Crossing A Line: Is Banning Books Ever OK?

Ally

I actually saw your first response. Let’s define banning books. Banning books is not allowing it to be printed or distributed. That is not the same as asking Amazon to remove it from their site. Neither would it be wrong to go down to your local bookseller, and say, hey, I don’t think you should sell this book. If you do, I won’t shop here. Fair enough. That is not book banning. That is allowing your money to express your opinion. This author has every right to say whatever he wants to, and to put it into print. But that does not protect him from the reaction to the book or poor sales or few outlets at which to market such a book.
I too am against censorship in any form. You may say or print anything you want. But I may say or print anything in a reaction to it — and spend my money accordingly — as I so choose.
Kudos to you for being willing to explore this issue.

Vanessa Di Gregorio

I feel the exact same way. I think book banning is horrible, and I had to pause after tweeting that the book should be removed.

And maybe this is me trying to justify my reaction, but I think that banning literature is wrong. I also think banning non-fiction is wrong. But when it is a how-to guide on something illegal and wrong, I think it deserves to be banned. Even just from reading the description you can tell that it is a how-to guide. It promotes illegal and dangerous activity – not through fiction, but through non-fiction. It encourages people to be in sexual relationships with children. And I think THAT’S where the difference lies.

But yes, I agree – I haven’t even read the book and I’m demanding it be removed, which is what I hate most about people who ban books.

Rachel

I was watching the whole thing go down on Twitter, and I wanted to jump in, but how to do? Because I agree with you. The book is absolutely reprehensible. But if Amazon removes it, we’re guilty of book banning. And how hypocritical is that, when as book bloggers, we promote controversial books all the time? It sets a precedent, one that I’m not comfortable with at all, precisely for your reason – that homosexuality is just as reprehensible to some people. Or pre-marital sex. But Amazon also sells books about how to make bombs. Are we up in arms about those? The point is, it’s easy to say we take a stand against book banning when the answer is obvious, but its a true test of your principles and how willing you are to stand by them when you’re confronted with a situation like this – when you have to support everyone’s right to say and publish and sell what they want even if you vehemently disagree with it.

Good for you for taking a second look at your knee-jerk reaction.

Nymeth

One of my library school professors told us in our very first lecture that we’re all censors, as in, we ALL have some books that cause us to have the exact same gut reaction you had to this one. It just may be that some of us haven’t come across them yet. However, the first step to becoming a true advocate of freedom of information is exactly to acknowledge this, just like you have bravely done in this post. I’ve been going through a similar process myself, with class debates and assignments, and though it can be scary to find out that we DO have the same censoring instincts we hate to see in others, I’ve found that it’s a necessary process. My own recent “ARGH ARGH ARGH ARGH ARGH MAKE THIS DIEEEE” book was “A Parent’s Guide to Preventing Homosexuality”, which flabbergastingly enough is the first result if you search for homosexuality on Amazon.co.uk. I’m all for making the creation of a safe space a part of a library’s selection policy, and I think that therefore there are valid arguments for not having it in a library. But Amazon is a private company, and if the book is legal, I guess they have the right to sell it. I hate that both this and the pedophile’s book even EXIST, but like you said, it’s hard to ask for their removal without opening dangerous precedents.

Argh, sorry for writing a comment as long as your post 😛

Kai charles

Its such a slippery slope with these things and your reactions are all valid . I agree with you the taste value in this is awful! That a publisher would think this is a good idea horrifys me but it would open the door to a bigger censorship situation. It’s wonderful that you observed your reactions and discovered something about yourself and you are definitely allowed to disapprove of a book. 🙂

Ole A. Imsen

I’ve said this in comments on several blogs today, but I really want to know if anyone knows this:

From the description the author’s intent is to “aid and abbett” the crime of pedophilia. And I can’t understand that this is illegal. At least the author has, to my limited knowledge of law, shown that the act of writing the book had criminal intent.

-Another point that seems lost is that this is Kindle-only. You could say that Amazon is not only selling the book, but publishing it.

C.L.Wilson

Ana,

I understand your mental struggle, but this book is not the memoir of a man who struggled with pedophilia. It’s a handbook the author wrote specifically to encourage pedophiles to follow his code of conduct when molesting children in the hopes that, by following that code, they’d get lighter jail sentences for their crimes.

I have no qualms about censoring books that advocate the sexual molestation of minors. It’s not a slippery slope for me. It never will be.

Cheryl

KMont

T.N. Tobias, but doesn’t someone, at some point, also need to stand up for the rights of children? I see what you’re saying and it makes perfect sense. Points on both sides of this issue have made perfect sense – which is why it’s not an easy issue to untwist and iron out. It probably won’t ever be a neat, pat issue, solved. And that’s why I am still balking at this point in the day at it only being an issue of free speech.

To me, there may be a bigger issue here, or at least several all wrapped in one, and saying it’s only about free speech is, to me, not true. To say we’ve joined hands with book banners, I’m not so sure that’s true either, but even if it is – again – what about the fact that there also needs to be a voice for children? Which issue is more important here? Does the fact that it’s a book being discussed in some part of the conversation mean that all the other obvious problems it presents, or might present, should be overlooked?

I’m just thinking out loud here. I really do appreciate your points and they add to the discussion.

Kim

What an awful book! Personally, I don’t have any problem judging this book by its cover. There are too many books and life is short, if the few sentence summary revolts me, I’ll pass.

To my knowledge, writing about how to commit a crime isn’t a crime, committing the crime is a crime. Moreover, there doesn’t seem to be any specificity with regard to event or victim or perpetrator.

As distasteful as the book is, and I completely share your reaction, it shouldn’t be banned because of the collateral cost of banning any book. The proper reaction, IMHO, is to not buy it, and/or not buy from the places that sell it, and/or not buy from the publisher.

Erin

I have to agree with the comment pointing out that Amazon removing this book from their site is actually neither censorship nor book banning. I have not seen anyone suggest that any government entity prevent Amazon from publishing and selling this title (this would be banning). And nobody is suggesting the content be altered (censorship).

Among other things, Amazon is a bookstore. Every bookstore on the planet chooses which books to stock. Amazon chooses to stock this one, and so I will choose not to shop there. They, as a corporation, have made a decision to profit from a person who freely admits to facilitating child abuse. That’s their choice, and I’m glad they have it to make. I can’t understand why they made the choice they did, but now I can simply make the choice not to shop with them.

As a large company that claims to want to be a responsible corporate citizen, I would think removing the book from their “shelves” would be a wise business move. Regardless, calls for them to do so can hardly be accurately characterized as book banning or censorship.

silviamg

OK, first of all, this book looks to be self-published.

Second, letting a company know how to feel about a book is not book banning nor censorship. It’s expressing your opinion.

Amazon sells all kind of questionable titles, from Holocaust Denier books to anti-homosexuality books. At the same time, it has also pulled titles before. I recalled they pulled a Japanese rape video game last year due to complaints.

Amazon can sell whatever it wants. If it experiences a customer backlash, that’s their problem.

Maili

Putting aside the moral considerations for just a moment, the publication and distribution of this book more than likely violates United States federal law as well as the laws of (probably) every state in the Union.

It depends on the contents of this repulsive-to-me book. If it contains a pornographic or sexualised image (illustration, sketch, photographic, mixed media or wooden block) of a minor, then yes, it’s highly possible that it’s breaking a law in probably all U.S. states.

I have no idea about the U.S.’s current legal stance on text in the context of a minor in a sexual situation, though. What differs this book from, say, A Teenager’s Guide to Sex, for instance? Even so, I’m desperately hoping that this author has crossed a legal line in this aspect somehow!

Kate

@Renee – you said precisely what I think on the matter, far more eloquently than I could. Brava.

Refusing to sell a book is not the same as banning it. There are other avenues for this guy to distribute his work. He can print it up and sell it out of the back of a truck, if he really wants to. Not promoting something, or distributing it, is not the same as censoring it or banning it. It’s a fine line, when the entity refusing to distribute is as big as Amazon, but it’s still a distinction.

He had the freedom to write this how-to manual for paedophilia. Amazon has the freedom to not sell it.

T.N. Tobias

@KMont

I didn’t mean to minimize the issue. I just don’t think that in the long run this book will amount to any net gain in active pedophiles. Furthermore, it is my opinion that ascribing it that importance in fact minimizes the actual problem of pedophilia.

That said, I’m perfect happy to agree to disagree. *waves back*

KMont

What if Amazon decides NOT to sell it? Plenty have pointed out on Dear Author, here and on Twitter that it’s a bookseller’s right not to carry an item for sale and they do so all the time. Does that already make them book banners then? No, not really. They’re just exercising their freedoms, aren’t they?

@titania86 – you make a compelling point, though, that “books don’t implement these actions. People do.” Very true.

