Drawing the line between censorship and sensitivity

During the past couple of weeks, Amazon customers were up in arms about a self-published e-book called “The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure: A Child Lover’s Code of Conduct” and demanded that it be removed from the website.

The book was finally removed from www.amazon.com last Wednesday, but not before several days of controversy.

After thousands of customers left disgusted comments on the website, cancelled their orders and even closed their accounts, Amazon released a statement, claiming that it “does not support or promote hatred or criminal acts, however, we do support the right of every individual to make their own purchasing decisions.”

But isn’t reaping the financial benefits of a product essentially supporting it and its message?

In a December 2009 interview with the New York Times, Amazon CEO Jeffrey P. Bezos revealed that Amazon keeps 65 percent of the revenue from every e-book — including self-published ones, like “The Pedophile’s Guide.”

As of June 2010, Amazon started a program through which it keeps 30 percent if the author agrees to certain conditions. Either way, Amazon is profiting from these sales and, therefore, has some accountability.      

Censorship certainly contradicts First Amendment rights and goes against some of America’s most popular values, but there is a fine line between censorship and refusing to promote serious crimes.

When O.J. Simpson released his book “If I Did It,” which detailed how he would have killed his ex-wife and her friend if he had done it, most book vendors found a balance between censorship and sensitivity.

Borders Inc. and Walden Book Co. Inc. said all net proceeds would be given to victims of domestic violence. In addition, Borders Inc. spokeswoman Ann Binkley said they “would not discount the title or promote it.”

In addition, a variety of independent bookstores on the east coast said they would order the book for customers who wished to purchase it, but the book would not be stocked in-store.

Other independent vendors said they would purchase only a few copies of the book and display it in an inconspicuous part of the store.

In the case of “If I Did It,” most corporate and independent booksellers chose morals instead of money.

Although the concept of “If I Did It” is appalling, it’s not quite as heinous as “The Pedophile’s Guide.”

Unlike “If I Did It,” which describes an event that (most likely) already happened to two people, “The Pedophile’s Guide” is explicitly giving tips on how to sexually assault an indefinite number of minors in the present and the future.

Yet, Amazon is still more concerned about censorship.

It would be interesting to see whether Amazon would be singing this same tune if someone published a book about how someone could one-up the terrorists of 9/11 and make an even bigger statement.

Both “The Pedophile’s Guide” and this hypothetical book are giving tips on how to commit highly illegal acts that harm numerous people.

I have a strong suspicion that Amazon would remove the content immediately and prostrate itself in front of the families of 9/11 victims.

The argument of refusing to censor is only legitimate when discussing subjects such as adult pornography, MPAA ratings, prostitution (not including human trafficking), etc. Those topics involve mutual consent.

“The Pedophile’s Guide,” on the other hand, was described by the author as his “attempt to make pedophile situations safer for those juveniles that find themselves involved in them, by establishing certain [sic] rules for these adults to follow.” He also admitted, “certain parts are advisory.” It clearly does not agree with the idea of mutual consent.

If “The Pedophile’s Guide” explored the history or psychology behind pedophilia, or even defended pedophilia, Amazon’s choice to sell it would legitimately support the idea of freedom of expression.

But the book guides amateur pedophiles to violate minors and explicitly encourages sexual abuse. So in this case, Amazon can’t hide behind the veil of free speech.

Because by selling, promoting and benefiting from this material, Amazon might believe it is protecting the First Amendment rights of the author, but that is inconsequential compared to violating the human rights of countless others.
    

E-mail: pkansal@indiana.edu