Amazon Boycott

[Rhubarb]

For those who might have missed this on the parenting threads.

Amazon are stocking books that encourage child abuse and paedophilia and refuse to take these books off their shelves. One of the books is called 'No Greater Joy' by Michael Pearl and it advocates whipping babies and children, quote "Many people are using a section of ¼ inch plumber’s supply line as a spanking instrument. It will fit in your purse or hang around you neck. You can buy them for under $1.00 at Home Depot or any hardware store. They come cheaper by the dozen and can be widely distributed in every room and vehicle. Just the high profile of their accessibility keeps the kids in line." This is for babies as well as children! Their website \link{http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/index.php?id=59&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=247&tx_ttnews[backPID]=7\here} says it all.

The other two books promote paedophilia and they are called 'Understanding Loved Boys and Boylovers' by David L Riegel and 'Pedophilia - The Radical Case' by Tom O'Carrol, both authors are members of the 'childlove' movement, a paedophilia sympathisers club.

I've emailed Amazon and got a standard computer generated reply in response blabbing on about censorship. Of course they would do, they don't want to lose money over this. Mumsnet have dropped Amazon as one of their sponsors and I've closed my account. I ask all of you to contact Amazon and do the same. I'm also contacting all the parenting sites I can think of, registering and posting all of the above on their forums, if you are member of another parenting site, please do the same.

Thanks everyone.

already do that !

you keep saying the same thing lj without ever answering the ?... WHY DO YOU THINK THEY ARE OBLIGED TO SELL ANY / EVERY BOOK? or cant you answer because it patent nonsense? it wont become less nonsensical by simply repeating it.

I cannot believe MN tower's kneejerk reaction to dissociate itself with Amazon. Amazon does not promote child abuse or paedophilia. It sell million of titles and to boycott it because of a few repugnant titles is absolutely ridiculous. If you want to protest, go after the author and publisher.

What ever next? JM Barrie allegedly had a thing for small boys - shall we stop reading Peter Pan? Bill Wyman allegedly had a relationship with a 13yo Mandy Smith when he was still in the Rolling Stones. Shall we stop buying their music?

Shall we all stop buying clothes made in the developing countries because of the disgraceful working conditions, the fact that children who work in these places should be in school rather than earning a little pittance so that their family can eat?

Should we stop giving aid to those countries that still allow the practice of female circumcision or forced marriages of young girls
In fact, lets ban everything that we do not agree with.

I like Amazon and will continue to purchase my goods from them.

Had to chortle despite myself on Colditz link...

Customers interested in this title may also be interested in:

Buddhism Religion Course
Structured training on Buddhism, Buddhist meditation and religion

Hmmmm curious

I'll still be buying off Amazon too. Was surprised by MN reaction also - case of shooting the messenger as said earlier. It is the publisher you should be having a go at, only in this case its of course a religious organization tied up with the whole sorry tale.

Taking on the US Bible belters is going to take a lot more than boycotting Amazon.

controlfreaky - because booksellers are all about selling books, not censorship!!!
Completely agree with speedymama.

I'm not talking about a specialist bookshop. Go into a Christian
Bookshop and they're not going to order a copy of the Da Vinci code for
you. But large national chains like W H Smith, Waterstones and Ottakars
will obtain any book in print within a couple of days. Amazon are just
operating in exactly the same principle. It is in the interest of book
shops to do so.

To say that book shops should choose not to stock books on certain
topics is a very dodgy area. It is a degree of self-censorship. It is
the bookshop owner imposing their prejudices and values on you the
consumer. Where would you draw the line? To you it might seem reasonable
for bookshops not to stock these types of books, but it might seem
equally reasonable to someone else censor the sort of material you want
to read.

What if Waterstones took the view that they wouldn't stock or obtain
critical works on Islam because of complaints from fundamentalists, or
books of erotic fiction because of complaints from prudes? What if the
head of Otakkars was a true blue Tory and refused to stock or obtain any
titles that knocked his political party?

No. Shops and libraries start doing this sort of thing and they open up
a whole world of trouble for themselves. The only thing they have to
fall back on is the law. And if the law says its acceptable then it
should be fair game and freely available for all.

This is well-intented but a bit mistaken I think.

Amazon's unique selling point is that they aim to stock every book that is published in the UK and the US. Are there ANY books that Amazon do not sell due to public pressure? Do we have evidence of this?

If the book is illegal, then it needs to be brought to the relevant authorities. If it is not, Amazon need to stock it to comply with their own USP.

I've no idea who decides whether a book is legal or not, without actually prosecuting the publishers. You could ask whichever Trading Standards authority Amazon comes into the remit of?

Fine Lucy - so we have clarified then that there is no obligation to sell. Booksellers can and will refuse to stock or get hold of items that they have a problem with if they wish to do so.

It might be censorship, but that wasn't my issue with your comments.

sorry,didn't expain myself very well!!