T.N. Tobias

Amazon has decided not to remove the book, believes it censorship.

http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/10/kindle-pedophile-book/

I imagine this will ruffle a few feathers…

Bethany

He had the freedom to write the book and Amazon has the freedom to sell it. I think the only issue is the publisher in the middle. Publishers publish books that they think will sell (and hopefully fit a certain moral view the publisher has). I want to know what went through the editors mind when they thought this was a good idea. It doesn’t appear to be self published, and while freedom of speech is one of our rights there is also freedom for a publisher to not do business with someone.

I don’t think censorship is really the issue, it’s the acquisition of this text and how the publisher thought publishing this text would benefit them. Because while the author will get heat for writing it I think that the publisher is at fault for the fact that there is even a conversation going on now. They lost credibility by publishing something of this nature.

silviamg

Umm .. this is self-published. The publisher is the same as the author.

KMont

Wow. Dia. I didn’t directly address Tobias’ let’s all stand up and cheer for the children thing because, well, I don’t think what he and you are implying is what I’m actually saying. I’m not using that as a crutch, and despite you saying you’re not picking, I might be a little offended. I might be if I think about it too much. I’d hate to be the first to fly the I’m Offended flag, though, AND the Think of the Children one too. Two such gross foul plays in one day, how obscene.

The reason I mention the fact that there’s another issue here at play – that of children and their rights, is because it IS an issue that’s amongst this whole mess. Lumping that particular issue into the idea that people like me who feel that way are also trying to swab kids in cotton is not true. I never said my own child wouldn’t know this kind of thing happens, or that any other kid shouldn’t know of it. They should for their own safety realize at some point that bad things can happen to them and not all people are trustworthy. And no, I don’t think this one incident on Amazon will change the world. But just because I brought it up doesn’t mean I’m using a cliched crutch to silence people. Using children, am I? The hell I am. I’m speaking out AGAINST people that use children and condone using children.

The fact does remain that children are minors and that adults have to speak up for them. If that’s a cliched crutch to some, I admit I don’t understand it since I was speaking from a place of 100% honesty as an adult who would choose to protect a child over something else. So please don’t accuse me of using children to make my points seem more passionate or more heard. I didn’t accuse anyone here who disagreed with me of being a pedophile-encouraging asshat. Because you know what – I never once felt that way in this whole brouhaha today. Because I don’t know you and why make those kinds of assumptions.

Carolyn Crane

Great post!
If the book isn’t illegal, and I don’t know if it is or not, I think Amazon should be free to sell it. I’m proud to live in a country where even the most repulsive people have a right to speech – Nazis, pedophiles or [insert group you hate here]

Do people remember Amazonfail? Where they delisted all books with GLBT content? Effectively erasing them on searches and rankings and stuff? I’m not comparing pedophiles to GLBT, obviously, but I DO NOT want Amazon back in the business of saying what offends people and what doesn’t.

I don’t need Amazon to decide what offends me. I’ll say what offends me.

Casey

We have all seen and read published works that include pedophilia. This is nothing new. Many of these books are award winning, best selling publications. “A Thousand Acers” by Jane Smiley was actually required reading in my school and it along with thousands of other books depict the rape and sexual abuse of children.

The outrage of this book seems to be based in the thought that it’s telling people how to successfully sexually abuse children. But I don’t see how that it is in any way different then telling people how sexual abuse against children is done. Can someone please illuminate me?

Because it seems to me that we are beginning to talk about “thought crime.”

Are we saying that it’s okay to write about pedophilia if your trying to bring awareness to the topic so that it can be stopped. And that it’s not okay to write about pedophilia (even if you use the same words to describe the actual action) if you’re telling people how to do it.
Is that the general consensus here?

The fact is that whether you’re talking about book banning, or hate crime it’s easy to get emotional about the issue and go with a gut reaction – but we live in a society that has laws. If we begin to use laws to punish people for the “reasons” the committed a crime then they didn’t just commit one crime – they also committed a thought crime – straight out of Orwell’s 1984.

It can’t be the reason/motive that matters – it has to be the result.

It’s easy to say that we have to protect children – that we are allowed to make exceptions for children – but we can’t if we want to continue to live in a free society.

So ask yourself – are you willing to give up your freedoms? And remember that none of us have read this book – and the fact is we don’t know what it is really about. All we know is what the blurb says, and I have read plenty of books that didn’t match the blurb.

