Replies

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.