Amazon defends 'Pedophile's Guide'

[thalassa]

Re: Amazon defends 'Pedophile's Guide'

[quote author=DanieMarie link=topic=766.msg12076#msg12076 date=1289504938]
I'm sorry, but no I'm not. This is my field and these are very real, serious issues within marketing and strategic business.

If you would like, after the weekend I will gladly site many, many sources proving my point.
[/quote]

I think the point that is being alluded to, that both of you are talking cross-purposes about...is that in this particular instance, this work is *not* illegal in the place where it is was being sold. The company, in this case Amazon, is well within its rights to sell or not sell the book in question. What Amazon does *not* have the right (or even ability) to do is to censor the work itself.

A company may be restricted by legality of what it may or may not market and how, but after that point whether or not it sells it is up to the company. And, in this country, the same company does have some say in terms of the regulations of that industry...which in turn affect the legality of what it can and cannot market and how.

And before it even gets to that point...a company still has the *right* to sell whatever the hell it wants, however the hell it wants to....provided it is willing to deal with the consequences.

Of course...I could be wrong.

[ChainLightning]

Re: Amazon defends 'Pedophile's Guide'

[quote author=DanieMarie link=topic=766.msg12076#msg12076 date=1289504938]
I'm sorry, but no I'm not. This is my field and these are very real, serious issues within marketing and strategic business.

If you would like, after the weekend I will gladly site many, many sources proving my point.
[/quote]

You are actually proving my point. And will, further, cite many, many sources to back me up.


Business, sales, marketing... if that's your field of study? Why do you keep bring censorship into the mix? The demand, the sales and profit margins are what pushes companies forward.

Not idealistic claptrap from some self-righteous arm of the government.

That doesn't mean that other countries don't have laws. That doesn't mean that the bigwigs in charge at said company don't have ideals. That doesn't mean that whatever the product is, it may have strict limitations to it's production, sales and even marketing.

It simply means: The bottom line of any business is about money. Happy customers means more money. Content of some book means squat to the book store. Potential sales? Different story.

Why is that so hard for you to get? You're studying this stuff!

[DanieMarie]

Re: Amazon defends 'Pedophile's Guide'

[quote author=ChainLightning link=topic=766.msg12084#msg12084 date=1289505644]
You are actually proving my point. And will, further, cite many, many sources to back me up.


Business, sales, marketing... if that's your field of study? Why do you keep bring censorship into the mix? The demand, the sales and profit margins are what pushes companies forward.

Not idealistic claptrap from some self-righteous arm of the government.

That doesn't mean that other countries don't have laws. That doesn't mean that the bigwigs in charge at said company don't have ideals. That doesn't mean that whatever the product is, it may have strict limitations to it's production, sales and even marketing.

It simply means: The bottom line of any business is about money. Happy customers means more money. Content of some book means squat to the book store. Potential sales? Different story.

Why is that so hard for you to get? You're studying this stuff!
[/quote]

I'm sorry, I missed your point. I thought you were trying to say that businesses aren't subject to law and have free enterprise to do what they want. I was clearly wrong.

And I'm aware of what you're saying, and I was basically saying the same earlier. It's basically not -profitable- to make decisions like this, which is why I think it's so purely stupid. How many people make up the pedophile customer base? And how many people make up the "angry-about-pedophiles" customer base. I'm going to go with the second on this. As a business, you can't reach absolutely everyone and if you try, you're going to have clashes such as this that lose you money. You have to decide which is the more profitable group and go for them. Increasingly this -is- often the more socially responsible group, though this hasn't always been the case (case in point: SUV sales) and may not always be the case.
And I do personally think that sales of such books should be legally banned. Censorship exists in every country and I don't think it's treading on rights. Of course, that's not the current case in the US (Amazon looks a little different in its German division)....it's just my personal feelings on the legal aspect. My role as a (future) marketer doesn't affect my views on this; marketers are people too and are always faced with moral choices. Sometimes you don't always get to make the choice you want to unfortunately, but luckily society seems to be making the right choices for us (at least at the moment).

[DanieMarie]

Re: Amazon defends 'Pedophile's Guide'

[quote author=thalassa link=topic=766.msg12083#msg12083 date=1289505568]
I think the point that is being alluded to, that both of you are talking cross-purposes about...is that in this particular instance, this work is *not* illegal in the place where it is was being sold. The company, in this case Amazon, is well within its rights to sell or not sell the book in question. What Amazon does *not* have the right (or even ability) to do is to censor the work itself.

A company may be restricted by legality of what it may or may not market and how, but after that point whether or not it sells it is up to the company. And, in this country, the same company does have some say in terms of the regulations of that industry...which in turn affect the legality of what it can and cannot market and how.

And before it even gets to that point...a company still has the *right* to sell whatever the hell it wants, however the hell it wants to....provided it is willing to deal with the consequences.

