Amazon Pulls Pedophilia Book Without Explanation
- Posted on November 11, 2010 at 10:55am by
Jonathon M. Seidl
- Print »
- Email »
After defending its sale of a how-to pedophilia guide yesterday, Amazon has pulled the e-book from its website without explanation.
Yesterday, Amazon stood by its decision to sell “The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure: a Child-Lover’s Code of Conduct” to users of its Kindle e-reader. “Amazon believes it is censorship not to sell certain books simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable,” the company said in a statement. “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.”
The decision sparked outrage yesterday. “So what’s next?” one commenter wrote. “A do-it-yourself book on how to rape and torture women?”
However early this morning The Blaze received complaints that the link we provided to the book was not working. As the morning progressed, other sites began noticing the strange phenomenon too.
“The link to the original ‘Pedophile’s Guide’ sale page now returns an error message,” MSNBC reported. “In an as-yet unexplained turn of events, the page was removed last night, reappeared, and then disappeared again.”
The off-and-on existence of the book‘s page follows yesterday’s mysterious disappearance of reader comments on that same page. Then, more than 100 comments on the book’s page fell to less than 30, before quickly surging into the hundreds.
Amazon has not responded to our requests for comment regarding both issues.
Author Phillip Greaves spoke about his book yesterday to a local Colorado news station:
Another controversial pedophilia book is still available on Amazon, however. “Understanding Loved Boys and Boylovers” can still be purchased for $14.95.
“Defensive in tone and amateurishly produced, this monograph uses both pseudo-scholarship and anecdotes in its attempt to justify its target audience’s actions and feelings,” the books description says.
Popular Stories
MSNBC Host Snaps in Heated Segment: ‘What in the World Is Riskier Than Being a Poor Person in America?’ 682 Comments
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 643 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 523 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 360 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 313 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 161 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 195 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 146 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Scathing New Ad Capitalizes on Rep. Ryan‘s ’Fading Obama Posters’ Remark 124 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 161 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (148)
politicaljules
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 1:32pmContrary to what many people think, the free-speech guarantee operates only as a barrier to censorship by government officials, not on the right of private entities to refrain from publishing material they don’t like.
For example, consider a newspaper that publishes an article favoring a certain policy in the community. Imagine that opponents to that policy demand that the newspaper carry an article opposing the policy and that the newspaper refuses to do so.
Some people would undoubtedly cry, “Censorship!” and claim that the First Amendment was being violated. They would be wrong on both counts. Restrictions on the exercise of free speech are censorship and First Amendment violations only when some law or governmental action is involved. When private entities make personal decisions about what to publish and not publish, they are exercising the fundamental rights of private ownership and liberty — the types of rights whose exercise the government is supposed to protect.
Report Post »RightPolitically
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 7:17pmCorrect!
Report Post »hauoli4usa
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 1:27pmAmazon is a disgrace to America. Wonder if their (the CEO, administration, etc @Amazon) parents are proud of their decision to sell this book? Wonder if their (the CEO, admin, etc @ Amazon) CHILDREN are proud of the decision to sell this book? BOYCOTT AMAZON. Period.
Report Post »politicaljules
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 1:52pmAmazon is a disgrace more because their prices have shot through the roof. For a company with no overhead they have raised their prices so high it is no longer feasible to shop online. I support local businesses now that will help my community. I keep going back to amazon to check prices but they keep increasing them through the roof.
Report Post »dmyze
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 12:53pmIt’s awful that they would sell that book! To think some buyer at amazon had to pick that book to sell. I do my book buying at http://www.thriftbooks.com. Thank goodness there are so many choices today.
Report Post »silentwatcher
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 3:01pmwhat also bothers me is how many copies of the book did they sell?
Report Post »steve5150
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 12:42pmWhy isn,t the writer of this book in a prison cell?
Report Post »Why isn,t the publisher out of business?
BoatFix
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 12:56pmApparently, they have not broken the law.
Report Post »The law needs to be challenged at the highest level.
However, that takes money, unfortunately.
BoatFix
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 12:40pmGoooood, night, people…!!!
Here… Chant it 3 Times So It Sinks In!
Boycott Is Not Censorship!
Boycott Is Not Censorship!
Boycott Is Not Censorship!
Get Over Yourselves!
Report Post »2dollarbill
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 12:24pmAll this talk about Amazon. The seller (Amazon) is just greedy. The author is a nut case. It’s the PUBLISHER that is actually doing the greatest harm by printing & pushing the sales of this book and it’s contents. Go after the Publisher first!
Report Post »BoatFix
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 12:28pmThe Retailer makes the choice to sell a product. They are the last link in the chain before the consumer.
Report Post »Cut off their link to the Consumer, and all others in the chain fail as well.
silentwatcher
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 12:40pmagreed. amazon.com doesn’t HAVE to sell the book just because it was written. That’s not censorship.
Report Post »BoatFix
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 12:09pmThis is not censorship!
Report Post »The book can be had from other sources, and Amazon still has the right to sell whatever lawful books they want, under the law.
It is the Consumer’s Right however, to boycott any vendor they wish.
This too is protected by the law.
To claim a boycott is an act of censorship is blatantly disingenuous by those who claim such.
It Is Not Censorship, To Boycott A Business.
Hugh Williams
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 3:21pmWhat purpose does it serve to boycott Amazon when as you said this book can be purchased elsewhere? The only way to stop this book is to boycott all business that sells it. That is censorship!
Report Post »Capitalist Mama
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 3:45pmMr. Williams,
Let me follow your argument and bear with me a moment. Perhaps it IS censorship (although I do not see it as such). Where does it say that an *individual* can not censor certain materials? The government can not censor free speech. But a private citizen may “censor” offensive materials- this is known as freedom! I certainly censor what materials come into my home and what materials my children have access to. I have that right as an individual.
Amazon has the right to “censor” the material it sells, under a capitalist economy. In fact, their right to buy and sell as they see fit, is protected in the Constitution.
I have the right to try and persuade others to believe as I do and boycott this book. I do not have the right to force them to boycott.
Censorship only matters from the government, or matters when force is used. Individual “censorship” is simply the freedom to make decisions for ourselves and our families.
Report Post »Hugh Williams
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 4:13pmCapitalist Mama
Report Post »George Soros and his minions are working feverishly to silence Glenn Beck. I think this is censorship, do you?
Okpulot Taha
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 10:02pmHUGH WILLIAMS is free to express his opinion, “George Soros and his minions are working feverishly to silence Glenn Beck. I think this is censorship, do you?”
Yep, this is the worst type of censorship. A recent good example of this is a television station agreeing to air two political advertisements by Christine O’Donnell then, when too late, refused to air those advertisements. No way of knowing how much of an impact this had on election results but we do know this did effect the election outcome.
Another maddening example is our mainstream news media refusing to report on Black Panthers intimidating white voters back in 2008 year.
ABC cropped a photograph from a Texas protest against an appearance by Obama. ABC reported a “white Tea Party member” carried an assault rifle to an Obama event. Subsequently, a full photograph is released of this “white” man. He is a black man who is a member of some whacko church.
There are examples of censorship like this to be found everyday, all around the world.
People here at the Blaze complain like crazy when Palin is censored or Rubio is censored, but when this comes to this pedophile book, censorship is OK. This is duplicitous behavior which informs me many participants here at the Blaze cannot be trusted and informs me those participants are not patriotic Americans.
