Censored!

[Undertow]

Please refer to the following BBC story as a backdrop to the topic:
Row over Amazon sales of paedophile advice guide

We've had some great discussions on this board lately and I was hoping we could all intellectually weigh in on something else. I read the above article this morning and I think the premise hits home to fellow loungers (writers) as well as US citizens.

Should an American business like Amazon censor a book because it may be offensive? Mind, in the past Amazon has stated they will not censor titles but leave it to consumers to avoid certain literature on their own.

Ultimately, one may argue that a company has the right to limit or censor any product it sells. However, the question remains - regardless of how heinous the subject (and per the article, it appears this subject was considerable odious), should the free speech of this author be censored?

1st Amend:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

*Late addition, my apologies*

 

[Mark D]

The free speech of the author isn't being censored. The issue of free speech involves a government's abrogration of a human right. A private entity may do what ever it pleases. I wouldn't sell it either.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Since when is there a guaranteed right to publication or distribution for anything, let alone something like this? Free speech may guarantee your right to say anything, but it doesn't require anyone to provide a forum for it, or even to listen.

 

[Undertow]

You're right - a private company like Amazon is not obligated to sell literature. Moreover, the 1st Amend. only protects citizens from government interaction.

However, Amazon has already stated they don't censor their books - but they've pulled this publication due to its content and due to public outcry.

Although my overall question is more about censorship than about private business decisions, I'm also interested in your take on Amazon's decision to protect some works over others - like for instance Henry Ford's The International Jew: The World's Problem, or Suicide and Attempted Suicide: Methods and Consequences by Geo Stone, or I Hate Christianity by Jamie Jacobs, or Saxon's The Poor Man's James Bond series; all of which are inflammatory.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Anti-Semitism, attempted suicide, anti-Christianity, and militant survivalism aren't illegal. Pedophilic activity is. Should publishers and booksellers be held at fault for not choosing to distribute works that promote or encourage illegal activities?

 

[Widebrim]

Anti-Semitism, attempted suicide, anti-Christianity, and militant survivalism aren't illegal. Pedophilc activity is.

Exactly (although suicide is illegal).

 

[Undertow]

Exactly (although suicide is illegal).

And if you're ever browsed The Poor Man's James Bond, you'd agree very much of it is illegal as well.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Do you think Amazon has actually read everything it sells?

 

[PoohBang]

Exactly (although suicide is illegal).

and you will go to jail if you kill yourself....

and maybe I'm not in the "the know" but didn't the supreme court say that corporations are now citizens... so wouldn't then corporations be protected by the 1st then going by that logic?

 

[Undertow]

Anti-Semitism, attempted suicide, anti-Christianity, and militant survivalism aren't illegal. Pedophilic activity is. Should publishers and booksellers be held at fault for not choosing to distribute works that promote or encourage illegal activities?

But are pedophilic thoughts illegal? Or pedophilic words? Why shouldn't someone be able to write about it?
For instance, The Poor Man's James Bond vol.2 describes in great detail how to make a silencer for nearly any firearm. Unless you live in a Class III state, and possess the correct permits, etc. then you don't have much of an excuse for reading about that subject, right? Or what about the fiasco in Enumclaw, WA when no one could prosecute some sicko for the infamous abuse of animals? If someone wrote a book outlining a gameplan for your own "farm" wouldn't that be just as bad?

(btw, I should note, the PMJB series is really neat, albeit a little scary considering how easy some of those devices are to create)

 

[Undertow]

and you will go to jail if you kill yourself....

and maybe I'm not in the "the know" but didn't the supreme court say that corporations are now citizens... so wouldn't then corporations be protected by the 1st then going by that logic?

That's an interesting point because I believe corporations used that logic to argue they deserved to contribute to campaigns anonomously and without limit.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Well, again, I never said anything about preventing anyone from writing anything. The issue is should anyone, once they've written something, expect that they have a right to have it published or distributed. I see no reason why anyone should expect that, no matter what they write.

I had never heard of this particular controversy until you brought it up, and having now read up on some of the commentary around the blogs, I'm astonished at the inability of people to think critically about this issue. It always has to be an absolute: either you favor anything-goes or you're a book-burner. Are we really this stupid?