Of course...I could be wrong.
[/quote]

No, you're definitely right, and I wasn't trying to say that this wasn't the case. I think I got a little out of hand and off topic a bit. Sorry.

[thalassa]

Re: Amazon defends 'Pedophile's Guide'

[quote author=DanieMarie link=topic=766.msg12093#msg12093 date=1289506668]
No, you're definitely right, and I wasn't trying to say that this wasn't the case. I think I got a little out of hand and off topic a bit. Sorry.
[/quote]

lol, yeah...I've been guilty too!

sometimes I think I read stuff cross-eyed or something!!

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Amazon defends 'Pedophile's Guide'

[quote author=cesara link=topic=766.msg12070#msg12070 date=1289504416]

The bible instructs on many things that are illegal today, including slavery, as one example. Meaningful narrative? That would be pretty subjective -- meaningful in what way? To who?[/quote]

Does it actually give instructions on how to take slaves? I haven't read that part, but I'll take your word for it - there's big chunks of it that I've found just too boring to bother with ;D.

Meaningful is subjective. But not entirely subjective. I'm happy enough to allow a lot of leeway because meaningful IS subjective (for instance, I'm not objecting to Nabokov's Lolita here), but flat out instructions on how to commit an act of abuse on children doesn't strike me as particularly subjective. Sorry - I understand your point, but I don't see it as being applicable here. Probably 99% of the time I would be in agreement with you... but this is about children...

[quote author=cesara link=topic=766.msg12070#msg12070 date=1289504416]
Whatever this book teaches -- it will also enlighten those who's job it is to thwart the action, which actually IS illegal. It's information -- what we DO with it is when it becomes an issue.[/quote]

Okey -dokey. Now law enforcement has the book. Can they distribute copies to other law enforcement agencies to get that information? Or do law enforcement agencies get that information by buying the book from Amazon?

I fully agree with you that information becomes good or bad in the hands of the individual who uses it...

However, I am willing to make special rules and laws when it comes to the safety and well being of children. We, as a society, do this all the time because we recognize that children are different from adults, and that they need special protection. This special protection is routinely applied as a matter of course.

For example: I'm a firm believer in the right to own firearms, but if somebody were passing out loaded rifles to six year olds, I'd stop them - without hesitation.

Or, to put it more bluntly -

If somebody were to publish an article on the internet describing Cesara's house, how to break into it, where she was likely to be at a specific time, how best to capture her, suggest methods of incapacitating her, and what then to do to her after incapacitating her, I guess I'd just figure that it's in poor taste, but protected by freedom of speech theories. No problem. Cesara's an adult and can deal with that kind of thing.

However, if somebody were to do the same thing to somebody's 4 year old or eight year old daughter, I'd be out tracking the guy down and ready to do some extreme bodily harm.

(Ok - seriously, the first would make me want to kill somebody as well. Things are different when you see them personally than they are when you think of them theoretically - but you get the idea)

The problem with theories of free speech which do not make allowances for special circumstances is that, in the real world, there are special circumstances where the theories, if applied, become lunacy.

Maybe this is just and existentialist thing... no rule is absolute in all circumstances... but it seems more rational to me than following even the best of rules by rote without reflection on the actual events...

[ChainLightning]

Re: Amazon defends 'Pedophile's Guide'

Absolutely!

I have a very strong opinion against something like that 'guide', myself. I think it would be beneficial to not have crap like that available to every Tom, Dick and Harry, that walks the street. Doesn't matter what street, what country or what the freedom of speech represents.

I'm just not willing to give up *my* rights just to shove theirs (the author's) down that disgusting throat. In fact... except that it's an ill-written e-book, I'd say, "Time for a book burning, to express MY freedoms?"

I just think that drawing all this attention to an otherwise unremarkable piece of literature just gives the author more reason to publish another disgusting guide.

[Raphaeline]

Re: Amazon defends 'Pedophile's Guide'

And could be the reason he wrote it, and the reason Amazon let it out temporarily.

How many times was their name mentioned over this, I wonder?

:

[ThorsSon]

Re: Amazon defends 'Pedophile's Guide'

[quote author=B. de Corbin link=topic=766.msg12037#msg12037 date=1289499847]
Does the Bible give instructions on how to rape, or is it part of a symbolic or otherwise meaningful narrative?

I honestly don't see the slope as being all that slippery.
[/quote]

In the story of Lot, after Lot's wife is dead, and Lot has no male children, his daughters decide to get him drunk and go and "lie with him" so that he may have a male child.

So, yeah, it kinda does explain one way of how to commit rape: get someone drunk and have sex with them... which, now, as of this post, PaganForum does as well.

[DanieMarie]

Re: Amazon defends 'Pedophile's Guide'

[quote author=ThorsSon link=topic=766.msg12105#msg12105 date=1289507838]
In the story of Lot, after Lot's wife is dead, and Lot has no male children, his daughters decide to get him drunk and go and "lie with him" so that he may have a male child.