Sure, people can censor privately, businesses can censor, and this is exactly what left liberals employ to impose socialism upon America. Participants here at the Blaze are behaving precisely, exactly, to the letter like left liberals,
“You are not allowed to read this because we said so.”
A person cannot be a conservative while engaging in calculated censorship. This is suppression of truth, this is violating our rights, this undermines our way of life and undermines our form of government. This is precisely the definition of treason.
Okpulot Taha
Report Post »Choctaw Nation
darski
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 12:06pmI would guess that Ben Bernanke already got his copy so no need to worry about that.
Report Post »zagfan
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 12:06pmI worry about censorship! That being said, I am disgusted that a book like that can be printed and also that anyone would be willing to sell it.
Anyone wanting to read material like this probably already has a problem. It is sickening and once again not protecting our young children. I personally think that all porn and guide books that are very harmful should not be for sale..period.
Amazon needs to vet their books they are selling..If not, then avoid Amazon as your book outlet.
Report Post »silentwatcher
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 12:01pmI said it when this first came out, I said it earlier today, and I will say it again……it’s simple economics…..they want to run a business but the business will fail when the public boycotts because of vile filth being sold. There is a difference between censorship and not promoting vile filth. Looks like Amazon.com is BEGINNING to understand that. Stick to your principles citizens.
Make your calls to Amazon.com and BOYCOTT. This is your voice, your opportunity to make your opinion be heard. The government, the one who says they are your protectors, are not and will not make a move for decency. The only chance we citizens have is to voice ourselves EVERY opportunity we can. EVERY opportunity. Make the call and stand up for yourself, your children, grandchildren, and your neighbors children. Unit at every opportunity. Make the call.
Report Post »silentwatcher
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 12:15pmI see some different views on censorship today. Again, it’s not censorship to NOT promote a book because of being borderline illegal and vile. No one is saying he can’t write the book-they‘re saying he shouldn’t write it due to morality. Simply not promoting it or selling it is NOT censorship, it’s public responsibility. Author wants to write the book but can’t find anyone to sell it or buy it is NOT censorship.,
Report Post »Okpulot Taha
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 12:01pmCAPITALIST MAMA asks, “Would you care to explain your conclusions?”
I did not think anyone would ever ask! Sure, I will enjoy explaining.
Succinct, you cannot be a conservative while practicing censorship.
The absolute most precious right we have is freedom of speech. Without freedom of speech, there would be no America. Freedom of speech includes media topics with which we agree and with which we disagree. We cannot be selective about freedom of speech and think ourselves patriots.
People will argue Amazon is at fault. People will call for a boycott of Amazon. Reality is Amazon is not at fault and Amazon is a fierce defender of our right to free speech. Amazon is one of the very few private enterprises which adamantly defends our right to free speech.
People here at the Blaze calling for a boycott of Amazon are not patriots rather they are traitors to our nation. Reads a bit harsh on my part but mine is truth. People here at the Blaze are ripping up our Constitution. This is not patriotism, this is treason.
People will argue this is not censorship. Rather clear those people are lying and equally clear those people have a personal agenda of stripping us of our right to free speech. Those folks claim this is not censorship but I am certain I will never find a copy of this pedophilia book to read. My right to freedom of speech is denied, the right of all Americans to free speech is denied. This is censorship, this is an act of treason against our nation.
I will emphasize again you cannot be a conservative and practice censorship. Our constitution guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of press. Denying this right is treason.
What is happening across America is the same as what Islam did to Salman Rushdie for his writing “Satanic Verses”. However, Americans are stupidly making a target of the wrong entity. Amazon did not write this pedophilia book yet Americans are blaming Amazon for this book. This is idiocy.
I will suggest many Americans, maybe most Americans are no different than hell bent Muslims.
You cannot be a conservative and practice censorship. You cannot be a conservative while stripping Americans of our right to free speech. This is not a game of pick and choose our constitutional guarantees, this is either you fiercely defend our constitution or you are not a patriotic American.
Okpulot Taha
Report Post »Choctaw Nation
Capitalist Mama
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 12:14pmHow can this be considered censorship, when the core of this book engages in criminal activity?
This book teaches adults how to engage in sexual activities with minors. This is against the law. This book should not be sold, as it is an accomplice to a crime.
This is not a case of free speech. This is a case of criminal activity.
Report Post »silentwatcher
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 12:18pmwrong. you obviously do not know what a patriot is.
Report Post »silentwatcher
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 12:26pmHow can you know what a Patriot is…..after reading your post again,,,,,it became apparent you are not a citizen,,,or are one that has been naturalized……..and you want to tell us what a Patriot is? hrumph!!!
Report Post »Nvrforget
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 12:46pmHer ancestors were here before America was even settled by Europeans. If she‘s not an American citizen I don’t know who would be.
Report Post »Okpulot Taha
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 12:52pmCapitalist Mama comments, “when the core of this book engages in criminal activity?”
There is NO criminal activity in this book just as there is no criminal activity in “Anarchist Cookbook” published decades back. You are writing your own law. This is wrongful.
The Aryan Nation and the Ku Klux Klan both maintain web sites and publish pamphlets, periodicals and books describing activities which are unlawful if acted out. Are we to remove those racists from the web and prevent their publishing materials? If so, we are no longer a free peoples, we are fascists.
Islamic terrorists maintain all kinds of web sites and published all kinds of materials describing how to commit acts of terrorism against infidels. Not only is this allowed under our constitution, they also have a right to preach hatred and violence within mosques under a constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion. If we ban Islam from America, we are fascists.
Speech is not typically criminal. Written material is not typically criminal. There must be clear criminal action to qualify as a crime.
A black panther screams “Kill crackers and their babies!” No crime is committed. He angers us, yes, but we cannot legally touch the boy; he enjoys a right to free speech. Should he kill a ******* or kill a ******* baby, then we can metaphorically hang him, if not literally, but we must do so under law, not under whim and wish.
Although this clearly angers many here at the Blaze, we must fiercely defend, we must fight to the death to protect this right of racists and terrorists to free speech. This is our patriotic duty.
We are not allowed to pull fantasy laws out of thin air when this supports a personal agenda. This type of activity is a threat to our nation, just as is denying our right to free speech a threat to our nation.
Like this or not, we are to always defend our constitution and we are always to be truthful.
Don’t tread on me, I will object which is one of my rights.
Okpulot Taha
Report Post »Choctaw Nation
Hugh Williams
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 12:57pmSilentwatcher and Capitalist Mama
Okpulot Taha is 100% correct. We must defend freedom of speech even when we are disgusted by what is being said.
Report Post »P.S. Silentwatcher please explain how you reached your conclusion Okpulot Taha is not a citizen.You wrote ” it became apparent you are not a citizen,,,or are one that has been naturalized……..”
I did not know there is a problem with Native American illegal aliens.
silentwatcher
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 1:22pmTo say I’m committing treason and not a Patriot because I draw the line, as a civilized society must, to intolerance to immoral acts? Where do you think laws were derived from? the moral belief of society! lines were drawn and society said “no.”
To make comments like “A black panther screams “Kill crackers and their babies!” No crime is committed.“ And if someone had killed a ”*******“ or ”baby” due to those comments, that person would have been just as guilty as the person committing the act.
Regarding my comment about questioning the citizenship of “okpulot taha”, it doesn’t feel very good when someone questions your core values, does it? Think about that the next time you question someone elses. And for the record, I gave 24 years of my life as a Patriot….so think about that when you say something like I’m not a Patriot and am treasonous because I draw the line on morality.
Report Post »Capitalist Mama
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 1:23pm“This book teaches adults how to engage in sexual activities with minors. This is against the law. This book should not be sold, as it is an accomplice to a crime.” – earlier post
I do not see how this book is any different from yelling “fire” in a crowded theater.
“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.” – Justice Holmes
This book presents a “clear and present danger” to minors. In this way, I believe that this speech is not protected and is criminal. The very act that is detailed is criminal. Accomplice to a crime. Driving a get away car is the same as actually robbing the bank.
Report Post »politicaljules
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 1:23pmYou are wrong about your assertions of being a conservative. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. It says nothing about how individual businesses can react or how individual conservatives can react. We have every right to censor inappropriate content, but the government has constraint that is bound by law.
The right to free speech is very much like the right to bear arms. Abuse the right and pay the price. That price can be censorship or losing your job, but a conservative is a true conservative who can distinguish that. While you have the right to claim no person can be a true conservative who censors, we have a right to call you uninformed and comment how what you say makes you look like an idiot.
Report Post »Okpulot Taha
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 1:30pmHUGH WILLIAMS sees the threat, “We must defend freedom of speech even when we are disgusted by what is being said.”
Absolutely and always. Freedom of speech also includes discussing what we would like to do to this pedophile boy for his book. Should I go into details what I personally would do to him, the Blaze would banish me and rightfully so! However, I can safely comment what I would do is stake the boy out over a fire ant hill down in Texas then smear honey where this would cause a lot of pain. Other details revealed would have me in trouble, guaranteed.
I can write about committing a crime. This is protected speech. Contrasting, I cannot act out this crime without suffering consequences of law. To prevent confusion, I cannot steal “national secrets” then publish those national security matters under protection of freedom of speech.
Some forms of censorship are lawful being designed to protect us from harm. Some forms of censorship are acceptable per our societal mores, not lawful but acceptable. However, banning a book, engaging in this type of censorship is not acceptable. This is simply dangerous.
HUGH WILLIAMS adds, “I did not know there is a problem with Native American illegal aliens.”
Ha! Ha! Don’t be offended but what you write is so comical! This is not the first time this red skinned girl has been accused of being an illegal alien. There is some truth to this idiocy of thinking an Indian not to be a citizen of America.
For trivia, the day I was born on a rural farm in Oklahoma I was denied American citizenship and denied a right to vote. In this sense there is some truth to this idiocy written by that boy. For a year or so I was, in fact, an illegal alien! Quite the distinction to be an original American and be an illegal alien!
But I was just a baby back then and those oddball days are long past.
Hugh, thank you for your support. I want you, personally, to know I am deeply offended by this pedophile book, but our Constitution is more important than my personal feelings. This is a type of personal sacrifice we all must make to have us remain a free peoples, and have our national pride.
Okpulot Taha
Report Post »Choctaw Nation
politicaljules
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 1:33pmThus, freedom of speech is ultimately grounded in private-property rights. The owner of a newspaper has the right to publish or not publish materials because the newspaper belongs to him. As the owner of the newspaper, he has the right to refuse anyone’s request to communicate through his newspaper. No one has a duty to furnish someone else the means by which he is able to communicate his views. If one person can’t persuade another to publish his views, he is free to open his own newspaper.
It’s the same principle with respect to movie theaters. The owners of movie theaters have the right to restrict the conduct of patrons and, for that matter, to refuse to show R-rated movies. By doing so, they are not “censoring” their patrons or the distributors of R- rated movies; they are simply exercising their right of private ownership.
What if the Congress enacts a law prohibiting theaters from running R-rated movies? That would constitute censorship. That would constitute a violation of the First Amendment.
Report Post »politicaljules
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 1:38pmCapitalist Mama is right. Choctow nation is wrong.
Report Post »Hugh Williams
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 1:53pmSILENTWATCHER and CAPITILST MAMA why don’t the two of you get together and decide what books and movies are suitable for sale? No one posting is defending this book, I agree with you this book is sick and disgusting. But do you really want someone using their own morals and values to decide what books can and can’t be sold. I do not!
Report Post »Okpulot Taha
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 2:06pmCAPITALIST MAMA argues, “I do not see how this book is any different from yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”
Well, now you are making a reasonable and logical debate point with which I can agree. This pedophile book may very well fall under this category of yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. However, we probably will never know because this book is, de facto, banned.
Should you or I discover this loathsome pedophile book is a true threat, yes, we are to dispense with this book under law and only under law. However, my hunch is this book does not violate the “fire” test. If there were a “criminal” problem with this book, this would be all over the news. This suggests this pedophile book is within the law. This could change, a legal question might come about.
This is a moral dilemma. We cannot know if this book violates our public safety because this book is effectively banned which is a violation of our constitution. Dilemma is we must allow a book like this to published so we can determine if a criminal offense is committed or a civil offense is committed.
This is not a Pelosi “pass this bill so we can find out what is inside” type event. Our system of justice requires we first produce evidence of wrongdoing before prosecution. This is due process. We must first read this book which requires this book be published. This is quite the quandary and is a result of ours being a nation of laws.
Previously I mention “Anarchist Cookbook” published back when many here were still making peanut butter in their diapers. This cookbook was initially banned but a constitutional challenge had this book rightfully published. This book, in detail, describes how to commit acts of terrorism.
There is a humorous side. Many of the recipes for explosives are so flawed, those explosives would explode while being produced. An anarchist follows a recipe for an explosive and ends up blowing his fool head off like some of the Weather Underground blew their fool heads off, decades back.
More humorous in this Anarchist Cookbook is recipes for cooking with “magic mushrooms” to get high. Comically some mushrooms used in those recipes are fatally poisonous; people died!
This Anarchist Cookbook, a copy of which I have, is clearly a dangerous book. Nonetheless, this cookbook passes a constitutional muster. I am certain this pedophile book will also pass a constitutional muster. This Anarchist Cookbook can be found in public school libraries as should be. This does not inherently mean this pedophile book should be in school libraries, but I could make an effective argument this pedophile book should be shared with children, under close supervision, to teach kids about signs of a pedophile, to teach kids how to stay safe.
In lieu of proven criminality in a court of law, we must defend this right of the author to write and publish his pedophile book despite how angry this makes us.
We are never to walk down this path to unwarranted censorship. This is a clear threat to our nation.
Okpulot Taha
Report Post »Choctaw Nation
silentwatcher
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 2:21pmHugh Williams
and I’m not promoting censorship (I do disagree with censorship)….again, I say that it is my choice NOT to buy the book and it is Amazon.com’s choice NOT to sell the book. That is not censorship. If Amazon.com wants to sell the book, fine, but people have the CHOICE not to buy from them.
And Okpulot Taha,,,I wasn’t attacking your heritage,,,,if you perceived that…I apologize.
Report Post »(and I’m pretty far right-for the records)
time4termlimits
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 2:51pmWhile I respect Okpulot’s right to express a well-written opinion and position on censorship, that is NOT what this is about. You are correct, the author has a right to write it, Amazon has a right to sell it, and we have a right to hold them accountable through a decision to exercise our right not to spend money with their company. They were unwise to make a business decision to sell the book, took a pathetic stand as to their decision, and then removed it because of the outrage. They are not a principled company or it would have never been sold by them. The author was not dependent upon Amazon to get his twisted message out. They chose to give him a channel of distribution. We now choose to take our business elsewhere. If we are all being principled here, Amazon should respect and applaud our decision to spend our money elsewhere. They will NEVER again get a dime from me. Isn’t my right to make that decision on equal footing with theirs?
