Amazon Quietly Bans Books Containing Undefined ‘Hate Speech’

[variant]

I think what civilwarbuff is saying is that Amazon is applying their own standard to what is hate speech. That is a slippery slope that could lead (with a lot of hyperbole) to a "Fahrenheit 451" style purging of all literature.

Whose standards should they be applying with what they will and wont sell?

They sell books. Are we supposed to be upset that they have standards at all, or are we supposed to be upset because their standards don't match ours?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think what civilwarbuff is saying is that Amazon is applying their own standard to what is hate speech. That is a slippery slope that could lead (with a lot of hyperbole) to a "Fahrenheit 451" style purging of all literature. I tend to be more optimistic about this. Amazon has made a lot of money on online book sales and will not willingly wean themselves from that by purging till it hurts. As a capitalist company, they also have the right to sell what they want. There is no mandate that they sell everything, it just seems that way.

That being said, their banning of books cannot be without bias. We all have one. I tend to think that capitalism will overcome this and the books will just move to another less popular platform. The overall result will be an even greater fracture in this country. Right now there are people who will only watch CNN and others that will only watch Fox. As more and more media outlets are seen to be swinging into an ideological approach towards business, there will be others that crop up and further polarize the American political landscape.

I generally agree....it's their store, they can sell what they choose. We would not require a baker to bake and decorate a cake for a gay wedding....we don't require Amazon to sell particular books.

While I respect their rights to sell what they choose....I don't respect anyone who believes they should choose what I read.

 

[SilverBear]

I generally agree....it's their store, they can sell what they choose. We would not require a baker to bake and decorate a cake for a gay wedding....we don't require Amazon to sell particular books.

The baker isn't required to bake and decorate wedding cakes at all however if that baker is baking and decorating wedding cakes for some then s/he need to bake and decorate for all. The difference is that in one case the baker and Amazon is choosing to not offer a specific product to anyone and in the other case the baker and Amazon is willing to offer a product to anyone except black people (or some other minority)

 

[civilwarbuff]

you asked why. the answer is Amazon.com contents guidelines

My comment still stands....

 

[Erik Nelson]

Whose standards should they be applying

They are applying "liberal" (so-called) standards

Amazon is being threatened with massive boycotts if they sell "unacceptable" books

Under such circumstances, it's more profitable / less unprofitable for them to ditch the "unacceptable" books and maintain their customers

Whatever they "should" be doing, such is what they actually "are" doing

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

They are applying "liberal" (so-called) standards

Amazon is being threatened with massive boycotts if they sell "unacceptable" books

Under such circumstances, it's more profitable / less unprofitable for them to ditch the "unacceptable" books and maintain their customers

Whatever they "should" be doing, such is what they actually "are" doing

Amazon has a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to take the more profitable route which they have determined is to refuse to sell certain books.

Conservatives currently lack the purchasing power to force corporations to due their bidding using free market commerce. This isn’t a liberal conspiracy, it’s just capitalism working as it is designed.

 

[cow451]

While I respect their rights to sell what they choose....I don't respect anyone who believes they should choose what I read.

Who is doing that?

 

[SilverBear]

They are applying "liberal" (so-called) standards

Amazon is being threatened with massive boycotts if they sell "unacceptable" books

evidence?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

The baker isn't required to bake and decorate wedding cakes at all however if that baker is baking and decorating wedding cakes for some then s/he need to bake and decorate for all. The difference is that in one case the baker and Amazon is choosing to not offer a specific product to anyone and in the other case the baker and Amazon is willing to offer a product to anyone except black people (or some other minority)

Right. They are not discriminating against people but against a product.

 

[Strathos]

Who is doing that?

If you want to read awful and offensive stuff, you can find it all on the internet pretty easily.

 

[cow451]

If you want to read awful and offensive stuff, you can find it all on the internet pretty easily.

The post I responded to was the notion that people were being forced to read certain things.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Right. They are not discriminating against people but against a product.

Amazon is refusing to offer its services to someone b/c they don't care for their politics.

The exact reverse is "no shoes no shirt no service" and "we reserve the right to refuse service to any customer".

Yet those are essentially "discriminatory" and de facto illegal.

Restaurants don't hang those signs in their windows any longer.

Definite double standard.

 

[variant]

They are applying "liberal" (so-called) standards

Amazon is being threatened with massive boycotts if they sell "unacceptable" books

Under such circumstances, it's more profitable / less unprofitable for them to ditch the "unacceptable" books and maintain their customers

Whatever they "should" be doing, such is what they actually "are" doing

I don't honestly understand the issue. Is someone telling me they can't get ahold of certain books they want to read in 2021?

