Though we as a world will hate some book ideas. Having a Ray Bradbury book burning might turn into a dystopia where any ideas outside a norm at now bad. Which ones amoung us do you really trust to burn the books or ideas that they deem not for our eyes? Amazon as a publishing arm can do a lot of damage if we let them rule what we can see.
11
No one is burning books. No one is saying you can’t buy these books elsewhere. So going there is a specious argument.
It may well be a slippery slope, but I commend them for removing white supremacist writings as well as anti Semitic rants, among others. I’d like to see them remove anti-vaxxer publications. And probably more if I were to think about it done more.
They don’t have to give you a list or a reason. They’re not the government. And they’re not telling you that you can’t buy those books. Just buy them elsewhere. Are they being inconsistent, eg, re abebooks? Maybe. Who cares? So what? Search for the book elsewhere and buy it. Order it from your local bookstore or Barnes & noble or any number of other book sellers.
12
@Matt Well said. Amazon is a private company and can sell whatever it wants. There are 116k libraries, thousands of bookstores. Who cares what amazon does?
11
Banning offensive books. How very Nationalsozialismus. The irony escapes them, I'm sure.
19
"How very [such-and-such]."
That's a bad comparison, because Amazon is a private company, not a government.
8
It's still appalling. There's a very fine line between banning books on Nazism and banning books on Judaism.
11
"The confusion is reinforced by AbeBooks, the biggest secondhand book platform outside of Amazon itself.
Amazon, which owns Abe..."
If Amazon is imposing censorship on titles which are legally available should not anti-trust regulations be invoked?
5
Amazon or any publisher censoring is being foolish and un-American. I'm Puerto Rican, from Brooklyn, and a point of pride for me is my home library. I have books on Christianity and Islam, American, British, German, Roman, Hebrew, Latin, and Russian history and more, books on communism, evolution, atheism, the Greek and Roman classics, English poets and Black American poets and on and on. I would never think of censoring any of these books.
10
"I would never think of censoring any of these books."
What does your home library have to do with what a company does? Do you loan or sell books yourself? Do you have a web site promoting your library? Have you ever declined to get a book because you didn't like what it was about (after reading a summary or a review)?
10
People need to remember to not give power to Amazon, even as they might be perceived as virtuous in some circumstances. They should never be endowed with any aspect approaching virtue or evil. That was our fault for getting addicted to having huge boxes delivered with a small product inside.
Ultimately they will flatten out all content. Ultimately their internal concerns will trump any virtuous hook they get you with. Bezos is a mixed bag, but ultimately he will be gone. Then we will be stuck with a juggernaut that will be further aimed at domination. With no need to hew to anything or anyone.
Go buy from a mom n pop. Even if it costs more. Ultimately that will be cheaper and better for all.
13
@Matthew
Amazon, Google, Facebook etc are the censores of the world - they will do whatever they are told for the almighty dollar.
By using algorithms they can control what comes up in searches - or doesn't. As the older generation have died out, these companies have the ability to rewrite history to an extent or even completely.
The younger generation already don't know who Madame Curie and others are.
In a generation or two, the Holocaust may not have happened, Nazis etc could be a work of fiction. Anything bad can be erased.
This censorship will cause writer to not write because they won't get published - even if they self publish, no one will sell their books. Mom and Pop stores are dying out because of the access to Amazon type megaliths - they just aren't viable any more.
3
@Matthew Yes, I agree. I have made a conscious effort to support my local bookstore.
"Go buy from a mom n pop."
There are no "mom n pop[s]". And even if there were, they couldn't possibly carry as many books as Amazon.
"Even if it costs more."
Thanks for telling me how to spend my money.
5
This a blunt and stupid way to screen out hate speech.
Last month I binged all 40 episodes of the “Man in the High Castle” I even bought P.K. Dick’s book.
As a Jew I am offended that Amazon is trying to sanitize the group-think evil of Nazi beliefs. It must be shown in all its bloody glory from bounty hunting Jews to smiting children bashing them with glee against walls.