Report Post »Okpulot Taha
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 3:01pmSILENT WATCHER makes sense, “I say that it is my choice NOT to buy the book and it is Amazon.com’s choice NOT to sell the book. That is not censorship.”
I strongly agree with you but first a lesson in free market enterprise and public ignorance.
A few years back a left liberal state up in the northeast tried to force Amazon to collect state taxes. I cannot remember, off-the-cuff, which leftie state so this will be Leftliberia. This state sued Amazon in an attempt to make Amazon a tax collector for Leftliberia although Amazon is not a business in this state. Amazon told Leftliberia to shove it and pulled all advertising out of Leftliberia. Amazon refused to impose state taxes upon customers. This action, pulling out advertisements, really hurt the economy of Leftliberia; lot of jobs were lost. People in Leftliberia still buy from Amazon.
Amazon refuses to collect neither federal taxes nor state taxes. This is in keeping with our Tea Party philosophy. Amazon is well known for being a fierce defender of our constitution. This also agrees with our Tea Party philosophy. Amazon offers both “new” prices and “used” prices to keep costs down. Tea Party people like this. Amazon has created tens of thousands of jobs and has created opportunity for tens of thousands of small businesses, most located in a person’s home. This certainly makes Tea Party people happy. Amazon is a patriotic American company.
People here boycotting Amazon are biting one of the hands which feed us. Amazon is on our side and this is proven by Amazon willing to go to court against state governments and our federal government to protect consumers from higher prices. Amazon is a Tea Party business model; no taxes and lower prices.
This is highly ignorant of people to boycott Amazon. This is shooting yourself in the foot. Americans so maddeningly ignorant. This so baffles me people can be so ignorant.
Returning to your topic, “That is not censorship” I do agree with you, Silent Watcher but there is a caveat. This becomes censorship when none can find a copy of this book. This is not censorship to boycott the author nor to boycott Amazon but the end result is censorship. Americans decide this book should not be allowed and Americans who want a copy of this book are denied this right. As you know, this is Iron Fist censorship.
Hugh Williams comments he does not want others deciding for him what he can read and what he cannot read. I strongly agree with him. Really angers me Americans believe they have a right to decide what Hugh or I can enjoy. This is, of course, fascism.
In this sense, Silent Watcher, this boycott and banning of this book is fascism. This boycott is quite acceptable and within the law but the end result is violation of our constitutional guarantees. You see the problem here?
Michelle Obama decides what we can eat or drink and those foodstuffs become scarce if not impossible to find. Michelle Obama decides for us what we can shove in our faces. This makes you very angry, yes? Same applies to book publishing.
Michelle tells us we cannot have potatoes. Americans tell us we cannot read this book. There is no difference between those actions which are censorship. Michelle makes us mad. Banning this book does not make us mad. This is obvious dire hypocrisy. This is surrendering some of our freedoms.
So, yeah, I agree with our notion of boycott but I look to future consequences. In this case, an all American company, Amazon, which practices a Tea Party philosophy is harmed, Americans are harmed by denial of a right to read this pedophile book, and we are harmed by diminishing our freedoms. This is what ignorance gets you; harm.
Bothers me so many Americans are knee jerk ignorant rather than good thinkers.
——
SILENT WATCHER concludes, “I wasn’t attacking your heritage…if you perceived that…I apologize.”
Blah! You are fretting over nothing. Quit your worrying, I am not offended. If I were offended I would be blasting you or ignoring you. I will commend you for offering an apology although none is needed.
——
You comment, “and I’m pretty far right-for the records”
I am just to the right of Attila the Hun. Actually, Attila looks like a sissy left liberal compared to me!
Your comments are enjoyable, I had fun. Please do argue with me in the future. This benefits all readers; we debate intelligently and respectfully.
Okpulot Taha
Report Post »Choctaw Nation
Hugh Williams
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 3:03pmSILENTWATCHER
Report Post »You posted the following “Make your calls to Amazon.com and BOYCOTT. This is your voice, your opportunity to make your opinion be heard. The government, the one who says they are your protectors, are not and will not make a move for decency. The only chance we citizens have is to voice ourselves EVERY opportunity we can. EVERY opportunity. Make the call and stand up for yourself, your children, grandchildren, and your neighbors children. Unit at every opportunity. Make the call.” And then you posted this “and I’m not promoting censorship (I do disagree with censorship)….again, I say that it is my choice NOT to buy the book and it is Amazon.com’s choice NOT to sell the book. That is not censorship. If Amazon.com wants to sell the book, fine, but people have the CHOICE not to buy from them.” It is not censorship to choose to not buy a book from Amazon. That is your right to choose but, when you call of others to join in a boycott of Amazon because they are selling a book you don’t like that is censorship. I really don’t like the music group Sugarland. I change the radio station every time one of their songs comes on. That is my choice, but I don’t boycott the radio station and demand they never play Sugarland’s songs again.
silentwatcher
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 3:36pmI commend Amazon on disagreeing with the libs up in the northeast….seems like they breed from that area.. Been a lot of contraversy, as well, about people working jobs that take them to several states, ie, construction. Many of the states are attempting to collect income taxes on while they worked there, so this is nothing new and in several ways, is an ongoing arguement.
I will, however, as a TEA PARTIER (and a right-handed one, at that) stick to my guns about the vile book. There is NO room in our society for this. Again, if one wants to write this crap, who am I to say he can’t, but I don’t have to buy it and can OFFER my thoughts/opinions that others who agree with me not buy it, or from a vendor, as well. A far cry from censorship. Tough call, but oh well. So, in keeping with my usual way of not being verbose, I will stick to the Tea Party‘s ’back to the basics’ and place a high value on morals and integrity.
Hugh Williams,,,,you need to go to Websters dictionary and look up “censorship”….then get back with me.
Report Post »silentwatcher
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 3:48pmand call me all the names you want,,,,it doesn’t bother me. I know who I am and what is right and wrong. I will stick to my guns. All that without 5000 words.
Report Post »Hugh Williams
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 4:00pmSILENTWATCHER
Report Post »cen•sor•ship
ˈsɛn sərˌʃɪpShow Spelled[sen-ser-ship] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the act or practice of censoring.
2.
the office or power of a censor.
3.
the time during which a censor holds office.
4.
the inhibiting and distorting activity of the Freudian censor.
The above is the definition of censorship from Dictionary.com. It is censorship to call for a boycott of Amazon because they were selling a book you don’t like. No one is saying you must buy this vile book but, calling for a boycott is an act or practice of censoring.
janddjohnson
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 5:17pmOKPULOT:
Report Post »You said this ” If we ban Islam from America, we are fascists.”
Ok so I ask you this…do we stand by and let them take over our nation or take a stand and rid our nation of them? I say if we let our nation fall to them we are not Patriotic…but you basically say we would be fascist? Correct me.
Smoovious
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 5:28pmOkpulot Taha is correct.
Although, I wouldn’t go so far as to call it treason, she makes a valid argument.
I want to read this book.
I want to know just what these people are thinking, and doing, what their tactics are, etc.
If we were to ban/boycott every book that dealt with illegal topics, our libraries would be mostly empty.
It is our right to have access to those thoughts and ideas we find objectionable, even distasteful.
Don’t want the book, don’t buy the book.