Should amazon be forced to sell books they don't want to?

Have we run out of interesting or impactful things to disagree about or is it just me?

 

[variant]

Amazon is refusing to offer its services to someone b/c they don't care for their politics.

The exact reverse is "no shoes no shirt no service" and "we reserve the right to refuse service to any customer".

Yet those are essentially "discriminatory" and de facto illegal.

Restaurants don't hang those signs in their windows any longer.

Definite double standard.

I would check up on what is legal and illegal because you don't seem to know.

"No shoes no shirt no service" isn't illegal in the least.
No Shirt, No Mask, No Service? - FindLaw

What is generally illegal is when you decide to discriminate against groups because of who they are rather than the reverse of simply not offering certain services. Liberals have been trying to expand the groups covered by the civil rights act to no avail.

It's weird how entitled people have been lately about their imaginary rights, given that expanding civil rights has been a conservative no go for the better part of a century now.

 

[SilverBear]

Amazon is refusing to offer its services to someone b/c they don't care for their politics.

who are they refusing?

 

[rjs330]

Then why can you still buy this at Amazon?

it also expresses Hitler’s racist ideology, identifying the Aryan as the “genius” race and the Jew as the “parasite,” and declares the need for Germans to seek living space (Lebensraum) in the East at the expense of the Slavs and the hated Marxists of Russia. It also calls for revenge against France.
According to Hitler, it was “the sacred mission of the German people…to assemble and preserve the most valuable racial elements…and raise them to the dominant position.” “All who are not of a good race are chaff,” wrote Hitler. It was necessary for Germans to “occupy themselves not merely with the breeding of dogs, horses, and cats but also with care for the purity of their own blood.” Hitler ascribed international significance to the elimination of Jews, which “must necessarily be a bloody process,” he wrote.
Mein Kampf | Quotes, Summary, & Analysis

Or this:

In the last paragraph of the Manifesto, the authors call for a "forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions", which served as a call for communist revolutions around the world.[1][2]

Amazon appears to be very selective in their banning of books to those they don't approve of........

Well we all know this is about leftist ideology and sensibilities.

 

[rjs330]

So, wait.... you don't even agree that it's the right of the people who literally own the intellectual property in question to be able to make the decision themselves to stop publishing their own material for whatever reason they wish? You think that once someone produces a product that they should be forced to supply that product forever in perpetuity or be forced to sell the rights to their own property to someone else so that it can continue to be produced against the wishes of the people who created the property???

Am I reading you correctly??

Dude. DUDE!!

The books you're referring to were not banned. Do you understand that? You can go to several online retailers right now and buy all the copies you wish. Businesses have the right to sell or not sell whatever they want barring things that are expressly illegal for any reason they want. They don't have to explain to you why they do or don't carry a product or any reasoning behind those decisions. It's their freedom to make the decisions they make. You have the right not to support or shop at those businesses. THIS IS WHAT FREE-MARKET CAPITALISM IS. Do you seriously not understand that?

Let's be honest. This really isn't about capitalism. It's not that nobody is going to buy the book. Amazon has been selling the book for three years. This was absolutely a political move. Not a move based on capitalism.

I don't know if they were pressured by leftists or not. Maybe not because those that run the business are a bunch of leftists anyway.

 

[rjs330]

Amazon has a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to take the more profitable route which they have determined is to refuse to sell certain books.

Conservatives currently lack the purchasing power to force corporations to due their bidding using free market commerce. This isn’t a liberal conspiracy, it’s just capitalism working as it is designed.

Really, are you saying the left are the rich people now? They have the buying power while us poor conservatives don't? I thought us conservatives were a bunch of rich people and the democrats were just regular folk who the democrats want to help. Now the democrats have all the spending power?

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

Really, are you saying the left are the rich people now? They have the buying power while us poor conservatives don't? I thought us conservatives were a bunch of rich people and the democrats were just regular folk who the democrats want to help. Now the democrats have all the spending power?

It’s a book, it’s not overly expensive and the odds anyone will have more than one is almost zero so wealth isn’t overly important. What is important is the Left has more people than the Right, is more likely to participate in e-commerce because they trend younger, and because they trend younger, they have more time as potential customers.

 

[Erik Nelson]

who are they refusing?

Ryan Anderson, the author of the book When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment