As my fiancée’s Italian grandmother likes to say, ‘We’re living in a sick society, people! SICK!’
Those of you who don’t happen to agree with Grandma Stella’s doomsday view need only read Andrew Losowsky’s latest HuffPo piece, “Amazon Attacked Over Sex Tourism Ebook“. Losowsky explains the situation best in his article’s lede paragraph:
“Amazon came under fire from Love146, a group that campaigns against child trafficking and exploitation, for selling what appeared to be a self-published e-book encouraging pedophilia overseas, “Age of Consent: A Sex Tourists Guide!” by Peter F. Friedmann.“
Kinda gross, no? Naturally, it gets even worse; here’s the book’s description, which was seen by Amazon visitors who may have been thinking of adding Age of Consent to their summer beach-reading lists:
“In some countries it is even illegal to have sex outside of marriage, with severe consequences if you are caught doing so! On the flipside, there are many countries on this planet where the age of consent is as low as 12 or 13… This $3.49 will keep you out of jail, possibly the most important few dollars that any red blooded testosterone pumped traveller will spend.”
Wow.
Personally, I think the most interesting aspect of the situation has to do with the fact that after having made the ebook available for roughly nine months now, “the book’s listing was removed by Amazon on Thursday evening,” according to the HuffPo piece. And get this: Back in 2010, a book titled The Pedophiles Guide to Love and Pleasure was similarly banned from Amazon, but only after a significant amount of protesting was carried out against Amazon by an anti-child sex slavery organization based in New Haven, Conn., known as Love146.
“However,” as Losowsky writes, “Amazon initially defended the book’s availability, saying ‘Amazon believes it is censorship not to sell certain books simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable. Amazon does not support or promote hatred or criminal acts, however, we do support the right of every individual to make their own purchasing decisions.'”
Does anyone else find it as fascinating as I do that a corporation as large as Amazon would release such a statement? Because while most literary-based organizations do at least give lip service to their supposed defense of censorship, the simple fact of the matter is that even someone who happens to be a hardcore proponent of free-speech will probably be okay with the idea of censoring a guidebook to kiddie-prostitution. And yet, after risking its mainstream, Middle America reputation by releasing the anti-censorship statement, Amazon went ahead and banned the book after all!
I’m very curious to know how all of you feel about this particular situation. Granted, there are a lot of moving parts here, but let’s start with this: Is Amazon doing the right thing by banning this sort of content? Or do they have a responsibility to promote and uphold the very American value of free-speech?
I hate to say this because I find the subject of the book objectionable, but I have to think “slippery slope” here. Banning books on child pornography seems reasonable and sensible, but it’s easy to go from that to, say, banning books about homosexuality. Or birth control. Or other topics which are objectionable to others.
On the other hand, child pornography is illegal, so there’s an argument to be made for banning that. I was curious and just did a quick check. Several bomb-making books are available, and arguably that’s a sensitive subject as well and comes perilously close to illegal activity.
Obviously, I’m torn about this one.
I have to agree with Juli. It’s a slippery slope. Paypal’s odd approach earlier this year got the same type of response. They tried to ban sales of what they claimed was unacceptable pornography – sex with shape-shifters (clearly none of these books was promoting this activity since shapeshifters are fictional creatures.
Despite that, I believe there are many channels to check the overzealous censor.
I support Amazon taking the books down, and suggest they send the information they have on who purchased the books to the appropriate authorities. Before you get all pissed off about the right of sexual predators to their privacy, I’m pretty sure the authorities grab this information for many other reasons.
I am the person who started the Change.org petition to get the title removed, and my position is not one of morality. My position is that child rape is a human rights violation. What these monsters do to the girls is horrific. By the time they are 20, many have their anuses so torn that they are forever incontinent. That is torture. I know many survivors of childhood trafficking and what they suffer every day of their adult lives is horrific. No more!
When I woke at 2 a.m. this morning and discovered that the title had been removed, I hoped that at least one child somewhere was not being raped and tortured because some rapist did not have the book. If anyone has a problem with a child NOT being raped and tortured, I would really love to hear that justification.
The really funny thing is that this is not the first time this kind of thing has happened to Amazon.
What was the old saying? Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it?
Amazon is lying outright in saying saying, ‘Amazon believes it is censorship not to sell certain books simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable…”
Amazon has pulled many books in the LGBT area, simply because they were LGBT. It has also pulled other books in the fetish area, even though nothing was illegal, and nothing suggested illegal acts.
The real “slippery slope” is not that Amazon is lying outright and pulling books in response to public pressure. The real slope is when Amazon starts pulling books for lack of political correctness. For example, what if Amazon starts (or have they begun already?) to pull books which speak frankly about Islamic terrorism or Islam itself?
Well I have to go against the current on this one.
Censorship is where a Gov bans material and as a result mature adults are prevented from gaining access to it. That is an objectionable and deeply worrying action.
Bookshops all over the world make daily choices as to what material/titles they stock. They are private businesses and are fully entitled to chose NOT to stock material that they don’t like.
There is a limited area where these two situations are at odds, as it were, which is where a bookstore is the only one in a town and effectively removes the right of citizens to access the material.
With Amazon – we are in a wholly different situation. They are only one of many sellers of the printed word (as it were). They are entitled not to stick what they don’t want to stock for whatever reason. And in addition .. the producers of this and other material in question are free to sell their material from their own web sites. And to be honest I really don’t see how awful this book is on the face of it. I can think of worse. As an aside the lowest age of consent in the world is the Vatican City …. which opens a whole can of worms for semi-humorous contributions.