The shock value of the Nazi regalia highlighted how easily some in America fell in line with that death cult.
This deeply thought out fiction is not Turner Diaries. It does not promote vile lies about minorities. It show the banality and emptiness of those who try to justify mass slaughter.
There is a place for Nazi symbols so that we never forget how that form of thinking leads to unspeakable crimes.
13
"Titan, which wanted to market the book in Germany, where laws on Nazi imagery are strict, said Amazon approved the changes."
Instead of blathering about "symbols of oppression", Titan should have published a German-language edition that conformed with German law.
But what is actually on the German Amazon site? An English edition!
Explain that, Titan.
7
While Amazon can decide what it wants to sell, and what it doesn't want to sell, the removal of Nazi insignia from a book about The Man in the High Castle being sold by Amazon seems ridiculous rather than concerning. The publisher on the other hand seems to be having its cake and eating it too: If Titan was that concerned about "the legal and ethical responsibility of not perpetuating the the distribution of the symbols of oppression" they probably shouldn't publish books about The Man in the High Castle, or Nazi Germany at all. God knows what would result if they tried to publish a non-fiction account of the 1930s.
9
"... they [Titan] probably shouldn't publish books about [certain subjects] ..."
The article fails to explain that the book is an *English-language* edition (per German Amazon site).
Instead of blathering about "symbols of oppression", Titan should publish a German-language edition that conforms with German law.
3
I wonder how many of the commets here would support Amazon if they chose to delete books by Communists and Socialists.
10
@Carlos R. Rivera My point exactly below...
5
What about hammer and sickle? what about the communism and its victims? Victims of Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, Khmer Rouge, el Che? why is it acceptable for Amazon to sell merchandise with communist symbols? why can Berkley University shop sell people's republic of berkley tshirts with commnunist insignia and (rightly) not allow nazi symbols as if milions of people haven't been exterminated by communists? As long as Amazon, berkley, the rest of the world only remembers one side of totalitarianism and ignores the other, it will be what it is - a hypocritical marketing move...
18
Most people using the hammer and sickle these days are not advocating for mass murder based on racial or ethnoreligious grounds.
3
@Marcus So, if tomorrow a bunch of young people start using Nazi symbols advocating peace, progress and equality, that would be acceptable? Isn't it the same double standard that I am asking about? Normalizing one type of totalitarianism while rejecting other?
3
@Marcus The issue is over the censoring of books and various symbols. Communist totalitarianism is invariably associated with murder. Stalin was as evil as the other chap. The reason for differences in treatment cannot be spoken.
5
Absolutely terrifying -- Unknown people at Amazon deciding what viewpoints represent "provide... an acceptable experience".
Books on some sides of controversial issues may not "provide... an acceptable experience" to faceless Amazon censors. Books criticizing those who "hate Trump" may not "provide... an acceptable experience" to faceless Amazon censors. Books that present scientific evidence contrary to liberal/progressive memes may not "provide... an acceptable experience" to faceless Amazon censors. Books that debunk popular lucrative pseudoscience in nutrition and alternative medicine "provide... an acceptable experience" to faceless Amazon censors.
Books that bolster the Republican party, or the Democratic party, may not "provide... an acceptable experience" to faceless Amazon censors.
While Amazon is free to make its own decisions, it MUST be upfront and transparent about the issue -- and not just caving in to advocates who are for and against various societal issues.
If Amazon thinks a book offered for sale contains "offensive speech" they can slap a WARNING on it if they choose -- but they should not choose to deny books a place in the public forum based on some executive's personal biases.
15
@Kip Hansen My corner market stocks Budweiser but not Corona. I demand that they MUST tell me why they don't stock Corona. Maybe it's because they don't like Mexicans, maybe it's because they don't think Corona would sell in my neighborhood. If so, they should cary it but stick a warning on it stating "This beer is not popular on this block! You may not like it!".