Shaun H.

Casey:

There is a fundamental difference between literature and a how-to manual. A book that includes child abuse is different from a book that provides step-by-step instructions for committing the abuse. No one is saying that the author should be locked up or that anyone who reads it should be locked up. I’m simply saying that this book was created solely for the purpose of aiding pedophiles in a crime. Therefore it should not be sold. There is absolutely NO moral stance you can take that makes child molestation okay.

With most books, you can make arguments. Like when Amazon was removing gay books. Well someone people say gay is bad and some say it’s cool (being gay, I fall on the cool side). But being gay isn’t a crime. Nor is hating gay people. So you can argue that a book about “saving” gay people has artistic value, that it has societal value. Since, under no circumstance, is pedophilia okay, there is simply no justification for allowing a book like this to exist.

Eddie

You know what I hate more than censorship (And I really hate censorship) pedophilia hiding behind “free speech”

Ole A. Imsen

@Hal Duncan

This has been my argument all day, the incitement/aiding and abetting.
The author’s own description on Amazon seems to me to have criminal intent, in that he wants to help pedophiles. He mentions “rules” and hopes his book will help getting “liter sentences”[,his spelling error], so he seems aware he is helping/facilitate a crime.

If he wrote a book titled “My life as a pedophile”, I would support his right to distribute his book. And I would not wish to censor a book I disagree with.
-But this is a different matter from censorship for me.

Lisa

Just so you all know, this is the law on being an accessory:

(a) Whoever aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures the commission of an offense, is punishable as a principal.
(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense, is punishable as a principal.

Now, of course, this can only be applied if a crime is actually committed. This book itself is not committing any crimes. But I wonder: would anyone’s opinions change if their kids were molested and the predator admitted to being able to do it because of this book?

I’m with the others on this who think the safety of children is more important than the censorship of a book on how to rape them.

Hal Duncan

When does someone’s right to free speech outweigh another person’s right to be free from harm?

Legally, in the US? When there’s a “clear and present danger”:

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=21677

It seems to me that a book like this is more likely to facilitate a crime than The Anarchist’s Cookbook, say, because it’s seriously exploiting/propagating that profound delusion of NAMBLA types that paints child rape as… well, not child rape. More than just a How To manual, it’s providing the very mechanisms of self-justification that might make the difference between a would-be abuser and an actual abuser. I doubt it would be easy to make the case let alone win it, but if I was a judge? I certainly wouldn’t throw it out of court.

Danielle

My theory is that the goverment has tracking devices in every copy and will use them to hunt down prospective petophiles. It’s what helps me sleep at night.

But yeah, ew. Appropriate reaction.

silviamg

Well, Amazon will continue to sell the title (they’ve said so). Though don’t expect huge profits.

There’s an interview with the author at Smoking Gun where he says he spent some time at a mental facility (surprise!). He also says he has sold only one copy of the book. Bad-taste self-publishing doesn’t really pay, it seems.

silviamg

John, Richard Bachman is a pseudonym for Stephen King, and he asked that the book not be reprinted after concerns about its content. He said “Now out of print, and a good thing.” So it was the author deciding he didn’t want the content out in the world anymore.

Abigail [All Things Urban Fantasy]

What the hell? I think the whole censorship/free speech debate needs to consider that we’re talking about a book that teaches an adult how to rape a baby. Seriously? We’re debating this? I think Eddie (#44) said it perfectly:

You know what I hate more than censorship (And I really hate censorship) pedophilia hiding behind “free speech”

Ole A. Imsen

@Jesslyn
I suggested (,as a joke,) on Twitter that I’ll publish my “How to kill Jeff Bezos and make Amazon go bankrupt” book on Kindle. If they care about free speech that should not be a problem.
-If however they choose not to publish that, I can site this case and sue them for loss of income.

katiebabs

Unless tens of thousands boycott Amazon, nothing will happen. And if Amazon does take of this disgusting book, then what? Will that lead to other questionable books that a group may not like to be taken off the site as well?

I am torn because I feel this book should not be out there where the public can have easy access to get it and for anyone to read. But then again, if this book is taken down, it could lead to other books being treated the same.

There seems to be no right answer in this case.

katiebabs

And the guide’s Amazon ranking is going to be in the top 100 by tomorrow. This guide was at 101,000 in the rankings, and now is at 114 as of 9:30pm EST. People are buying this book because it’s like a car accident where you stop and watch.

http://gawker.com/5686953/internet-outrage-gives-amazon-pedophilia-guide-a-101000+percent-sales-boost

Casey

The answer always is, always has been, and always will be personal responsibility.

