Amazon Should Be Ashamed

Amazon sells “A Pedophile’s Guide”.

Of course, we could pretend this is about a first amendment right. The problem is that here in America – the land of the free – we were supposed to understand that our freedoms are only freedoms so long as they don’t encroach upon those of our neighbor. We were supposed to understand that freedom for the sake of freedom is irresponsible. And in a country where criminal charges have been established when the speech of one man encourages, instructs, incites the criminal activity of another, I would think Amazon would exercise some common sense. To sell a book which makes a case for not only the criminal but the deplorable and call it a defense of freedom is a great illustration of the weaknesses of our society. We want what we want because we think we can justify it by the Bill of Rights instead of adhering to any form of a social contract in which I am willing to restrict myself – as in no one should have to ask or tell me – in order to safeguard others, particularly those who are incapable of protecting themselves. Absolute shame, Amazon. This isn’t even an Aryan manifesto, a guide to adultery or any other manuscript that encourages the unsavory beliefs and behaviors between adults. This is about how to find love and sexual fulfillment with someone’s child.

The fact that I had to write any of this is absurd and enraging. I’m not going to bother continuing to preach to the choir, you guys, there’s really nothing else to say. If anyone disagreed anyway, there’d be no cause for discussion. We are fundamentally different. Just thought you might like to know this…for some reason.


10 thoughts on “Amazon Should Be Ashamed

  1. To legislate that Amazon couldn’t sell this odious book is to open up the flood gate for the government deciding what can/can not get published. Freedom was touted just so: for the sake of freedom. This did not mean free from legal action should someone commit a criminal act, but the founders in their timeless wisdom knew that as long as the government could control what was read the people would be subject to the government. To suppose that this could be stopped and that it will not devolve to the government calling MORE shots on what gets out there is to simply believe it won’t. It’s up to the people to be responsible to what they support with their dollars and their time as to what winds up on the shelves. One has only to look around and see all the books about vampires to affirm this. If people were mostly of principle regarding Amazon’s and Wal-Mart’s present/past business practices and decided to not support said companies with their money then would those companies still be in business?

    **Yes, I find the notion of such a book offensive and disturbing; reading it will not make a person NOT a pedophile into one; I still stand on the side that people who are disturbing, etc, can write/say what they want. The people who commit criminal actions need to be held accountable for them. If an act is indeed committed citing this work in their arrest, then that person is already abdicating their responsibility for a heinous act(s).


    • What Amazon chooses not to sell has nothing to do with the gov’t controlling what you read. Aside from which, the problem and criminal liability isn’t in non-pedophiles reading the book. If it weren’t a news item, most of us wouldn’t know it existed. The point is we’re not the demographic and that those searching with special interest (those who already are in that demographic) would.


      • Okay, so you’re upset that pedophiles would purchase this book? I’m really not getting this at all. You come out as hostile, mention first amendment rights, then declare the person having written (or even distributed) this book at fault for pedophiles acting?

        First: If you’re not looking for government to intervene with Amazon over this then why the mention of a government document? Second: A business is in business (some are anyway) to make money. That’s it. They don’t have to work within the context of your morals, just make their appeal as widespread on their perceived market as possible while staying within the limitations of the law. Third: No book is going to make someone who has no interest in committing such atrocious acts as to warrant the label pedophilia do so. People who are interested in doing so would find a way regardless of written instruction.

        I apologize if this was incorrectly interpreting your post. If they’re selling it, by all means, encourage a boycott of the site. I stopped shopping at Wal-Mart years ago because of their practices and should think many people would be willing to do so with Amazon over something like this.


        • *I* didn’t introduce the gov’t document, it was cited as their defense. The problem with the defense being it wouldn’t keep them from being criminally liable under certain specific circumstances. Clearly something being technically legal by one interpretation doesn’t keep an attorney or judge from arguing that it incited or encouraged already criminal people to follow a particularly described practice.

          I think when reading, we have to keep our arguments at bay at least until we hear what the other person is actually saying. My point was exactly that the government shouldn’t have to tell a business what is in poor taste.

          A business is a business is neither here nor there. Neither does it excuse the fact that to run one’s business in such a way is reprehensible and takes advantage of an already corrupt spirit of capitalism. I could say “irresponsible” again, but I fear I’m repeating myself.


          • I did my best to understand what you were saying, hence my responses. This is why I sought out information to clarify. Again, I apologize if I misinterpreted and/or didn’t make that clear. In the spirit of debate I try to be clear so there is substantial enough information for me to be brought to task as well. Don’t like being wrong, but I certainly don’t like to be right under false pretenses. 😉

            My comments weren’t meant to incite, but as a response to what obviously was my interpretation of your post. Nothing more or less.


    • Okay, I’m replying to my own post. I have decided on a distinction. I am anti book-banning. I don’t think the government should ban this book. I think Amazon should take responsibility for what it chooses to sell. And we, as consumers, should speak in a way they understand (i.e. don’t buy it).


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s