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

[LEMisafucker]

www.amazon.co.uk/To-Train-Up-Child-children/dp/1892112000?tag=mumsnet&ascsubtag=mnforum-21

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

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/in_the_news/1915841-Has-the-world-gone-completely-mad

Link to original thread

[LEMisafucker]

I didnt click on the link friday - but then yes, that should also be banned

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

Bloody hell!

I too agree with Flatpack!

[missfliss]

No flatpackhamster

I am not "using commercial pressure to deny someone freedom of expression"

They are self published, they are active, they sell from their website, via Nielsen bookdata and available in libraries that choose to stock it. In addition on the same topic they sell speaking engagements, consultancy etc - where is their freedom of expression denied?

They have plenty of platform.

Amazon are condoning it and choosing to buy selling it. My right to use my freedom of speech to disagree with their stance.


Pls answer the query on WHSMITH removing the ebooks too.

[hackmum]

There is a clear difference that has escaped flatpack - who, let's face it, couldn't list a grasp of nuance as one of his/her core strengths - between banning a book and asking a retailer not to stock it.

[missfliss]

Amazon is only one intermediary route to market for authors" They are influential and huge, and as a consumer I disagree with their commercial decision to promote this title to its customers as an acceptable guide on child raising.

[knowledgeispowerr]

What's wrong with censoring an incitement to CHILD ABUSE?! Which is a crime... and then what kind of 'person' SUPPORTS this right to incitement? Wow.

[flatpackhamster]

missfliss

No flatpackhamster

I am not "using commercial pressure to deny someone freedom of expression"

Really? What you've said is you won't shop at Amazon until they stop stocking a book which fails to live up to your personal moral position. You're trying to deny that book sales.

They are self published, they are active, they sell from their website, via Nielsen bookdata and available in libraries that choose to stock it. In addition on the same topic they sell speaking engagements, consultancy etc - where is their freedom of expression denied?

They have plenty of platform.

Amazon are condoning it and choosing to buy selling it. My right to use my freedom of speech to disagree with their stance.

Oh, I see. What you're claiming is that you're not denying them free expression because they have it elsewhere. You're attempting to shut down their access to a commercial site. You know full well you have no legal recourse to deny them publishing so you're looking for ways to deny them expression. You specifically state in a post above that your aim is to deny them sales at 'the world's largest shop'.

Come on, at least be honest about your purpose here.

Pls answer the query on WHSMITH removing the ebooks too.

Why?

[friday16]

but then yes, that should also be banned

Could you outline who's going to check books which purport to be historical and determine whether they should be sold?

[friday16]

What's wrong with censoring an incitement to CHILD ABUSE?! Which is a crime

Corporal punishment of children is not a crime in the vast majority of jurisdictions Amazon sell into.

Anal sex is a crime in quite a few jurisdictions, but I don't notice MN deleting every thread that mentions it.

[flatpackhamster]

hackmum

There is a clear difference that has escaped flatpack - who, let's face it, couldn't list a grasp of nuance as one of his/her core strengths - between banning a book and asking a retailer not to stock it.

We discussed that on the previous page and why that stance is a nonsense one. Do try to keep up.

[flatpackhamster]

ItsAllGoingToBeFine

Bloody hell!

I too agree with Flatpack!

I knew you'd come round sooner or later. ;)

Now help me explain to the bansturbators why censorship for one leads to censorship for all. I doubt if missfliss and hackmum would be too pleased if their favourite books and newspapers started disappearing off the shelves because of a group of morality police had decided they were unacceptable material.

[missfliss]

"Bansturbators" very droll.

Although as I have said repeatedly and you cannot quite grasp, I don't want this to be banned, nor do I want it not to be published.

I just don't want someone I spend my money with to promote it.

So would that make me a "consumerpressurebator"?

The whsmith question that you won't address is asking whether they wee right to choose to remove child porn books from sale.

Interesting that you won't address that.

On second thoughts not interesting at all, just indicative of your inability to grasp the nuances of the argument.

[harticus]

Straw man arguments everywhere!

Boycotting commercial producers and outlets etc by withdrawing patronage and encouraging others to do the same is an intrinsic element of activism.

Always has been.

This is not the same as censorship.

[Lazyjaney]

My lord but MN is full of The Offended right now, thread after thread to get us call Thinking Right.

Don't like it, don't buy it. Campaign about it by all means - but accusing those who disagree with you as supporting child abuse yadda yadda is being as bad a dictator of mores as the thing you are protesting against.

[missfliss]

THANKYOU harticus

[namechangesforthehardstuff]

And loads of books don't get published, most books in fact. many because the ideas in them aren't mainstream enough. I'd guess this isn't a Random House publication?

[Lazyjaney]

God yes Candide would never survive today's Thought Police

[hardboiledpossum]

I was given a similar book to this, shepherding a child's heart, by family friends. I have also read to train up a child. these books are truly awful. I don't think banning amazon from selling would do much, a complete ban on smacking would- there is too much grey area.

[missfliss]

Which is why self publishing exists...mainstream publishers ( of which amazon is now one) only rubber stamp content. As does active promotion.
Do you really understand what Censorship entails? If disagreement is " thought policing" then you should be very comfortable with me expressing mine.
Jaded. Lazy. Simplistic GCSE level arguments.

[Lazyjaney]

It's not even GCSE missfliss, it's basic primary school level. You are the only one trying to deny people access to the book, so you are the one attempting censorship.

Just because you don't like something neither makes you right, nor those who disagree with you wrong.

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

I have no objection to people complaining to Amazon, or withdrawing their patronage. However Amazon should not withdraw this book on the basis of this.

You have a perfect right to protest.
Amazon has a perfect right to sell whatever books it wants, within the law.

Amazon sells many,many books which are objectionable to various people for various reasons. Who should decide which groups' reasons are valid, and which books should be banned.

[missfliss]

Same goes for you. Retailers are commercially driven. If people care about it ( and not everyone does) then they can vote with their money. I'm not denying anyone access to the book, simply asking a retailer not to stock it.
Are amazon legally obliged to sell?
No.
So, I am well within my rights to ask them not to.

[missfliss]

And look up "censorship" before you tout that old argument.

[missfliss]

Also I'm not the "only one"
There's an international petition with thousands of signatures, as well as the NSPCC and Barnado's .

Oppressive regimes, non?

[Mim78]

Not sure if Amazon need to sell it in order for freedom of speech to be upheld though. Wouldn't be the same as banning it if responsible sellers refused to sell the book.

Am a bit shocked that anyone could think this was reasonable or publish it in a book. Some people must really hate their children!