6
Oops .... "Books that debunk popular lucrative pseudoscience in nutrition and alternative medicine may not "provide... an acceptable experience" to faceless Amazon censors."
2
@Kip Hansen and Jon
"While Amazon is free to make its own decisions, it MUST be upfront and transparent about the issue -- and not just caving in to advocates who are for and against various societal issues."
Sounds like a good argument to me for a refinement of the legal requirements for being a publisher, but it would be regulatory overkill to apply the same regulations to a corner store, IMO.
"If Amazon thinks a book offered for sale contains "offensive speech" they can slap a WARNING on it if they choose -- but they should not choose to deny books a place in the public forum based on some executive's personal biases."
That makes sense also to me.
2
I bought a black and white photo from an antique show like 20 years ago. Not sure where it came from I looked at the lable and such stamped on the back. It was a photo used by the SS in the Balkans. I tried in vain to figure out what its significance was or what the unit did. I did find a book that had been written by a surviving unit commander on amazon. And ordered it. And was able to get context for the artifact. I have since donated this to a museum. I understand banning some anzi glorification, but history does need to be preserved. Opinion of many was this book was written to rehabilitate the SS officer who avoided execution after the war. So it could have been said it was used to glorify the war. But I certainly didn't buy the book to glorify Nazis. I used it for historical research. I'm a center lefty myself. But I also have an appreciation for history.
12
"I used it for historical research."
And some people collect memorabilia for certain historical eras.
The next logical step is for governments to require licenses for researchers and collectors.
4
I commend Amazon for this move.
6
@Miriam Webster Respectfully, I disagree. Yes, they are removing books I don't like, but the lack of rules and transparency means that they can capriciously remove books I like too. I think, though, there may be a bigger issue. Who can tell a corporation like Amazon which books they may or may not sell? The only entity that could do that would be the government - surely a worse solution. Or, in regulatory terms, there could be interventions to ensure that a single company does not control the distribution of so much information. That would allow competition to determine the market for the information Amazon seeks to restrict.
5
@B Lundgren
"Or, in regulatory terms, there could be interventions to ensure that a single company does not control the distribution of so much information. That would allow competition to determine the market for the information Amazon seeks to restrict."
Would you elaborate this idea of yours for us (and for politicians who may be seeking to refine the rights and obligations of publishers)?
The reason why the general public no longer trust any "experts", authority figures of institutions of any kind is well illustrated by the insulting to any thinking person excuse that media monopolies like Amazon can block/censor written expression they disagree with, or find offensive, because by doing so they are exercising their First Amendment right of free speech.
5
Good for Amazon!
4
Are there no other booksellers?
1
Free speech is free political speech.
4
"... [various symbols] were digitally erased from Mr. Sewell’s uniform, from Times Square and the Statue of Liberty, even from scenes set in Berlin."
The fundamental problem is that the producers of the TV series were too literal-minded. They should have invented their own iconography and assumed that viewers would be smart enough to figure out the historical allusions.
Movie and TV producers routinely create fictitious brands and companies. See, for example, the TV series "Superstore".
3
In a hypothetical universe in which the NSDAP won, why would their iconography change?
5
Sean: "In a hypothetical universe in which the NSDAP won, why would their iconography change?"
As you say, it's "a hypothetical universe", so the question is incoherent. Evidently, literal-mindedness is not only a problem with movie producers. So maybe they are selling to the lowest common denominator of possible viewers, some of whom read newspapers.
1
Amazon should be compelled to sell these books in exactly the same way as the New York Times is compelled to publish opinion pieces from these "authors": not at all.
8
There is good and evil. There is right and wrong. You are free to express your opinions, but if that opinion includes lies, hate and evil you are free to suffer the results. Just because you can say it doesn't make it right nor should it be entertained as a valid opinion. I am supremely over the both sides ism currently being used to justify wrong headedness. It is a false equivalence. When you have Nazis on one side there is no moral high ground.