It is very hard – but it’s ALWAYS the answer.

Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it. ~George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman, “Maxims: Liberty and Equality,” 1905

You cannot shift the responsibility to the legal system or government because, “there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” ~James Madison, speech, Virginia Convention, 1788

And to Abagail – this debate isn’t about this specific book. It’s about banning ANY book.You can’t give liberties to some and not to others as it suites you personally. The question is whether or not banning books ever okay? I say no – it isn’t.

“The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” ~Louis D. Brandeis

“He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself.” ~Thomas Paine

“We have enjoyed so much freedom for so long that we are perhaps in danger of forgetting how much blood it cost to establish the Bill of Rights.” ~Felix Frankfurter

“Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.” ~Abraham Lincoln

Sorry to quote drop – but I very strongly believe these things, and clearly I’m not alone. I know that not everyone who reads this blog is American – but I don’t think these ideals are exclusively American in nature. I agree with my founding fathers that these truths are self evident – and true for all people, not only those privileged enough to be born into freedom.

KMont

Well, Dia, do you think you could somehow manage to change the definition of pedophilia to not include children? Maybe then they won’t be brought up? And the need to make it only about what you see as important will be the only thing discussed. Problem solved. None of those emotional types muddying the free speech waters.

Pedophilia involves children.

A book about pedophilia involves children.

This is a no-brainer for me. The two things, pedophilia and children, are definitely related. How can you discuss the merits of a book promoting the act, in any capacity whether it’s about free speech or not….without acknowledging the affects on children in the process?

You seem to think people are trying to shift this discussion into one thing or the other. I just think there’s more than one issue at play here, and why can they not all be discussed? You only want it to be about freedom of speech. Well…good for you? Others don’t see it that way. If you look around, plenty of folks have no problem calmly discussing the fact that this does in fact involve children. I haven’t seen anyone becoming emotionally overwrought as a result. Nor muddying the freedom of speech waters in the process.

Casey

KMONT

You seem pretty emotional to me.

No one is arguing your point that “Pedophilia involves children” – it clearly does and that is in the definition. Neither is anyone arguing that pedophilia is good or should be allowed. We’re just saying that’s not the only issue at play and it doesn’t address the questions of “is banning books ever ok?” which was the question posed at the beginning of this forum.

It is however (and I agree with Dia here) an easy scapegoat. Just about everyone would rally around protecting children. But you can’t guarantee that legislating will protect children. Anyone who says otherwise is lying or selling something.

You both believe in freedom – and choose to support it or you don’t. There is no middle ground there. Check out my quotes above in #67 if you disagree.

I think that’s what Dia is saying.

And Sol, I don’t think anyone is trying to say the action of pedophilia is ok – it is clearly illegal and those caught doing it are very strongly persecuted. The questions is about banning books…and I say that it’s not ok to ban books.

Hal Duncan

You know what I hate more than censorship (And I really hate censorship) pedophilia hiding behind “free speech”

The bad news is the law doesn’t care how much you or I hate censorship or how much you or I hate paedophilia. The good news is this means the law also doesn’t care how much you or I hate homosexuality or “miscegenation”.

I mean, that “why are we even discussing this?” reaction sounds so simple… unless you’re gay and used to the constant equation of homosexuality with paedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia and you sodding name it, by moralists who think their emotional reaction of revulsion, disgust, hate, fear, horror and general abhorrence is a legitimate ethical judgement rather than… well, an emotional reaction. One that’s clearly appropriate with an utterly unconscionable act like child rape, but one that might equally attach to a gay sex act like sodomy, or to a black guy marrying a white woman, or whatever. And that’s leaving aside the inverse scenario where actions that are wrong don’t invoke that emotional reaction. Back when a whole lot of people didn’t feel that abhorrence at the thought of slavery, slavery was still wrong. So again, the law doesn’t care if you’re not horrified at a gaybashing, say, because it’s “just desserts” in your twisted morality; the law says it’s wrong, period.