Take out your anger and disgust at the person who wrote the book, but to go so far to demand nobody else has a right to even read the damned thing? That’s going too far.
We are not children. We don’t need our government or mob rule, to dictate what we can and cannot read and learn.
Frankly, we should all read this book. Particularly if we have young daughters.
Another poster had the right idea. Use this book to help teach others about the kinds of people out there, and that they’re not all nice. What too watch out for, dangers they need to avoid.
We simply cannot keep our heads in the sand anymore, about ANYTHING.
– Smoov
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 8:22pmEveryone who has participated in this discussion speaks like a patriot. There is little disagreement as to whether the author had the right to publish his book and Google to sell it. To me it is a fait accompli, although the legality may be contested down the road.
However, a controversy has risen between patriots who believe CALLING for a boycott of the book violates the very essence of freedom of speech given that a boycott translates into banning of the book (the goal), vs. those who believe it is their moral duty and constitutional right to call for a boycott of literature — of anything, really — that violates the mores of civilized society.
I understand the fascist argument, and the freedom of speech argument. I even think Glenn and other libertarians would agree with Taha. Obama will certainly agree with the right to anything that is not right-wing, and that leads me to my argument in favor of calling for a boycott in our current situation. I will show the flip side of the Taha-Beck view to support my stance.
First, we need to look at context. We are not in the 60s. This is “the rainy day” Beck constantly speaks of- or better yet, the evil day mentioned in the Bible. What does God exhorts us to do? To stand, to arise and shine. In the 60s, that kind of book would not have been marketable, so there would have been no need to call for a boycott.
Second, I hope all of us have been watching Glenn’s special on Soros, because they are key to this discussion. The core element of all radical-left transformations/revolutions is what Soros labels SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES, and a quintessential subversive activity is BOYCOTTING. Think, patriots, this is exactly what they have been trying to do to Beck (and Fox News). Subversive actors avail themselves of constitutional freedoms to BOYCOTT, undermine, fire, defame and so on.
How we react to subversive tactics is crucial because if we buy into their game we are toast. The radicals would like us to respond in one of two ways: an Oklahoma-type response, or a strict “it is lawful/legal/protected by the Constitution reaction. The Taha-Beck admonition against a violent response at this point is valid, but the second argument, when carefully analyzed, proves to be a fallacy. Ironically, I don’t see Glenn focusing on the legality of the attacks against him. On the contrary, he is fighting back, among other things, by exposing these subversive tactics.
Our own bodies can teach us a lesson on this subject. In a healthy body, the antibodies “rally” to neutralize or kill an antigen. The problem arises when an RNA virus uses a “key” to attach itself to our defense mechanism, invades it, converts RNA to DNA and then bind itself to the cell’s chromosomal DNA permanently, as happens with HIV. The virus then reproduces freely and destroys the body’s immune system from within.
These far-left radicals among us are also invaders, and they have developed subversive tactics that enable them to attach themselves to our Constitution and our laws. Thus, they have been able to subvert our political system and reproduce theirs. Boycotting is one effective means of destroying them before they attach. Words of condemnation alone cannot destroy this type of “virus.” They will continue to laugh in our collective face, unless we use strong measures to disarm them. Citing the Constitution and the protection of free speech is useless, and saying that we will become like them is a fallacy; it is THEY WHO HAVE ALREADY BECOME LIKE US. If possible, we need to render them powerless without destroying ourselves in the process, but the time to quote the Constitution is past, and the time to DEFEND it has come. We the People must be bold and participate in nonviolent boycotts against the usurpers.
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on November 12, 2010 at 1:08amListen to yourself, Smoovious. You don’t have to buy evil and read evil to teach your kids about evil. Please do not let the deceiver sell you that line. It is a revised version of his age-old “Hath God said” speech. Don’t spend your money on or read books that expose you and your family to spiritual bondage.
Report Post »Okpulot Taha
Posted on November 12, 2010 at 4:25amKRYPTONITE writes an article worthy of reading, “boycott of the book violates…freedom of speech [versus] violates the mores of civilized society.”
I appreciate your article which is well written and well thought out.
Many would label this issue a can of worms. I understand this point view. Contrasting, I am a traditional American Indian and we are maddeningly pragmatic. This issue is cut and dry for me: we are to obey our constitution.
A boycott is an attempt to circumvent our constitution. A boycott is to tell a person, “We will not allow you to do this.” This is to violate our constitution. We do have an American tradition of protest which is a priceless and critical tool. Our Sixties, which you mention, Kryptonite, afforded a lot of protests and afforded a lot of change for America, beneficial change.
This time we are not protesting the Vietnam war nor protesting a police state and we are not marching for civil rights. This time we are confronted with a simple issue; freedom of speech.
We are to exercise our freedom of speech to let this pervert author know we do not like what he is doing, we can “rough” him up while staying within legal boundaries. There is a catch. If this book is never available we have violated the very premise of freedom of speech. Does not matter by what means this book is banned, the end result is the issue. Should a single American be denied access to this book, his civil rights are violated. This harms all of us.
What is at risk is further diminishing of our right to free speech which is already severely limited. A tactic Obama is employing is silencing our voices; “shut up”. Should we de facto ban this book we are opening the censorship door a bit wider for Obama to slip his foot in farther. There is another catch. Obama can claim conservatives to be tyrants who do not honor our constitution. This is highly unlikely Obama would use this issue of a pedophile book to do this, but we know Obama and his boys are always ready to pounce on any given issue to make conservatives look to be imposing a police state upon America a la Nixon.
My traditional Indian ways guide me to be pragmatic and devious. I would hold up this pedophile book and say to America, “We conservatives defend our right to free speech and left liberals are abusing our right to free speech to promote sexual predation upon children.”
I would turn this issue around and make this a weapon to use against left liberals.
Setting aside dirty politics, the most important issue here is your point, Kryptonite, a point of law versus morals. Our laws are derived from morals but we are to never allow morals to become law. A classic example of how moral laws destroy our nation are laws which make adultery a criminal offense. Should we strictly enforce these laws against adultery, half of Americans would be in prison. This is a crime of moral offense which is a crime in itself.
This is what happens when morals override law. A woman is accused of adultery and she is stoned to death while her husband and her lover are patted on their backs and congratulated for being virile studs. We know this is true just as we know this does not happen in America, least not the stoning part. Nonetheless, often here in America a woman who commits adultery is treated significantly more severely than an adulterous man. This we also know to be true. America, Islam, no difference save for severity of punishment.
This issue of adultery being a criminal offense well highlights many Americans think like Muslims but we are simply timid about stoning a woman to death. Thinking is the same.
This book issue is forcing us to question if we are a nation of laws, or a nation of morals.
We know what happens when morals are law: Theocratic tyranny.
Bottom line issue for me, personally, is an issue of knee jerk reaction versus intelligent critical thinking.
Okpulot Taha
Report Post »Choctaw Nation
Smoovious
Posted on November 12, 2010 at 9:40am@kryptonite
I prefer to act on information and knowledge… not assumption and guesswork.
How many times have you heard people talk as if they are in the know about something, but would never read a book about that something because they think it is distasteful or evil? These are people who don’t really know anything about what they talk about, simply because they refuse to learn about it, keeping their head in the sand.
They do this, it seems, like they are afraid of becoming what they don’t want to read. They lack strength in their own moral center. They fear simply reading and understanding this material, would corrupt them somehow. It sounds like you fit into this group.