12
Like any business, Amazon has the right to decide what to sell, or not to sell. By deciding not to sell White supremacist propaganda, and Nazi paeans, Amazon is not only exercising its right, but helping deter the spread of hatred. If some book sellers want to sell those books, that's their right too, but they need to find another outlet.
18
How ironic that just as Hitler banned and burned books, Amazon is banning books. Would I read white supremacy books or books hailing Nazis? Absolutely not. I find that offensive.
I find more offensive Amazon's censorship.
23
@Deborah Thuman Amazon is a corporation, not the US government, so your comparison makes absolutely no sense.
Amazon is a brand, and the company behind it wants it to represent something that doesn't include white supremacy. It is their right to do so.
If the US government was the one that prohibited publishing or selling something, then you could call it censorship. Or you could invoke your freedom of speech rights, or take it to the supreme court.
14
Removing swastikas from Nazi uniforms makes about as much sense as Photoshopping out Hitler’s mustache.
44
Amazon, like any smaller vendor, can sell or not sell what it chooses; however, removing Nazi symbols from anti-Nazi works such as The Man in the High Castle, seems misguided, to say the least.
What's next, removal of Nazis from Hogan's Heroes? What about The Producers?
With apologies to Arte Johnson, "Not very interesting... but stupid!"
22
As one of the dominant media companies in the world, should the New York Times be required to publish opinion pieces supporting nazism, slavery, genocide, ISIS, etc.?
5
None of the banned books appeals to me. I certainly oppose the political programs in some of them, enough to be ready to fight their partisans in the streets, should they threaten to march toward power.
However, to ban them is a castrating of our culture.
Amazon's future is YouTube's present. For an anti-Nazi work, I needed a clip of Brownshirt marchers in the years before their victory.
They were once easy to find. Now they are either banned or stuck at the end of a maze of searching.
I know a lot better than YouTube that my intention was to undo Nazi illusions, not enhance them. Which is to say the monopoly has a nerve, thwarting me with its ignorant backseat driving.
If swastikas and Horst Wessel offend the sensitive, they don't have to track down my stuff to feed their outrage.
In addition to naughty looking at Nazi literature, I have my own quite opposed unpopular ideas. I think, eg, that Russiagate is an evidence-free hoax perpetrated by our intelligence agencies.
Take it or leave it. But suppression by the single seller means outlawing me.
In the current atmosphere of left/liberal Russophobic McCarthyism, are my ideas False News to be banned as akin to Nazi ones?
The nice little boys and girls don't have to read dirty books, polluting their fragile minds.
Intellectually strong, but not so nice, adults have the brains not to be seduced.
We don't need to be protected from sin by two bit edifiers who stamp "verboten" on ideas we contemplate.
7
They’re not banning or burning anything. They’re choosing what to sell or not sell. Every business makes these decisions and use any number of factors when doing so.
The local gas station convenience store is not banning craft beer. They’re selling mass market beer that, you know, sells.
Your local coffee shop is not banning Starbucks coffee. They’re choosing to sell their own toasted coffee.
Your community’s buy local campaign is not banning. French wine or Bulgarian feta. They’re not looting stores and smashing bottles of Bordeaux or stomping on packages of cheese. They’re just encouraging you to, well, buy local. They’re not stopping you from buying your favorite imported Madeira.
Get over yourselves.
1
Incest adultery, murder, war, spying, lying, hate, baby killing, Satanism, it's all right there...in the Bible....
Oh, and about that cross, ban that symbol of the Inquisition, I find it offensive.
14
When a betrayer to a nation uses the laws of a nation to overthrow the nation it must be called out, and Jeff Bezos is doing his best to clean up the trash which has piled around the White House since 2017 littered from the Parasites in the Oval Office.
4
"Amazon is quietly canceling its Nazis."
Good. You can loudly cancel them, so far as I'm concerned.
7
Seems like someone is allowing lawyers to do their thinking for them.