It would be sweet if we could rely on our emotional reactions to be unerringly right where we recoil in repugnance from some action we deem monstrous, but if we assume that, if we think we can just play our outrage as a trump card that renders all discussion moot… that’s the principle that leads to legislation like Section 28 in the UK. The public opinion that led to that was founded in precisely the same sort of emotional response — a moral outrage at liberal teachers (some of them maybe even gay!) working in the schools, giving kids books that said (shock! horror!) homosexuality was OK, and worst of all “hiding behind notions of ‘tolerance’ and ‘equality’.” There were plenty of upstanding citizens whose repugnance at the mere thought of such shenanigans overrode any notion that this issue was remotely debatable, enough that the law was passed easily. School libraries were purged of anything that might be considered “promoting homosexuality”. Hell, our debating club couldn’t even debate Section 28 cause for the teacher to allow that might have been a breach of Section 28. Seriously. That’s what I think of when someone plays outrage as a trump card in a censorship debate.

As I say, I have no problem at all seeing the book in question as a crime in its own right — incitement / aiding and abetting — but “free speech” isn’t a woolly abstract ideal for me. If it’s going to be limited by censorship because we think some restraints are valid, necessary even, I want that on the basis that this or that type of speech is criminally irresponsible, not happening on an ad hoc basis whenever enough members of the public get sufficiently noisy that Amazon kowtows to their outrage.

Casey

It’s not the topic that I agree with. I don’t think anyone here thinks that raping children is ever okay. But that wasn’t the question asked in the forum.

The question asked if book banning was ever ok.

I say no, its NEVER ok. I don’t care about the subject – because I want my free speech, and as such I have to afford that same freedom to others.

Hal Duncan

For those positing an equivalent manual on how to rape women, a quick Google on “rapist’s handbook” brings up a Jezebel article on the work of one Don Diebel, whose The Complete Guide to Meeting Women purportedly includes tips on how to spot a drugged woman, advice to go after them when they’re drunk and alone — charming date rapist tips like that.

And, yes, it’s available on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Guide-Meeting-Women-ebook/dp/B002VECTHU/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&m=A7B2F8DUJ88VZ&s=digital-text&qid=1289448791&sr=8-7

MaryK

@Hal Duncan

To reverse the whitewashing or what? What is the hoped for end if the publisher doesn’t reverse?

Of course it affects others’ access to information. It can kill a book. It’s intended to kill books with “inappropriate” covers. The aim is to suppress books with “inappropriate” covers. To financially coerce a publisher into agreeing to the demands of the boycotters.

I am not against financial coercion. No publisher, bookstore, or author is entitled to my money. I question the idea that using my buying power as a weapon is only acceptable in certain circumstances.

Hal Duncan

To reverse the whitewashing or what? What is the hoped for end if the publisher doesn’t reverse?

A pony? Sorry. Less facetiously, I mean, a boycott on the basis of whitewashing is just that. The pressure is being exerted to stop whitewashing, to pressure a publisher into changing their racist marketing strategy, for a specific book and ultimately in general. There’s no satisfactory alternative. If you were boycotting South African produce in the apartheid era as a protest against apartheid, you weren’t pressuring for the abolition of apartheid “or, um, something else just as good, please!” It’s a piss-poor boycott if its objectives are fuzzy and fractured.

It’s intended to kill books with “inappropriate” covers. The aim is to suppress books with “inappropriate” covers.

Really? The response to the whitewashing of Justine Larbalestier’s Liar, say, was aimed at killing/suppressing this book because it had an inappropriate cover? What readers wanted was for the book not to be published at all because it had this cover?

For people to think that way would require them to think of the book and the cover as inseparable: this book has this cover and can have no other cover, therefore it must be quashed; the cover is a part of the book’s essential being, so in order to end whitewashing we must sacrifice this book and all like it. That’s completely arse-backwards. People were protesting, threatening boycott, precisely because they knew the book could and should be published with another cover, an appropriate cover, a cover that wasn’t an example of whitewashing racist bullshit. They knew the book didn’t have to have that cover; that was the whole fricking point.

Killing the book is not the aim. The last thing someone who cares passionately about whitewashing wants is for the absenting of the abject that such whitewashing manifests visually — the thing about it that’s wrong — to be manifest on an even more fundamental level in the quashing of a whole novel featuring characters of colour front and centre.

So, no, that type of boycott just isn’t equivalent. It’s the same sort of pressure being exerted, but to a different aim.

For sure, no publisher, bookstore or author is entitled to your money; I haven’t disputed the legitimacy of boycotting in and of itself. But do you really question the idea that using buying power is only acceptable in certain circumstances? I seriously doubt you can sustain an argument that every boycott is essentially hunky dory, a just and righteous action we could never possibly question.

