Amazon controversy

[GnomeyNewt]

...but where should the line be drawn? And who decides? These are difficult, troubling questions, and I am glad that Amazon wants to err on the side of leaving those moral judgments to the consumers - doesn't it trouble you to imagine a morality board at Amazon deciding what may and may not be sold?

 

[some argued that Amazon should not carry it because it advocates illegal activity... but, again, evaluating the legality of activities in books does not seem to me to be an appropriate task for a bookseller.]

 

It does not trouble me at all when a business makes a moral decision NOT to carry certain material. It is the RIGHT of the bookseller to do such, and they make their own policies regarding such material. I do want them to make the judgment in Amazons case, because they sell baby and childrens products! It is a little contradictive to say, "Here buy these things for your kids while I'm selling this book to people that may hurt your kids". They have to make a choice, do you want to market to parents or predators? I can say most parents won't like the decision for them to carry both of those products along side each other ~ as clearly that makes no sense.

 

Perhaps you would have disagreed with Amazons decision last year to remove "the Rape Game" from their online store. A game where a mother and her 2 daughters get raped? If Amazon promptly removed that game, they should have done the same in this case too. Except they did not, which is the issue that most people have with the recent issue. Not that it was listed, but that they defended the listing of such material and only remove such material when social media pressured them.

 

Any business has the right to sell what they want to, but as such the consumer has the right to choose from who they buy from. I want to do business with a company that DOES make choices. It is easier to judge a business that way. I will choose where I continue to do my business in the future based on those choices they make. In Amazons case, they simply said all material will be allowed according to their policies (which does state it will not allow morally objectionable material). Yet porn and other "morally objectionable" material have been rejected and removed in the past. Why practice free speech on this book, but not the other material removed for similar reasons?

 

I personally am not waiting for their apology anymore. It is clear they want this brushed under the table as quickly as possible. Apologizing will bring this story to more people and back to the forefront. I hope they realize now that the consumer still does run this market and that they DO have to make some choices regarding what they carry. According to many sources they have removed many objectionable material over the last few weeks. I am thinking this was hopefully a learning experience for Amazon and in the future they will handle such cases better.

 

Overall I'm annoyed, but also glad this issue came up and was resolved quickly. We are aware of such material now and retailers such as Amazon know where the consumer stands.

[pdalley]

Amazon is has a very strange policy. No legal p***n but they have had the pedophilia book and the other Man/Love book.

 

The 'we don't censor' argument holds no water with me. If they truly were not biased then they'd carry legal forms of p***n.

 

And if they want me to shop there again they will apologize for defending a book detailing how to get away with a heinous crime against children.

 

They obviously don't care what I think. I don't expect them to. But I won't put money in their pockets either.

[Saille]

Amazon is has a very strange policy. No legal p***n but they have had the pedophilia book and the other Man/Love book.

 

The 'we don't censor' argument holds no water with me. If they truly were not biased then they'd carry legal forms of p***n.

 

Huh. That is a really logical argument. It hadn't occurred to me to check whether they sell porn, but I agree, it makes no sense to defend the one and not stock the other.

[Aubrey]

I don't think they should make an apology.

 

I don't know why I put so much stock in it, but I do--I would probably have continued shopping there if they had done so.

 

I think their concern about limiting the availability of books is a really valid concern - not one of money grubbing, but one of principle.

 

Brick and mortar stores can't offer every book in print - let alone most out of print ones - but an online store can.

 

If a retailer with Amazon's marker share chooses not to carry a book, they can make it impossible for an average buyer to obtain that book... which in the case of such an evil title we probably all agree is a good thing...

 

I can appreciate that, & I can be open-minded enough to not be bothered by their sales of books, etc that are far beyond what I'm comfortable with. This issue, however, is one that our society (almost) universally agrees to be the vilest crime possible.

 

I'm not even concerned that they didn't know it was there or what was in it--after all, that's part of the ease of self-publishing. If they were going to specifically look at everything, costs would be higher.

 

When their attention is brought to it, just pull it. How can a person even bat an eye at that? I mean, if it were *even* a gray area, I could see some pause for thought, some discussion, what ever. There's nothing gray about this, at all.

 

...but where should the line be drawn? And who decides? These are difficult, troubling questions, and I am glad that Amazon wants to err on the side of leaving those moral judgments to the consumers - doesn't it trouble you to imagine a morality board at Amazon deciding what may and may not be sold?

 

Maybe the line doesn't get put in exactly the right place, but it goes squarely inside GRAY territory. Then we bicker on a small scale about the gray territory. The black, though, is black.

 

[some argued that Amazon should not carry it because it advocates illegal activity... but, again, evaluating the legality of activities in books does not seem to me to be an appropriate task for a bookseller.]

 

Sure. They shouldn't have to sift through millions of books looking for illegal activity to censor/evaluate. This book was not that. It was a *guide.*

 

...and I'm not sure why Amazon is more villainous for having a book available online than a brick and mortar store is for being willing to special order it... that doesn't make any sense to me.

 

What brick & mortar store is willing to order a guide to pedophilia? Please, if you know, I'll be happy to boycott them as well.

 

I think it was right, in this instance, to pull the book - but it was the lesser of two evils, and I'm glad they saw it that way.

 

Though, in some ways, I am very concerned that they yielded to pressure.... what could that mean in the future?

 

What would it mean if they *didn't* "yield to pressure"? That's how the market has always worked, but more than that: what would that mean for our kids, if we have become so numb that we just shrug when we see things like this for sale?

 

I don't remember ever having disagreed w/ you, Eliana, but in this case, I do. Very deeply.

[8circles]

I can appreciate that, & I can be open-minded enough to not be bothered by their sales of books, etc that are far beyond what I'm comfortable with. This issue, however, is one that our society (almost) universally agrees to be the vilest crime possible.

 

I'm not even concerned that they didn't know it was there or what was in it--after all, that's part of the ease of self-publishing. If they were going to specifically look at everything, costs would be higher.

 

When their attention is brought to it, just pull it. How can a person even bat an eye at that? I mean, if it were *even* a gray area, I could see some pause for thought, some discussion, what ever. There's nothing gray about this, at all.

 

 

 

Maybe the line doesn't get put in exactly the right place, but it goes squarely inside GRAY territory. Then we bicker on a small scale about the gray territory. The black, though, is black.

 

 

 

Sure. They shouldn't have to sift through millions of books looking for illegal activity to censor/evaluate. This book was not that. It was a *guide.*

 

 

 

What brick & mortar store is willing to order a guide to pedophilia? Please, if you know, I'll be happy to boycott them as well.

 

 

 

What would it mean if they *didn't* "yield to pressure"? That's how the market has always worked, but more than that: what would that mean for our kids, if we have become so numb that we just shrug when we see things like this for sale?

 

 

:iagree:totally. I find this issue so disturbing.