My own moral center is strong enough to withstand exposure to those things I find immoral. My moral code is not based in religion, but in myself. I know myself. I have faith in myself. I do not fear losing myself by simply reading that book.
I don‘t want to act on information that came from people who don’t know. People who assume, and guess, but don’t know how these people think, and that‘s where most of you who shrink away from this book and don’t even want anyone to be able to read it are coming from. You don’t know. The author, however, does.
So, when it comes to learning about these kinds of people in our midst, he‘s the one I’m going to take more seriously than the rest of you.
Get your heads out of the sand, please. Read everything that people don’t want you to read. Be free.
– Smoov
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on November 12, 2010 at 1:24pmSmoovious,
I, too, prefer firsthand info. However, this book does not explore an ideology or theory.
People who write these kinds of books have one thing in mind and that is to transmit their spiritual darkness through words to those who read them. It has nothing to do with being able to affect you morally. Wickedness is spiritual, not moral, and it has the power to affect others. I am sure neither of us would be morally swayed or “corrupted” by reading this book, and most probably you will not sense the spiritual effect, although the consequences will be manifest in your life and maybe in the lives of your loved ones.
In the Bible, people who became Christians and owned books on the occult were instructed to burn them, not out of fear, but because it was a way of breaking the spiritual ties these books created. While spiritual laws may appear to be as superstitious, fearful and/or irrational figments of the imagination, they are actually inviolable and predictable.
Even if you decide to disregard the spiritual element, please consider whether you want your money to go to a pedophile, which will happen if you buy his book.
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on November 12, 2010 at 1:35pmOkpulot Taha,
Report Post »Gotta go. I’ll respond in detail later. Thanks.
kryptonite
Posted on November 13, 2010 at 1:10pmSorry I took so long to respond. Hope you are still checking this thread.
You said: “Should we de facto ban this book we are opening the censorship door a bit wider for Obama to slip his foot in farther.”
How so? That argument does not hold wherever political subversion is taking place. Obama will do what he “has to do,” regardless. In fact, one could argue that the opposite is true. The reason why totalitarian takeovers are successful is that they are allowed to abuse freedom of speech to spew their subversive propaganda and change the moral foundation of a given political system.
You said: “Our laws are derived from morals but we are to never allow morals to become law.”
There is a key passage in the Bible that explains American exceptionalism:
“Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel…; and they said to him… Now appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations.” But the thing was displeasing in the sight of Samuel… And Samuel prayed to the LORD. The LORD said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them.” (1 Sam. 8:4-7)
God had always wanted a people who would establish a direct covenant with Him; a people who would, to the best of their ability, allow “his will to be done in their nation as it is in heaven”. The difference between “one nation under God” and a theocracy (like Islam) is that the former is guided by God, and therefore allows humankind the freedoms of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. By contrast, theocracies are MAN-MADE governments that impose a religion-based political system, and they are the most horrific of all totalitarian regimes.
God-rule, however, can only exist if individuals remain in a close relationship with God. Once that link is broken, the political system collapses. John Adams noted:
“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
That is exactly what has happened to our political system, and that was the point I was trying to convey when I used the HIV analogy. Pragmatists like you tend to overlook that freedom of speech DOES NOT stand on its own. It is by no means a static right. Freedom of speech is SUPPORTED by clear godly principles, and if these are disregarded or subverted, freedom of speech cannot operate “for the people”. On the contrary, just like HIV DNA destroys CD4 cells’ DNA, when subversive speech “attaches” itself to our freedom of speech it reproduces to undermine and eventually destroy our very socio-political makeup.
We cannot stop all subversive speech, because some of it does not constitute hate speech, but we CAN and must boycott it. In so doing, we are exercising our right as individuals to protect the very foundational principles that sustain our freedom of speech.
Report Post »Okpulot Taha
Posted on November 14, 2010 at 12:58pmLooks this specific thread of mine is setting a record for length.
Kryptonite: You said: “Should we de facto ban this book we are opening the censorship door a bit wider for Obama to slip his foot in farther.”
Kryptonite: How so? That argument does not hold wherever political subversion is taking place.
Barack Obama is not truly our president. Obama thrives on disagreement and disarray. Obama is not a community organizer rather Obama is a black agitator in the vain of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan. Obama has only one agenda which is to destroy White America and to destroy America herself.
When there is disagreement, when people take sides, when people boycott and protest, these are circumstances Obama will come in to agitate and inflame. Obama does not take sides rather he incites people with intent to cause destruction of our society and our American way of life.
Here in this blog we are debating a basic issue of freedom of speech. There is both agreement and disagreement found in our comments. This quarrel feeds Obama; he better learns how to anger Americans and divide Americans.
A goal amongst many goals of Obama is to dispense with our Constitution. A tactic he can use is,
“Americans object to this pedophile book being sold. This book is a danger to our society. This book is now removed from store shelves. Glenn Beck writes books. His books are a danger to society. Glenn Beck books need to be removed from store shelves.”
This does not matter if Beck books are removed or not because Obama has successfully planted into the minds of millions a notion Beck is a dangerous man. Those millions will now support unwarranted censorship in defiance of our constitution. This deceitful notion planted in the minds of Americans provides Obama a leverage point to agitate and to create acrimony.
Contrasting, should we fiercely defend our constitution, even when objectionable, this denies Obama a method to agitate Americans. By standing together and protecting our constitution we send a message to Obama, “Don’t mess with our constitution.” Through unity we deny or diminish this ability of Obama to use slippery semantics to divide us and conquer us.
Obama is a black agitator. His intent is to destroy America. He thrives on circumstances of our being in disagreement. We can prevent those circumstances by adhering to our constitution, always.
—–
AP news release. Today, President Obama is calling upon Americans to boycott sales of Glenn Beck books, “Those books are causing acrimony amongst Americans. I am asking each American to protest, to boycott and to not buy Glenn Beck books. This is our patriotic duty.
—–
See how that works?
Okpulot Taha
Report Post »Choctaw Nation
kryptonite
Posted on November 14, 2010 at 2:16pmOkpulot Taha,
It doesn’t work that way. We both agree that Obama is different. He is a black agitator AND a communist activist (aka community organizer). Who said tyrants need an excuse to impose their system? Just the fact that Beck is exposing the man is reason enough to attack him as well as his shows, books and events. That is already taking place to some degree.
Patriots like Beck who are in the limelight must watch what they say to avoid being accused of instigating violence. We the People are a different story. WE are the ones called to create a collective voice and stop visible threats to our Constitutional laws and the foundational principles upon which they stand.
These neo-commies don’t play by the rules, Okpulot. They count on people’s passiveness and fear of losing what has already been taken, to push their agenda forward unhindered. Furthermore, commies don’t need excuses to attack those who oppose them. If we don’t “give” them one, they will fabricate one. You and I have already seen this dynamics at work, and it will only get worse with time.
Great discussion. I’ll read your comment, if you wish to reply, and then move on to new threads. Thanks.
Report Post »wonderbug
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 11:56amThey pulled the book… thank God.
Report Post »heavyduty
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 11:39amI don’t know what to say. Except I don’t do Amazon or any other company that has objectionable material on its website.
Report Post »Okpulot Taha
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 11:30amFascism scores another victory over America! Toss your copy of our Constitution on the home fire, this is a chilling night for America.
Okpulot Taha
Report Post »Choctaw Nation
Capitalist Mama
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 11:36amWould you care to explain your conclusions? Chilling that this book was written and published, or chilling that it has been pulled because of complaint?