Good point about the Da Vinci Code. Just because a few people disagree with the book (the fact that it is fiction seems to have escape them), they want the film banned! I wonder how many posters here calling for the boycott of Amazon would have agreed with the Muslims who protested about the Danish cartoons. I wonder how many of them at the time thought "Get a life" or "Why the fuss?"

Someone, somewhere is going to be upset about something at sometime and if we go round banning everything that might upset someone, we would not do anything.

do you think we got there in the end st g? blimey didnt realise "obliged" was such a little understood word.

WELL DONE MUMSNET FOR FAST AND IMPRESSIVE RESPONSE.

They do actually sell new copies of 'To train up a Child' or whatever it's called), and are ordering more from this elightful 'Cane creek' publisher.
\link{http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1892112000/103-7249335-2872644?v=glance&n=283155\here}

LucyJones - you may have a strong belief that booksellers have an obligation, and in your opinion they should have a duty to stock or supply anything in print - but they are simply commercial booksellers. Publishers choose what to print or not to print (without obligation_, sellers what to stock, or not, and us to buy (again without obligation), or not. Libraries may well have a public remit, and are publicly accountable (as public services), but booksellers are simply purveyors of consumer items. Not defenders of free speech per se.

It may be that Amazon HAVE declared a 'mission statement' to stock without judgement or discrimination, and if so, there is a sort oflogic in that. Otherwise they are simply commercial booksellers doing what commercial booksellers do - making a profit out of what they choose to sell.

Not putting my own thoughts in for or against, here, but trying to be exact.

Does anyone else want to join me and campaign for MN Tower to banish the Tesco logo until they start treating all their suppliers more ethically, they stop importing goods by air and so adding to global warming, they stop selling clothes made in developing countries until the employees are paid a decent minimum wage, they stop selling alcohol because of the rise in binge drinking which leads to violent affrays, they stop selling all foodstuff containing trans-fats, too much salt, too much sugar, too much anything....

What do you think?

Just to be clear my real point was that if someone wants to boycott Amazon over something
like this then they may as well boycott Waterstones, Smiths, Otakkars,
eBay and any other large book shop. They should cut up their library
cards too as these books will be available through libraries as well.

There are laws that govern what can be printed: laws against obscenity,
hate speech and laws against pornography. If a book isn't banned by law
then any large book shop will attempt to find a copy of it for you. The
shop doesn't judge whether the book is right or wrong, because they are
not qualified to do so. The only benchmark they can go by is the law.

Actually, loads of bookshops, including many branches of Waterstones, managed to avoid any apparent "obligation" to sell books at the time of the Satanic Verses furore. I would bet they weren't ordering too many copies in, either.

I apologise for my poor choice of words. Libraries are obligued. Any
good bookshop will offer the same service. The bookshop's own policies
and customer service 'obliges' them to do everything they can to find a
title for someone.

I don't agree with the titles that were mentioned in the OP, but I have to say I agree with Lucy's approach. There are an awful lot of books I don't like for sale - let's start with pornography and move all the way down to Mr Men books.. However, these works are published and selling them is legal.

Anyway, Amazon offers a great service and has provided me with many fantastic books. The high street shop just cannot compete.

waterstones and amazon are owned by the same company anyway aren't they?

I won't be boycotting. I actually make a lot of moeny from amazon, and I agree with piffle's comments. Stoppign buyign from amazon is going to achieve nothing.

i can only get books I want from amazon

it is appalling but surely not amazons fault

yeah yeah yeah, Speedymama, it's all dreadful and we live in a world that is way beyond saving or bothering to do anyhting about. But no-one pressurised Mn to take the Amazon button off the home page - they saw the thread and chose to do it. CHOSE. Maybe they saw a closer link between a company that makes profit from selling books advising people that beating babies is a good thing to do, and a parenting site.

I guess they better have a look to see what books Sainsbury's currently stocks then....

Personally, I'd rather live in a world where are a large, powerful American corporation doesn't make its own, private, morale judgements on what legally published books I can or can't buy.

from what I can gather these books entreat people to beat babies and small children. I would not be at all suprised if there is a case to be made that they may be illegal. I agree that a comprehensive campaign would approach it from the legal angle, and I agree that the law is the best way of regulating publications like this. Having said that, the world doesn;t really work like that, effective campaigning (ie campaigning that gets the desired end result) is often aimed at messengers (think how much BP changed after Ken Sara Wiwa, think about anti-porn campaigns that have targetted sellers and distributors, and now been taken up by them - with newsagents declining to stock stuff, think about the consumer pressure that has created a vastly widened green and fair trade market). Sometimes effective campaigning is not always logical campaigning. Big players are far better placed than us to effect change, sometimes you need to target them to get them onside.

Yes well I don't think that trying to ban the Satanic Verses did Salman Rusdie a great deal of commercial damage, did it? :)