgusting. Boycotts are legitimate, and in my opinion should be employed in this case. But to invite the government to start banning books from the shelves, no matter how repugnant they are, is wrong, unconstitutional, and not where we should be heading.

I don't accept that pedophilia porn is protected speech under the First Amendment.

We ARE talking about censorship. Notice that Ackerman says he'll "go to Ashcroft" if he has to. This is all the subject of a suit he's filing to FORCE Amazon to remove the book. ... But to invite the government to start banning books from the shelves, no matter how repugnant they are, is wrong, unconstitutional, and not where we should be heading.

Hey there, billybudd, you're wrong. We in this country have the right to free speech (subject to very few limitations). The author of this book has every right to write it, to sell it, to hand it out on the street corner, etc. etc. Censorship (and denial of 1st amendment rights) would be the act of forcing this guy to shut up. But nobody is contemplating that. Preventing Amazon from selling this book in NO way censors the author. The author (or anybody else) has no 'right' to have someone else sell his book for him. As for forcing Amazon to desist, if, as the article states, there are laws against unethical business practices (and for me, this certainly constitutes such a case), then I say go for it. That's not censoring the author. That would simply be saying that we as a society should not be promoting child rape - an action which could well lead to an increase in sexual abuse (and in this case, homosexual abuse) against children (which has already gone off the charts in this country anyway).

You're right, Amazon has every right to refuse to sell the author's book. But that clearly is not the case here. Amazon WANTS to sell the book, and Ackerman wants to FORCE them not to, via the government. That IS censorship because it is using government force to prevent the spread of an idea. I don't buy the argument that somehow this book "leads to" child rape. This book doesn't physically force anyone to commit a crime, nor does it incite any specific act. In any case, this is not an argument to censor the book: it is at best, an argument to punish the author were it ever proved that this book directly caused a particular crime. I doubt this will ever happen, since this book is simply a general rant, not a list of boys' home numbers.
BTW, should we censor a book advocating that drugs should be legal? If yes, then you are insane, because you are essentially turning every single law and regulation into undebatable dogma, and petrifying society. If no, then how is different from Amazon's case, except that the subject material is more disgusting? The standard for restricting the first amendment should be very narrow. There is always more of a risk in censoring than in not censoring material.

I don't buy the argument that somehow this book "leads to" child rape. This book doesn't physically force anyone to commit a crime, nor does it incite any specific act. In any case, this is not an argument to censor the book: it is at best, an argument to punish the author were it ever proved that this book directly caused a particular crime. I doubt this will ever happen, since this book is simply a general rant, not a list of boys' home numbers.

First of all, homosexual pedophiles who have molested boys have in the past claimed they were encouraged to do so by NAMBLA literature - which is similar. Any moral person, if they thought there were even the slightest chance that aiding in the promotion of these ideas would encourage molestors to abuse boys, would immediately desist from encouraging the promotion of such. Clearly, there is some chance of that happening. It's exactly the same with shows like Jackass or pro-wrestling on TV, where many kids went out and got really hurt by imitating what they saw on TV. Any moral person would not put out shows that led to kids getting hurt. And if some kid is shown to have been raped as a result of this book, the blame rests foursquare with the author AND with Namblazon, for having sold it to thousands, knowing that some could be encouraged to do evil things to boys. And let's see - do you not think that there are potential pedophiles buying this book? Doing ANYTHING at all that has some chance of causing kids to be sexually molested or raped is highly immoral and unethical. Apart from that, it's just as highly unethical and immoral to give aid and sustenance to people who would promote child rape. If a man wanted to promote the rape of women by standing on a soapbox, and I gave him use of my property to do so at a fairground loaded with people, and he got up on the box and implored young men to consider the 'virtues' of raping women, we'd both have committed highly immoral acts. As for censorship, again, no one would deny this man his first amendment rights. Since the constitution does NOT speak to this issue, then Namblazon is bound by whatever laws legislatures pass. If such laws are applicable here, then I say force Namblazon to desist. Today, my kids are being forced to hear homosexual propaganda in school, their Boy Scout troop has been targeted by militant homosexual activists, who want to be my sons' scoutmasters on overnight camping trips, we've had two boys homosexually molested in our town (and one murdered), my Church is beset by literally thousands of teenage boy rapes at the hands of priests, and now we're all in a dither because someone might say that Namblazon's helping to promote homosexual child rape is not OK. You take your stand; I'll take mine. At the end of the day, some kid you know, or know of, will be sexually molested, and you'll say to yourself - I indirectly helped bring this about.

The standard for restricting the first amendment should be very narrow.

Again, this is not a first amendment issue, unless Namblazon wants to actively take a position in favor of child rape (which it says it does not).

Amazon.com continues to claim First Amendment grounds for its sale and promotion of a book advocating adult-child sex...

The First Amendment argument here is a big pile of warm crap. The First Amendment does not give you the "right" to go into a crowded theater and yell "Fire!" And in this case in particular, the First Amendment does not guarantee you the "right" to solicit criminal activity.

I DO boycott and fight people who contribute to the promotion of moral atrocities. Namblazon is contributing to the promotion of child rape.

I do too.I just sent amazon an email stating I will no longer be a customer of their service.

Bump

Thank God, the book got pulled.

You resurrected an 8-year-old thread! :-)

Have you seen the following article which came out yesterday with a very similar title?

Book defending pedophilia for sale on Amazon

I figured you searched and found the old one first...