Report Post »BurntHills
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 11:38ambig difference between bookburning and all this defiant open sexual deviance being generated by the soros/obama socialists. there is no reason for How To books calling for the molestation and rape and murder of children.
Report Post »Hugh Williams
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 11:52amI usually agree with most of your post but, I am not sure this time. Yes I agree this is censorship and that can lead down a slippery slope. I have a hard time defending a how to book about how to abuse and molest children. I also know censorship is a dangerous thing. Many times thru history things that appeared to be reasonable at the time are taken to the extreme and become oppressive. As always you make me think about all sides.
Report Post »Okpulot Taha
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 12:31pmOn a more gentle note, Capitalist Mama, there is a book which is now a literary work of art. This book has been a top seller since 1955 year. This book was initially banned from America through theocratic objection. This book was banned, censored and burned. Despite efforts at censorship, this book is now rated right up there with William Shakespeare and Charles Dickens. The author of this book is viewed as a historical literary giant.
This book is “Lolita” written by Russian author Vladimir Nabokov. So popular is his story, several equally popular films are produced based on his book.
Lolita is a story about Humbert, an older man, who is sexually obsessed with Dolores, a twelve year old girl. Lolita is a story of a mature man desiring sex with a young girl, a topic which has many uncomfortable if not enraged.
Nonetheless, “Lolita” is now an esteemed and a celebrated literary work of art. This story would be unknown if psychotic religious zealots were successful at censorship efforts.
Contrasting, this Phillip Greaves book, a guideline for pedophiles, has no value, is insulting and offends our sense of decency. However, our being offending by his book is not a valid reason to ignore our right to free speech. We are to fiercely defend Greaves constitutional guarantee to write this book just as we are to fiercely defend Amazon’s constitutional guarantee to market this book.
“Lolita” is a true literary work of genius. This pedophile guide is trash. Still, both enjoy equal value according to our constitution. We absolutely must defend, always defend our constitution lest we lose our freedom.
For the umpteenth time, you cannot be a conservative and practice censorship. We Tea Party people are not murderous Muslims nor are we left liberal socialists bent on making slaves of us all. We are alleged to be patriotic Americans, but when we subscribe to censorship we are no longer patriots rather we are traitors to our America.
My viewpoint is either you stand behind our constitution or you are not an American patriot. We are to always be truthful even when truth hurts. A truth is I read a lot of participants here at the Blaze who are not patriotic Americans while claiming themselves to be uber patriots. This type of deceit angers me.
Okpulot Taha
Report Post »Choctaw Nation
politicaljules
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 1:42pmOur constitution is working just fine. Throwing it into the fire would create more problems than you would imagine. Our republic is the finest method of government you can find and we are ruled by a constitution. It sometimes takes much longer to work, but it will come through eveytime. we saw it come through on 11-2 and it will continue to work for us until all the progressives are gone. We have just got to learn to trust in it and not keep convincing people that it means nothing like what Choctaw is manipulating us to do. That is one big reason so many people break the law and do not follow it. People want to break down our republic of laws and turn us into a democracy which is wrong and will cause our great society to fail.
Report Post »ClockKing
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 5:56pmWrong. The free market spoke. The people spoke, because freedom doesn’t mean you HAVE to accept everything. ‘Lolita’ is disturbing, I don’t care if it is a “great piece of literature.” This book was supposedly written from the perspective of child. Pedos talk about how children “seduce” them; ie., it’s not their fault. This is deadly mental illness.
Report Post »BRAVEHEART
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 9:02pmA woman or a Bookseller without discretion is like a ring of Gold in a Pig’s snout. Proverbs paraphrased.
Report Post »BoatFix
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 11:16amAmazon is phony! Con Artists!
Report Post »Amazon is still selling “Understanding Loved Boys and Boylovers.”
That title is still available through Amazon!
Have Your Amazon Account Deleted.
Our business did a little over $14,000.00 worth of business with them last year. We also have a corporate Amazon/Chase charge card that we have canceled.
dkhartman
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 11:35amI too am cancelling my card and account with them. No matter if they pulled it or not…. Plus the other book is till available. Perverts
Report Post »Capitalist Mama
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 11:13amI called yesterday, cancelled my credit card with them, cancelled my business account, and told the CS rep that we would no longer buy from Amazon. We own a small business with 10 employees and had previously use Amazon for all book purchasing.
She said there “have been many calls tonight about that book.“ and promised to ”share [my] concern with her superiors.”
Report Post »RightUnite
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 11:28amGood for you… We need to vote with our pocketbook.
Report Post »Eyeball
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 11:12amDo you really need an explanation as to why they pulled the pedophilia book? If you do, then you need to take a hard look at yourself. Maybe you operate with no limits or no drawn line.
Report Post »Capitalist Mama
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 11:19amI would like an explanation! They defended the book yesterday. Nothing in the print has changed. The only thing that has changed is the outraged public. I would like Amazon to admit the ONLY reason they are not selling this book is because so many people are outraged. The only reason not to sell this book is because they will lose profits, but they would allow this CRIMINAL book that promotes CRIMINAL behavior otherwise.
I think that needs to be admitted.
Report Post »Reverend
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 11:27amSorry, but they didn’t pull it because it is wrong (though it most definitely is!) If that was the case, they would have never sold it or defended selling it in the first place.
Report Post »RightUnite
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 11:12amLibs, who love pedophiles, will be yelling free speech! Free speech! Watch and remember.
Report Post »EP46
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 11:17amFree speech is great….but we are not going to pay for it ! Let Amazon sell about a million dollars less this Christmas.
Report Post »NukeHaze
Posted on November 12, 2010 at 12:56amI believe Glenn is right that free speech should be protected above all else for the sake of freedom. That being said, the morals of businesses can be seen in the fruits from their labors, the stuff they choose to sell, and the platforms they choose to give and to whom they give them. Some idiot at Amazon thought carrying this would be a good idea. After all, they think selling the satanic bible is a good idea, too, and call it censorship, instead of reserving the right to choose not to carry certain things for the sake of not promoting felonious behavior, rather than just grow a backbone and say that their reputation as a business, before this, was more important to them than selling a few of these sick books. They LOST a lot more money than they GAINED by choosing to sell this trash (trash being used does not quite do it justice, either). I suspect we will see some scapegoat within the company replaced publicly, not likely the higher up in charge that actually made the decision to allow it. The book violates their own codes of business conduct yet they hide behind “free speech”. Choosing to seel this book is not “free seech”, it is providing justification and promoting crime.
Report Post »charles48
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 11:11amAmazon pulls book without explanation oh i think we all know why could it be because oh i dont know that people complained enough lol we the people have to watch after everything these companies and politicans do they are like littile kids you contantly have to tell NO you cant do that its wrong.
Report Post »janddjohnson
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 11:10amI wrote them yesterday and cancelled my account and told them why. It wasn’t a very nice email to them I would say. They wrote me back this morning and said that they had pulled the book so I might want to rethink my closing my account with them and then went on to show me specials they had going on. I wrote them back and demanded they close my account and let them know that I will never buy a book from them nor anyone they are affiliated with. They are sick. This is the kind of stuff that we need to fix. It will take a while but we will get it done.
Report Post »Capitalist Mama
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 11:17amI did the same. I was very polite to the CS rep- it was not her decision. She said that many people were calling about that particular book. She did NOT defend Amazon, agreed with me that it should not be sold, and told me that she was referring all the calls she received to her supervisors.
