Amazon (a private company) has decided they don't want these books on it's platform (for whatever reason).
Now if the gov't said Amazon had to take these down, that's a problem. But that's not what happened.
Now, hear me out. If I'm going to spend money somewhere, I'd like to know that the company I'm spending it with is acting in a way that I find ethical. In fact, I'd like to hold them to a higher standard, since it's so much easier for companies to have moral failings than it is people.
> Censorship is suppression of speech or other communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body. - Wikipedia
Amazon is acting as a censor. Now, it's not illegal. But I do find it to be distasteful. So I'd rather not support them. This article is one of a few lately that lets me know that Amazon and I are apparently looking at the world in a different way, and so I shouldn't patronize them anymore.
Finally, it's incredibly important to hold these companies to a higher standard as they grow larger, because they become more and more influential. Most of my local bookstores have closed, and while there are other places to buy books online, I don't have the same relationship with them as I once did with Amazon. Now I'm in the process of checking out alternatives, but still: Amazon has become synonymous with "buying a book on the Internet."
You honestly think for a millisecond that there isn't a major free speech issue brewing here? Think again. Borders is about to collapse and even more bookstore deaths are imminent. Amazon already controls a huge chunk of book sales; soon, it could be 50% or more of the industry.
I seem to remember that Amazon was named after the river with the most volume in the world, a pun on their universal selection of books. Why change that now?
Amazon is totally allowed to not carry someone's book because they think the content is in poor taste. And I am totally allowed to patronize someone else.
My (theoretical) mom's corner bookstore can't effectively be a censor. Yeah, it sucks if she doesn't carry a book, and it's still a bad thing that she's doing, but Amazon, doing the same act but at scale, is a totally different story. There's context that makes this important.
Littering is a bummer. Oil spills are a disaster.
Also, this isn't time #1 where Amazon has come out and done something like this. It's starting to become a growing pattern that I'm becoming increasingly uncomfortable with.
Amazon is permitted by the rule of law to do this.
I consider it immoral. Discriminating books based on content is the same thing as discriminating packets based on content.
It's immoral to me because they're censoring information based on the content that it contains. And it's not a one-time incident, it's starting to become a pattern. At their size, I think that it's important that they are neutral to the content of the information.
The company's motivations for packet discrimination may be different, but my reason for being against it is the same: I don't think content should be discriminated against.
"But I do find it to be distasteful."
"hold these companies to a higher standard"
Quotes from your comment. Are you aware the title of the book is "How To Rape A Straight Guy"? I mean the book could be about bunnies and rainbows and cuddly kittens, but if I owned a business I am not sure I would want to sell a product that seemed to advocate an illegal, unethical and (universally deemed) immoral act, even if it did not and the title was just for shock value.
And, while I haven't read into this particular book, the author says that the title is simply a troll. More investigation would be needed from either side to determine if the book is any good or not, but I don't really care if it is or not.
As the author points out, Amazon already caries a litany of materials that describe and depict other immoral acts in graphic detail, including rape.
I don't think Amazon is looking at the world in any specific way. Amazon listens to whoever shouts louder.
Unfortunately, people who want to ban books (for whatever reason) are much more vocal and much better organized than people who would rather not ban any book.
Regardless, that's why I'm trying to be vocal.
From the description of the books given by the author, I don't think Amazon should have removed these books, but I understand why they did. Amazon needs to fight the perception that it's a purveyor of sickening material. Amazon could choose to take a stand for the First Amendment without regard to the loss of business, it could do so in hopes that it's position would attract new customers, or it can do what it's doing now. Each option has a valid argument. Ultimately Amazon has to do what it thinks is right, and as a business, that generally means doing what will have the least negative impact on profits. Fair enough. If Amazon's actions aren't acceptable to some, then those people can shop elsewhere or band together to give Amazon incentive to shift their policy.
It's not censorship.
Anyhow, trying to shut things down by definition only works in mathematics. Redefining away what Amazon as "not censorship" won't mollify anybody, as they can still choose to be legitimately annoyed at the perfectly legal and arguably perfectly ethical actions Amazon have taken. Acting legally and even ethically doesn't mean you have the right to not be criticized.
And, seeing as how if this is "not censorship" we don't actually have an English word for what it is... yeah, it's censorship. It's not government censorship, but it's censorship. It's also a sufficiently different kind of censorship that simply knee-jerk applying our attitudes towards government censorship may not be relevant, but English simply doesn't have the granularity to deal with this. That's OK. Everything works that way anyhow.
Amazon is a media outlet but they are not suppressing his speech. They are not stopping him from publishing the work or even stopping him from writing it. They are choosing not to distribute it. Thus the suppression test fails and it is not censorship.
You can address that issue the same way author did it, by stating that Amazon sells stuff like "Hostel 2". Frankly, I haven't read the guys book and I haven't read Amazon's quality control policy (or whatever it's called) either, so I can't say whether the book fails the test. My point here is that most people commenting here can't say that either, for the same reasons. So why are some people so quick to side with the author and cry "censorship", when it might just be that his book is crap?
People have been complaining about Walmart censoring media for years. I don't see how this is any different.
Amazon is withdrawing these items from circulation.
They are not withdrawing it from circulation. THEY are choosing to not circulate it themselves. The author can circulate it where ever he likes as long as it is not Amazon. If Amazon was the only place that sold books I would be with you.