Advanced search

To think that Amazon should not be selling this book!!! <warning - upsetting content>

(203 Posts)
LEMisafucker Tue 19-Nov-13 12:23:34

I don't have the words - this is actually a thread about a thread, but i thnk this needs more attention so posting here. There have been convictions for murder in the states by folk following this book. Yet it is still published angry

Link to original thread

TEEARDIS Tue 19-Nov-13 15:15:51

I haven't read the book and don't intend to.

But I will fight to the death their right to write it and publish it.

They have broken no laws by writing the book. You are trying to legislate thought. That is a very dangerous road to go down.

gordyslovesheep Tue 19-Nov-13 15:16:43

Hell just froze over ...I agree with flatpack!

I do though . The book is vile but it should not be banned ...I like crime fiction, in the wrong hands that could be ' dangerous' where do you draw a line?

PeggyCarter Tue 19-Nov-13 15:28:49

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

PeggyCarter Tue 19-Nov-13 15:30:49

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

TEEARDIS Tue 19-Nov-13 15:37:12

That's the exact definition of banning the book Joyful. Not allowing it to be sold or asking people to not sell it.

How do you think books get banned? By people insisting no one sell them.

missfliss Tue 19-Nov-13 15:39:30

censorship is absolutely not the same as asking a retailer not to sell something.

censorship is top down state suppression of ideas and opinions being circulated.

amazon have removed plenty of items for sale in the past, it is up to them whether to give authors a platform for selling. Look at the recent furore about WHSmith removing self published child porn books being marketed as 'erotica' - whats the flipping difference?

This book is also self-published by the way - no actual publisher would touch it - is that censorship too? its not a valid argument.

this is requesting not enforcing - amazon dont have to listen and sadly probably wont unless enough people find it unacceptable and take their business away.

missfliss Tue 19-Nov-13 15:40:21

no - books get banned by government censorship prohibiting their sale by law - making the sale or purchase or posession of a book an offence.

TEEARDIS Tue 19-Nov-13 15:40:30

The difference is child pornography is illegal. This book isn't.

missfliss Tue 19-Nov-13 15:41:24

link again

would you 'fight for the death' to get WHSmith selling these again?

missfliss Tue 19-Nov-13 15:41:54

writing about child pornography isnt illegal actually - no

TEEARDIS Tue 19-Nov-13 15:42:48

No, because that was illegal.

This is not.

As I've said over and over and over again. But y'all are too busy getting your pitchforks ready to listen to reason.

So get it banned. Be proud of yourselves for it. Start a MN campaign even.

TEEARDIS Tue 19-Nov-13 15:43:09

Bored now.

flatpackhamster Tue 19-Nov-13 15:48:21


censorship is absolutely not the same as asking a retailer not to sell something.

That's precisely what it is.

In fact, it's worse. The reason it's worse is that with government censorship, it's in the open and it can be roundly condemned for the wickedness it is.

This sort of back-door censorship is far worse, because it's done by meddling busybodies with too much time on their hands, who think that the only way to live is their way, and that anything that doesn't fit in to their way of life is bad and should be censored.

It's worse because it doesn't have any legal or democratic backing. It's the worst kind of self-centred bullying and it's something that MN does extremely well. Look at their 'campaign' against internet porn that David Cameron thinks is so brilliant.

Tigerstripes Tue 19-Nov-13 15:49:33

"I haven't read the book and don't intend to.

But I will fight to the death their right to write it and publish it.

They have broken no laws by writing the book. You are trying to legislate thought. That is a very dangerous road to go down."


PeggyCarter Tue 19-Nov-13 15:50:24

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

missfliss Tue 19-Nov-13 15:51:08

oh jesus how childish.

those self published books were not Illegal- they (WHSmith) removed the titles because they caused offence and contravened their own 'acceptable content policies'

if you cannot actually see the difference between top down banning of books by the state (censorship) and asking one retailer to remove to remove it from sale voluntarily - then - well sigh

'fight to the death' to protect amazon selling whatever they flipping well want to, and then go on and infer anyone who disagrees that they might care what their customers think commercially is just a pitchfork waving peasant on a witch hunt.


PeggyCarter Tue 19-Nov-13 15:52:59

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

missfliss Tue 19-Nov-13 16:01:35

i could make up bullshit insults to belittle your opinion too flatpack - but thats not really debating a point is it?

on the definition of censorship - we could go round in circles - i disagree with your view and say it is top down suppression by govt or media, not a retailer deciding that enough consumers find an item for sale offensive.

There is a difference between 'asking' and 'imposing'

bearhug Tue 19-Nov-13 16:03:55

I don't see how this campaign is so very different from say the Nestle one? I don't buy their products as I don't like the way they promote formula feeding. I've just told Amazon I won't buy from them because I don't like their decision to keep selling this book. We make our moral choices on a daily basis. How is this wrong?

missfliss Tue 19-Nov-13 16:09:25

well said bearhug. Commerical pressure by voting with your £ is not the same as advocating banning something. last time i checked amazon wasnt a state controlled media outlet - just a retailer who can decide what they will and wont sell.

namechangesforthehardstuff Tue 19-Nov-13 16:11:29

'fight to the death for their right to say it'

Wow. That does sound all noble and impressive. I am all impressed. Is there a soundtrack I could get hold of?

Are we confusing their right to say it with 'Massive-retailer-who-doesn't-stock-loads-of-shit's responsibility to stock it'?

missfliss Tue 19-Nov-13 16:11:59

amazon selling this and making it available 'rubber stamps' it in the eyes of consumers. It also means the book will be actively promoted by them in buying metrics, shopping basket anaylsis and 'similiar title' mailings pushed out to customers.

missfliss Tue 19-Nov-13 16:17:06

I can see Godwins law being invoked soon..

friday16 Tue 19-Nov-13 16:20:05

what if this was a book encouraging men to rape their wives/girlfriends

Well, how many MN readers have paid coin of the realm to buy a copy of "Fifty Shades"?

themaltesefalcon Tue 19-Nov-13 16:21:15

Clever line,* missfliss.* Can't think why Adolf Hitler would ever have to come anywhere near a discussion of bookburning and its sordid sisters, book bans and Mumsnet campaigns, though. Hitler NEVER went in for that censorship malarkey, right?

Flatpackhamster, bless his or her narky socks, is in the right.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now