I mean, if some racist dickwad on my street puts a leaflet through my door proposing a boycott of our local corner store because it’s run by people of colour who might just be Muslims (ergo terrorist immigrant threats to society blah blah BNP bollocks blah)… those circumstances wouldn’t constitute “unacceptable”? That boycott would be fine and dandy?

You could refuse to give that shopkeeper your money because he stocks Israeli fruit and you’re pro-Palestinian. You could refuse to give them your money because he stocks Gay Times and you find that morally unconscionable. You could refuse because you hate “Pakis” and want him to “go home” (despite the fact that he’s Sikh and was born here.) Damn straight the circumstances affect acceptability. The use of buying power as a weapon is tactical pressure, and any ethical evaluation of such use has to take into account the specific aims and potential results.

And here it’s not even really about refusing to buy from Amazon. Actually it’s about the more direct pressure of protest, demands for them to remove a work from their listings. In this scenario of tweets and retweets as shouts, this is not about boycotting the shop but about gathering en masse outside. It’s not picketing because there’s no line to cross for would-be shoppers, but it’s comparable to the pressure exerted on the BBC not to air Jerry Springer: The Opera, I’d say. Yes, given that it’s a different work, a different battle, a different objective, one could argue that this protest is ethically sound in that its aim is to suppress a How To book on child rape. I think to argue that on vague grounds of moral outrage is to inadvertently legitimate censorship demands born of any righteous indignation. It’s just shouting out for sanctions against “indecency,” “impropriety,” which can only end up being abused. By all means, nail the author for incitement, aiding and abetting, facilitating child rape. That’s the crime here, not the shock and horror felt by poor little us.

Akin

Ok, let me get this straight. You lot don’t agree with the contents of a book and want it banned from Amazon, but you don’t want the other books you love, which other people don’t agree with their contents, banned as well? Huh.

Pedophilia is wrong. Pedophiles are sick fucks. Everyone agrees with that. Whatever lies within the pages of this book will only appeal to those who are pedophiles, whether in actions or thoughts (thoughts, as in, they haven’t done it yet but they’re seriously thinking of doing it). Even IF this book wasn’t published, these people will still go ahead and do their sick shit, so saying that banning this book will save children from future pedophiles makes no sense.

Now, you cannot expect amazon to remove this book simply because you don’t agree with its contents. In short, MOST of you haven’t a clue what the book’s true content is. I read a review of the book by a mother (here) and it’s pretty clear to me that the book isn’t telling anyone to go ahead and rape children. I suggest you all read the review.

All I know is this: if you argue that this book should be removed on the basis of protecting your kids and it is, don’t complain when some other mother/father argues the same point about a book you like and they get their way. Cos me, I will join in your “save these awesome banned books” campaigns.

Edie

I must admit to finding this discussion very fascinating, we rarely get books banned here in Oz, (though lots of computer games refused classification *shrug*) to my knowledge anyways, the only one I recall in recent times is a how to on making bombs. And I think this one would come under the same umbrella, so I am not quite feeling the conflict of ideologies. Maybe I am used to a line being drawn? And am therefor more comfortable with it? And am happy to continue on my boycott of Amazon, which has been going pretty much for three years, and they haven’t missed me. *sniff*

But I find the discussion very interesting.

Though I also think without this kerfuffle, the book would probably have stayed in obscurity.

debp

There are limits set on our freedoms. You can’t go in a crowded theatre and yell fire. That is a limit on free speech because it puts peoples lives in danger.You can’t write how to commit a violent and terrible crime against children, and how to evade the law while doing it.That is illegal crime (not even to mention horrendous). This to me is not about censorship. It puts children in danger, and has effects for generations to come. I personally do not see this as censorship. I see it as promoting a crime. The best thing to do is to tell amazon how you feel, and let them suffer the finanicial consequences.

bibliophile brouhaha

I don’t think any of us has actually read the book, but the author is pretty clear about what’s in it and its purpose. So long as they did not post pictures of printed description about children in that manner, I don’t believe the book is illegal. It’s sort like being able to go into a smoke shop and by a pipe or bong, but that’s not illegal unless you use it with an illegal substance.
I think most of us are probably 1st Amendment supporters. I still think this is inexcusable and filthy. We’re not talking about,Mein Kampf here; we are talking about a how to guide for sexually abusing children. Fine, Amazon – you might have the right to post this book for sale, but I absolutely have the right to take my money elsewhere. . I encourage anyone with an Amazon wish list, affiliate program, account, etc., to remove that connection.
I posted about this in my Weekly News Roundup , with links to other news stories about this. Kudos to you, Book Smugglers, for getting a mention in Shelf Awareness for this post.