 

[Feraud]

I had never heard of this particular controversy until you brought it up, and having now read up on some of the commentary around the blogs, I'm astonished at the inability of people to think critically about this issue. It always has to be an absolute: either you favor anything-goes or you're a book-burner. Are we really this stupid?

Sadly.. yes we are this stupid.
The comments section of online news outlets are a disturbing look at the psyche of a given group of people.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I think the big problem here is that too many people have a six-year-old child's understanding of "Free Speech." When I was little and pitched a fit and my mother told me to shut up I'd yell "FREEDOM OF SPEECH! I DONT HAFTA SHUT UP." Well, I soon found that my freedom of speech went about as far as the back of her hand. And then when I studied civics in High School I learned what "Freedom of Speech" actually referred to. Unfortunately too many people today never took that class.

 

[PoohBang]

when it comes to free speech it is all about anything goes, no matter if you don't like what you hear.
Of course when they wrote the Bill of Rights they didn't have in mind protecting book topics like paedophile, but neither did they imagine machine guns in every house either...

So I think you need to go with an all or nothing. Otherwise you're stepping on somebodies rights.

 

[Foofoogal]

Mercy, I just watched a documentary about people trafficking of young girls into Houston from other countries.
I must not have a certain gene or I do have one depending on how one looks at it but How anyone would possibly think it is not ok to censor a book that teaches people to be pedophiles is beyond me.
It may be a tool for the police to catch these animals as they could track who buys such a piece of filth. (how is this for subtle?) I may need to buy the James Bond book on how to make a silencer if one gets near my family and/or buy them in bulk to pass out to my family as gifts for Christmas and I have a very, very large family.
This thread just pushed my blood pressure up I am sure.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Well, yet again, it is not a question of the First Amendment. The First Amendment has no jurisdiction whatsoever over what a bookstore sells -- whether it's the one on the corner in your town or Amazon.com.

Consider this. Let's say I've written a blistering manifesto outlining my views on why we should -- nay, MUST -- reject all culture created after 1937. Do I have a guaranteed right that this manifesto be published? If a publisher rejects it, is he violating my right to free speech? If I self-publish and a bookseller refuses to sell it, is he violating my right to free speech? If so, how do you reason this?

 

[Miss Neecerie]

Well, yet again, it is not a question of the First Amendment. The First Amendment has no jurisdiction whatsoever over what a bookstore sells -- whether it's the one on the corner in your town or Amazon.com.

Consider this. Let's say I've written a blistering manifesto outlining my views on why we should -- nay, MUST -- reject all culture created after 1937. Do I have a guaranteed right that this manifesto be published? If a publisher rejects it, is he violating my right to free speech? If I self-publish and a bookseller refuses to sell it, is he violating my right to free speech? If so, how do you reason this?

Exactly right.

Each retailer 'buys' inventory as they see fit, to meet the needs of their establishment. Not all establishments sell all products.

The only reason this is getting press is that it is Amazon.

I am sure there are thousands of other bookstores in this country and others that are also not selling this book.

Does that mean they are also censoring ? Is it censoring if I go to an engineering bookshop and cannot find 'war and peace'?

Each retailer decides what to sell, because it is not a state-run retail environment.

 

[PoohBang]

Well, yet again, it is not a question of the First Amendment. The First Amendment has no jurisdiction whatsoever over what a bookstore sells -- whether it's the one on the corner in your town or Amazon.com.

Consider this. Let's say I've written a blistering manifesto outlining my views on why we should -- nay, MUST -- reject all culture created after 1937. Do I have a guaranteed right that this manifesto be published? If a publisher rejects it, is he violating my right to free speech? If I self-publish and a bookseller refuses to sell it, is he violating my right to free speech? If so, how do you reason this?

Of course not. That is not a 1st Amendment question.

This thread is about "Should Some Speech/Literature be Censored" and THAT is a 1st amendment question.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Well, it's only a First Amendment question if it's the federal government doing the censorship. How about if an individual or a company decides for himself not to sell a particular work because they find it objectionable? Is that also censorship? And if so, should they be *required* to sell that work?

The point I'm trying to make is that "censorship" isn't simply a black-and-white issue. There are different kinds of censorship, for different reasons, thru different agencies, and a lot of interlocking "rights" are involved, some of them constitutional, and some of them having no basis in law at all.