On another note: Amazon says they do not censor, except for criminal activites. Surely this book can be considered criminal, since it is a how-to on a CRIME! Pedophilia is a CRIME and engaging in sexual activity with minors is A CRIME! In the article yesterday, the author mentioned the book discusses how alternatives for children too small to wear a condom- even typing that sentence is horrifying. This can be considered nothing if not criminal and the author should be investigated as a likely child rapist.
Report Post »alienguns
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 11:22amI did also..I used to buy a lot of stuff from them….but never again
Report Post »janddjohnson
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 11:23amCapitalist Mama
Report Post »In the interview with the pervert who wrote this book …did he say that it wasn’t so bad for the children? I about fell out of my chair unless I heard it wrong. I am guessing that if wrote a how to book about this that he is an expert at it. It makes me wonder how many children were molested because of this book. Do people like this really exist? Justice is needed here.
seanpatriot
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 11:09amI cant believe a book like this would even be published let alone bought and sold.
Report Post »EP46
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 11:15amAll the first copies were sent to msnbc
Report Post »SecretPolice
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 11:07amDoing that yeterday wouldn’t have been soon enough – Simply unreal that it was being sold in the first place – Yikes !!!
Report Post »Sledgehammer
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 11:03amI wonder if their servers were shut down? We are a goo and decent people, who are at the limit of what we will tolerate! They are a buisness, who understand that, if you P.O. your clients, they won’t be your clients any more! Translation Money talks B.S. walks! These folk need to ask themselves, what the hell were we thinking?
Report Post »SND97
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 11:02amI already have, I will NEVER buy another anything from those idiots. Bye Amazon!! Like we don’t have a million other outlets to buy from.
Report Post »DrEvo82
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 11:31amI just canceled mine also.
Report Post »BurntHills
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 11:33amthis huge extended family will be buying our books the old-fashion way, at Wal-Mart, K-Mart, or other places in person. our usually very costly annual online buying thru amazon is OVER.
Report Post »EP46
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 11:00amToo little, too late. Boycott Amazon
Report Post »scuba13
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 11:14amNow what do I send Olberman for christmas?
Report Post »silentwatcher
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 11:21amsimple economics…..they want to run a business but the business will fail when the public boycotts because of vile filth being sold. There is a difference between censorship and not promoting vile filth. Looks like Amazon.com is BEGINNING to understand that. Stick to you principles citizens.
Report Post »heavyduty
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 11:40amI agree. But then again I already was boycotting them and a lot more.
Report Post »snowleopard3200 {mix art}
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 12:19pmI still have no plans to do business with Amazon again. The line was crossed when I heard the book was for sale, there can be no going back. Americans still have to stand for what is right, or we are indeed nothing like the administration claims.
HKS
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 1:19pmI guess you know when your country is hitting the bottom, when this is a story.
Report Post »HUGGINGMYBABIES
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 1:36pmI like your thoughts SCUBA!
Report Post »free2bme1961
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 1:42pmWho owns Amazon? What publisher would publish such a book?
Pedphiles are not capable of LOVE…okay? It would be debateable to take his word, he never has engaged in such a criminal activity. He got his information somewhere. Is this man related to Aleister Crowley?< Read about him, under exposed!
This was done to trick America. Why? To entrap us for their future plans. What plans? The plans to enslave and take everything from us. To test us with a topic about perverts and criminal activity, shows the desperation and pressure they are under, to start implementing total control.
Report Post »Of course it is criminal to abuse and molest any child; but they are desparate to take away everything, in order to prove their authority over us!
People in the "heirarchy" of things, remaind silent about this….no outrage from congress or people who are supposed to protect our rights, and children's rights!
Why didn't the POTUS and FOTUS have anything to say about this book? They have 2 beautiful underaged children.
I am praying this "game" will a backfire on them…it will be interesting to see what topic of debate will be put before us, next. A topic about Free Speech' and OUR rights, as Americans? Perhaps a REAL topic. One that this book, and the protesting of it; will be thrown in our faces, in order to RAPE us of the tiny bit of FREEDOM, we thought we had…:(
politicaljules
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 1:54pmToo late. I already stopped shopping at amazon because their prices went through the roof. No longer can you find any good deal online with them. Besides, these days it can be much more lucrative if you shop in your local community and support the areas you live with your dollars. For a company with very little overhead, their prices are ridiculous.
Report Post »HouseNegro
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 3:31pmAmazon you should have not put profits ahead of children. I hope the screams of a small child being raped with a How-to-Manual you sold haunt you to and beyond the grave……………….
Report Post »grandmaof5
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 4:36pmI’d like to think it was the email I sent them but, alas, probably not. I did send out over the stratasphere an email requesting my buddies send Amazon a nastygram. Received notice by return email from Amazon it had been pulled. It would behoove them to pull any and all books pertinent to that subject immediately.
Report Post »ClockKing
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 5:50pmThe threat of a Kindle boycott scared them. But they were too dumb to respond quickly.
Report Post »free2bme1961
Posted on November 11, 2010 at 6:49pmAfter reading through many of the comments here, I just wanted to say something; and not direct this towards anyone in particular.
Report Post »When the constitution was written, I would like to think, that any crime against a child, rape, molestaion, pornography, etc, would NOT be something, to question, as a part of free speech. I do not believe that any crime, whether done through manipulation, to an innocent child, or done with consent to an innocent, would be considered an “right” of our constitution.
What I am trying to say is; that crime = imprisonment= loss of any rights!
The constitution is used for the purposes of a fair trial!
Just knowing that a publisher, would consider, without question, publishing this; should send a shiver up the spine of any respectable person.
Furthermore, if this book is out there, promoting this concept; then expect anyone that has been incarcerated, for such a dispicable act; to demand a retrial, based on this book, which makes this okay!
This book is discrediting parents, who try to protect their children, from those willing to participate in such an act. And this was done, to create a brainwashing affect (unbelievable btw!) using manipulation, through our constitution….to validate those, who say this is okay and do not consider this a crime.
KristiJo
Posted on November 12, 2010 at 12:12amIt’s gonna be a red Christmas for Amazon. I’m boycotting as well. So long idiots!
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on November 12, 2010 at 12:39amI got a reply from Amazon saying they pulled the e-book and asked me if that resolved my issue with them. I replied to them and pitched a fit about the other title and told them they could still kiss my business goodbye!
Report Post »Merry Christmas Amazon!
watchmany2k
Posted on November 12, 2010 at 12:11pmThey didn’t pull the book, Big SIS purchased them all for TSA Training
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on November 12, 2010 at 2:10pmIf someone wrote a critical book on the subject of pedophilia in an un-bias manner for information purposes, I wouldn’t have a problem with that. But books written as “how to” books and an effort to legitimize abhorrent, illegal, behavior and child abuse is just plain wrong on many different levels. People like Westboro Baptist, for instance, and many others are testing the limits of free speech to the detriment of a civil and healthy society. When we talk about the right of free speech, it should be taken into consideration the personal rights of others. Like a childs right to grow up normally without being seduced or raped in the false name of a “sexual preference” of a sick adult.
Report Post »There is really no legitimate excuse for printing “how to” child abuse books that explain how to break the law and destroy a childs life. Or to make an effort to legitimize pedophilia and try to make it a mainstream “sexual preference”.
The big question is, what is our society coming to? Is this “progression foward” in this country really just regression in a thin disguise?
Are we no better than a butt sniffing dog?