A tangential issue is the springing up of broadcast TV stations that edit the language of the rerun tv shows they broadcast. The words they are bleeping are common words heard on family tv every day. This is a decision being made based on fake values to set themselves apart on Public airwaves. They have a captive audience in the poor and those who do not want to pay extortionate rates for cable tv. It should not be legal to edit programs that were perfectly fine to go out over the air unedited the first time.
Come on who thinks the language on Stargate SG-1 needs to be edited?
Doesn't it make more sense to suspect they are letting their BANKERS do their thinking for them?
Choosing to sell one book and not sell a different book are both perfectly legal choices--that's all the law has to say about this.
Those choices might impact your bottom line though--and I suspect that's what's going on here, and that's just fine.
@Steve
Maybe but you don't see bankers in may corporate offices on a daily basis it is usually lawyers who are "advising" them. Now maybe the lawyers are getting calls from ...
Hey wait a minute isn't Bezos known for being a micro manager? yea its him innit?
"... who thinks the language on Stargate SG-1 needs to be edited?"
The FCC. A web search for "Stargate SG-1 censorship" will find a web site with a whole list of cuts.
Movies and cable TV series broadcast on over-the-air television frequently have scene cuts, image blurring, and word silencing.
"When Amazon drops a book from its store, it is as if it never existed."
Not necessarily. A web search for the Duke book finds a LINK to the Amazon page which leads to the "dog" page.
Further, Worldcat lists libraries that have it. And the complete text can be found online at archive.org.
"Some of the books dropped from Amazon are available on Abe."
That's why corporate censorship ultimately fails and may even be counterproductive.
Competitors will step in where Amazon fails to provide products or services.
So Amazon is NOT a monopoly, despite what some people mistakenly claim.
1
PKH: "Competitors will step in where Amazon fails to provide products or services."
That point stands, but the article raises another issue: "Amazon, which owns Abe, declined to comment."
So companies can create subsidiaries that sell what the parent company censors. I wonder how long Amazon is going to be able to get away with that subterfuge.
3
It's silly for Amazon to produce "The Man in the High Castle" and then censor pictures from it in a book.
6
It is interesting to note that most of the whiners are complaining that they cannot promote an ideology that banned books and artworks it called degenerate. What's the problem?
4
The First Amendment applies to actions by governmental authorities. Private companies aren't bound by the 1st Amendment and can sell or not sell anything they choose. People are then free to buy or not.
7
"Private companies ... can sell or not sell anything they choose."
Wrong. Companies cannot sell child pornography, because doing that is ILLEGAL.
Nor can companies facilitate copyright infringement, because doing that will get them sued.
Amazon is not the government (yet). There is no first Amendment "freedom of speech" issue here.
13
The problem here isn't that a bookseller is choosing what books it wants to sell and what books it doesn't want to sell, the problem is one retail platform has an effective monopoly on book sales in the country, thereby making that retailer's choices on what to sell and not to sell very important.
Amazon should be free to sell whatever it wants to sell, and not sell whatever it wants to not sell...but it also shouldn't have a 66% share of the book market.
9
While I am a strong advocate of freedom of speech and of the press, Amazon, just like the corner book store, has every right to decide what books it wishes to sell; and is under no obligation to let anyone know what the selection criteria are. While I do not agree with refusing to sell based on content, I do not run Amazon.
When the local bookstore removes offensive literature from its shelves, those who find the removed pieces praise the store for the courage to allow morality o triumph over profits. Amazon should be receiving the same praise from those who find its removed choices offensive.
11
Censorship is a problem only if the one doing the censoring has the ability to unilaterally deny access to information. Amazon is a major bookseller but it is by no means a monopoly even in the world of online retail. Alibris is another online bookseller that I've used before, who deal in used and new book titles. They even do free shipping on some orders. There's also eBay, which has proved a surprising resource for used and like-new books.
Until the day comes that Amazon is deemed the official procurer and distributor of literature in the United States they are not bound by the 1st amendment to provide distribution without bias.