-Linds, bibliophile brouhaha

Jen - Devourer of Books

I don’t really get the argument that people are making that it isn’t banning books when we demand something be taken down from Amazon’s site. By that measure, it is similarly not banning books to demand that something not be available in schools or libraries. If that’s the case, we should give up on Banned Books Week altogether, since that is really the way that books are banned in the US today.

It is all very well and good to say that guides to illegal acts should be illegal (guess we’ll be banning “The Anarchist’s Cookbook” and “Hit Man,” too, then), but they are NOT currently, and any law making them so would likely be unconstitutional in the United States.

debp

Jen-devourer of books, I disagree. It is illegal to write a book that tells how to commit a criminal act and evade the law. That is what this book is doing.

Moonsanity (Brenda)

The man needs help- look at this interview with him: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/amazon/author-pedophile-book-says-he-has-sold-one-copy-creepy-title

Justify your argument any way you want, but Amazon is not a government institution. They have refused to publish other books, and state in their policies that they have the right to refuse publications if they wish. No one is stopping the man from WRITING his book, just like you can’t stop MY freedom to boycott Amazon or speak out against pedophiles.

Suzanne

I’m against book banning, because no matter what the book contains, you’re taking the ability of a person to decide whether to read it away from them. By banning books, you’re making a statement that there are only certain books that people are allowed to read. :/
However, i do think that we have a right to not necessarily ban books, but choose not to read them. We can choose not to spend our money on these books and we can have an opinion about it and tell that opinion to others.
Thank you for being honest and thoughtful about your own opinions on this issue and sharing it with us nonetheless.
-Suzanne

Akin

Kyle, I was thinking the same thing. Anyways, as for me, I’m never involving myself in book banning days or whatever it’s called, because I see no point in it. There are books that I personally don’t want in libraries. There are some I don’t care if they are left in libraries or not. But I’ve always argued FOR these books, because I believe in freedom of expression and that if you don’t like the book then don’t read it. But now I understand that all this is just another form of political correctness gone wrong.

So, next time, when a bunch of Christian mothers who are concerned about their 12 year old kids picking up books about homosexuals in their school libraries begin a fight to ban these books, you know where my vote will lie.

After all, it’s not like they’re evil. They are “concerned” about their children’s christian welfare.

Jane

Aiding child rape/abuse/porn is reprehensible and should be BANNED. Actually, it already is banned in America.

To think for a second that we shouldn’t “ban” child rape/abuse/porn is perverted and sick.

You have been deleted from my favorites.

Wendy

I also should add to my comment above – I am not a member of the “radical right”…in fact, my political affiliation is Democrat and I have always been fairly socially liberal when it comes to a person’s rights…I draw the line when someone’s behavior is criminal, especially when the criminal act involves children.

Casey

To everyone who wants the purchase of this book monitored by the FBI – are you saying that it’s ok for the FBI to monitor you as well? Because while the dissolution of rights always starts off sounding very reasonable, “Lets watch known criminals to be sure they don’t commit any more crimes,” it eventually becomes, “Lets watch everyone to be sure they don’t commit any crimes.”

In your broad statements about criminals and safety you have considered those people who purchased in order to determine what the book was really about, and in so doing provide some truth and context for the public? Are these people automatically criminals who should be monitored by the government?

Because if you are saying that the entire Bill of Rights is less important then your personal safety, I would ask that you take some responsibility for yourself rather then trying to get the government to take responsibility for you.

We shouldn’t forget that absolute power corrupts absolutely – and in giving the government the power to take away your rights, you provide the means of their corruption. You ultimately become less safe because now you have two enemies to worry about – the original bad guy, and the government.

You may be willing to give up your rights for the illusion of safety but I’m not. The Government CANNOT prevent crime – they can only punish those who commit crime after it’s done. The Government cannot keep you safe.

The world is inherently unsafe. People all over the world will die today in order to secure freedoms for themselves and take freedoms away from others. We speak easily here because our battles were fought long ago and we have grown accustomed to our rights and take them for granted.

It sounds like many of you would throw away your right to discuss these issues in the name of safety while others die to protect their right to choose their religion, and practice how they see fit.

Am I misunderstanding you?