So, yeah, it kinda does explain one way of how to commit rape: get someone drunk and have sex with them... which, now, as of this post, PaganForum does as well.
[/quote]

But it's not intentionally so. It's not like "thou will go forth, and get that chick wasted, and lay with her. God deems it so!" It's like how people could learn murder tips from a crime novel if they wanted to, but that's not the context in which it was written. I think there's a line...I'm with Corbin on this one.

[Dez]

Re: Amazon defends 'Pedophile's Guide'

I think it's proof the system works, myself.

He wrote the book, found a publisher who was willing to publish, got it in print. Free speech protects that.

The public didn't like it, and boycotted said publisher until they backed up. Also freedom of speech. It cuts both ways.

[ThorsSon]

Re: Amazon defends 'Pedophile's Guide'

[quote author=Deseret link=topic=766.msg12117#msg12117 date=1289508805]I think it's proof the system works, myself.

He wrote the book, found a publisher who was willing to publish, got it in print. Free speech protects that.

The public didn't like it, and boycotted said publisher until they backed up. Also freedom of speech. It cuts both ways. [/quote]

Well said.

[quote author=DanieMarie link=topic=766.msg12110#msg12110 date=1289508258]I think there's a line.[/quote]

Where exactly is the line? Is it legality?
I advocate, and openly encourage bicyclists to break certain traffic laws because they are unsafe to the bicyclist. As such, I am giving instruction, not only on how to break the law, but I am encouraging it. Should I be censored?
Many people feel that marijuana should be legal, and they give instructions on how to break the law concerning marijuana, and encourage it, in an attempt to encourage the legalization of it. Should they be censored?
Should a book on how to drive safely at high speeds be censored for encouraging the breaking of the speed limit?

[Amber]

Re: Amazon defends 'Pedophile's Guide'

[quote author=Deseret link=topic=766.msg12117#msg12117 date=1289508805]
I think it's proof the system works, myself.

He wrote the book, found a publisher who was willing to publish, got it in print. Free speech protects that.

The public didn't like it, and boycotted said publisher until they backed up. Also freedom of speech. It cuts both ways.
[/quote]

Agree! Well said DR

[MaskedOne]

Re: Amazon defends 'Pedophile's Guide'

[quote author=Deseret link=topic=766.msg12117#msg12117 date=1289508805]
I think it's proof the system works, myself.

He wrote the book, found a publisher who was willing to publish, got it in print. Free speech protects that.

The public didn't like it, and boycotted said publisher until they backed up. Also freedom of speech. It cuts both ways.
[/quote]

Agreed


[quote author=ChainLightning link=topic=766.msg12099#msg12099 date=1289507133]

I'm just not willing to give up *my* rights just to shove theirs (the author's) down that disgusting throat.
[/quote]

Seconding this wholeheartedly.

Personally, I don't think the book in question should exist and that Amazon should have very rudely blown off the author. That said, I don't trust people and that does not magically change because they get into elected positions. I'd rather not set a precedent for censorship that might come back to bite me later. If there's a line to be drawn, I'd rather it be drawn by public outrage threatening the profit margins of various publishers than drawn somewhere in State or Federal code where it will eventually be expanded in ways I don't want.

[DanieMarie]

Re: Amazon defends 'Pedophile's Guide'

[quote author=ThorsSon link=topic=766.msg12131#msg12131 date=1289509470]
Well said.

Where exactly is the line? Is it legality?
I advocate, and openly encourage bicyclists to break certain traffic laws because they are unsafe to the bicyclist. As such, I am giving instruction, not only on how to break the law, but I am encouraging it. Should I be censored?
Many people feel that marijuana should be legal, and they give instructions on how to break the law concerning marijuana, and encourage it, in an attempt to encourage the legalization of it. Should they be censored?
Should a book on how to drive safely at high speeds be censored for encouraging the breaking of the speed limit?
[/quote]

The line is a personal thing and defining it is up to the feelings of the majority of the public as a whole. Personally (and it seems to be the case here with our censorship laws) it's not a question of legality (therefore I don't feel that any of the things you listed should be censored, and by the way if those are the traffic laws in your area I think you should consider bringing it up with city hall because that's not cool...anyway...) but it's a question of whether the speech has the potential to directly harm others (and therefore stands in the way of their freedom), by inciting violence, rape, etc. That's why I'm cool with our censorship here on hate literature.

I do understand it's a giant grey area though and it -is- hard to find where that line should be. I've had some long conversations with my friend in Canada who is a gay-rights activist (mostly working through artistic means), but he's ok with Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church being able to say what they want.

Though, in this particular case, as it involves children, I don't think the line is quite as blurry. I think there's even a big giant difference between encouraging violence against gay people or people of different races and encouraging child abuse. At least the former are able to defend themselves and are able to speak for themselves legally; the latter are not.