Therefore there is no censorship issue here, folks. There is no slippery slope. There is no banning. If Amazon choses not to sell it, then it is still available. There is no massive issue here at all.
Howard, you’re absolutely right. Not sure where my head was when I wrote my response, but your point about private business is spot on. I blame my Friday brain-fried state. 🙂 Thanks!
I’ve got to agree that Howard makes a very valid point. Although in reality, it’s not just a valid point—it’s also correct. As deceptive as some of Amazon’s official statements about censorship may very well be, the reality of free-market capitalism is that it’s not always pretty. And I think most everyone here is intelligent enough to know that while Amazon’s individual employees almost certainly have their own opinions about censorship, the “Company” as an entity probably couldn’t care less. After all, as Howard pointed out, Amazon is neither a municipal nor governmental organization–it’s a corporation, and its job is to make money.
And yet there’s the rub, because on a deeper level—on a philosophical level, maybe—Amazon is much more than ‘just a corporation.’ It’s not a widget factory; it’s a business that disseminates knowledge. Many of the Western world’s most important thoughts and ideas are at this moment sitting between cardboard and paper covers in Amazon’s warehouses.
I realize, of course, that Amazon isn’t solely a bookseller anymore, although even among non-book lovers, I would guess that when most people think of Amazon.com, they think of books. And that’s probably why I can’t help but wonder if maybe the company *should* assume some level of responsibility when to comes to crucial issues like censorship and free speech, both of which are at least ostensibly literature-related issues.
Just to be clear, though: I absolutely agree with Howard’s point that Amazon has no responsibility to stock items they don’t want to. But *because* books are the items in question here, I have a really hard time thinking about this issue only in terms of black and white. This one’s definitely a bit grey.
You say that “As an aside the lowest age of consent in the world is the Vatican City …. ”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe#Vatican_State
Accorging to Wikipedia,
“the Vatican State generally uses current Italian national law, as well as regional and municipal laws for Rome, as long as they do not conflict with ecclesiastical law or laws specifically promulgated by Pope for the Vatican.[84] As a result, the age of consent is 14, the same as Italy’s.”
The same article says in Spain the age of consent is 13.
Now. Should the Howard’s post be censored, because he posted a fact about the age of consent in Vatican? Even if it was incorrect?
Should my post be censored?
Should the Wikipedia article be censored?
Where is the treshold?
Concerning the age of consent in Vatican city: Howard had the right to say what he did, though Vatican City may have some rights to sue him for libel if it indeed isn’t true, But Teleread is under no obligation to pass it along–it wouldn’t be censorship for them to remove the post, or even edit it within reason. That’s Teleread’s free speech right, just as long as they don’t edit it to misrepresent what he said. And it’s their free speech right to let your post stand or not.
Also, Wikipedia is not generally considered an authoritative source. We still aren’t sure what the actual age of consent is in Vatican City.
Amazon’s comment about free speech is crap. They have no obligation to support the author’s speech. It’s Amazon’s free speech in issue, and they are free to publish the book in countries where local laws permit it. It becomes the buyers choice as to what they do about Amazon’s choice–petition, boycott, or support by buying more books.
The AOC in Spain is not absolute however, leaving my statement essentially correct. But hey, all that time checking it out will help you in your future life of attempted anonymous humour ! LOL
There are really two separate issues here. 1) What are the legal obligations of a publicly held company with respect to publishing information and 2) When should a for-profit organization bow to consumer pressure.
Regarding point #1, we could probably fill volumes with the IFs, ANDs and BUTs of what is or should be censorable, Pornography, How to Make an Atom Bomb, How to propagate the Ebola virus — the list of candidates is interminable. These are and should be matters of law, law enforcement and judicial interpretation. All of this is “in the public interest.”
Regarding point #2, The recent Chick-fil-a situation, Apple rejecting books and apps on the basis of content, dress codes applied to customers and employees and that list is interminable as well. These are and, according to most business schools, should be matters of profitability. All of this is in the interests of the shareholders and other principles of a business.
Of course these two factors act jointly and that clouds the issues considerably. Analysis is the act of separating commingled and obfuscating things like these to examine them separately in terms that are appropriate to each factor. Law on the one hand and profit on the other.
Dan – thank you for your positive comments on my view. It seems churlish to then come back for more but what the heck …
I do understand exactly where you are coming from in your nuanced views, but I don’t agree with your theory about Amazon having a moral position or the suggestion that capitalism is ‘not pretty’.
I suggest that this is really part of our human tendency to project our morality and prejudices on to organisations and political systems, a kind of anthropomorphism.
Neither Capitalism nor Socialism, Marxism or any other political system is pretty or ugly, benevolent or malevolent in and of itself. The same applies to the UN, Coca Cola, Merck or Amazon.
That Amazon sells books, the written word, or the sum of human knowledge doesn’t impose on them a higher responsibility. I see no persuasive reason why it should.
What WOULD do so however, and where your point would become a valid one, is if Amazon were to become a significant monopoly in any genre or literary field, in any country or on any computer system. And despite the claims of many in the publishing industry the truth is they are not any kind of monopoly, yet.
Amazon have made a monumental mistake, in my view, to ever allow itself to get involved in the debate on censorship. By doing so they have stirred up a global tendency to anthropomorphise (what a bi*** of a word to have to type!) and the whole Amazon hating faction in the Publishing hinterland. On this topic they should take a leaf out of Apple’s play book and shut up alright.
Very well put, Frank. That’s pretty much exactly what I was trying to say … although you got the point across in a much more succinct manner! Well done.