7
They sell the books they want to sell. Go elsewhere if you think others do a better job. They are not required to sell what you want, just as libraries choose the books we can read publicly.
10
"... just as libraries choose the books we can read publicly."
That's a bad comparison:
1. Libraries have a finite budget.
2. Libraries can borrow books from other libraries -- that's called "inter-library loan".
How soon till Amazon removes King James Versions ?
7
Since when does freedom of speech guarantee distribution channels? I’m glad the losers who consume hateful ideologies have to put some elbow grease to find these horrific books. Bravo, Amazon!
11
@Angelica I agree
Just a few weeks ago a colleague of mine downloaded my film Dogmouth written by John Steppling. Then suddenly it was 'currently unavailable'. A very low budget independent film it nevertheless won seven awards and was the Official
Selection of ten festivals with the actors working for sandwiches (they were drawn to its powerful dialogue). But it's a dark film, it's characters are despicable: like Hell's Angels on freight trains fleeing the railroad cops. They are misogynist, racist and wife abusing. Still, Steppling
( in the 80's at the top of the L.A. theater pyramid - with a self avowedly Marxist basis to his thinking) has as his anthem 'Art is not Your Friend' deliberately tries to rattle the cage of the liberal bourgeoisie who he feels do very little to actually help the oppressed of the world but make themselves feel less guilty about their wealth. What mattered to me was that the dialogue of his script had some of the best I'd come across - and I've worked with Arthur Miller, Norman Mailer et al. It was like a nightmare you didn't want to have but one you'd never forget. And even these raunchy guys said things about the moment of death, the nature of dreams, courage - that were profound. While it will never be a tent pole kind of film, still, it had a power that spoke to those with enough of a palate for offensive ideas to draw a passionate if small audience. Now it's gone. Am I being paranoid or is its disappearance related to what's going on at Amazon.
5
"Amazon, they said, seems to operate under vague or nonexistent rules."
I don't think opposing Naziism ( which 3 of the mentioned books seem to represent) is "vague or nonexistent rules"..
12
Yesterday I went to my favorite large bookstore, hoping to look at a recent book reviewed here in the NYT that has not yet gotten into the library system. No luck. Even as big as it is, the store can't carry everything, and did not have it on hand. I'll look elsewhere, rather than buy it sight unseen.
Searching for a book is part of an interest in books. That Amazon does not have anything and everything at the click of a single all purpose button is not really all that important.
However, I do disagree with Amazon's judgment in this. Dystopian fantasy and alternate history are important. They help readers to think things through, by showing a whole line of thought from someone who gave it a lot of thought.
George Orwell's 1984 was and remains important as an example of dystopian writing that clarifies values and political ideas.
It is also about people who clean up media after the fact to conform with their most current politics, such as editing out bits of pictures from well done books. Next time, will they edit in something they like better? At some point, they are taking over as creators of another work altogether. Now we have the Amazon version of "what if the bad guys won WW2" that conveniently has no Nazis.
What next, if Nazis had won they'd have liked our Jews? Is that edit a comfort, or a danger?
7
Lets hope this extends to elimination of all product with the swatzika symbols, I found a kids t-shirt with them on the shoulder, the is outrageous and wrong, hope the big A does more to bury this symbol of hatred and death....
6
The First Amendment also bans compelled speech; forcing someone to say something is as bad as prohibiting someone from saying something. Amazon has every right to decide against selling books for whatever reason it chooses. Amazon should not be forced to sell supremacist literature for the same reason Amazon should not be forced to sell adult films.
11
We've allowed three private companies to accumulate almost unlimited information about all of us, while also allowing them to have an alarming level of control over the flow of information among our citizenry. These companies are substantially controlled by just a handful of unelected individuals who are motivated by accumulating wealth, not the public interest.
Meanwhile, political news on the public airwaves is dominated by a network that doesn't even pretend to give fair coverage to both sides, owned by a foreign born oligarch.
This year's election may well be our last chance to maintain a tenuous hold on our precious democracy and stave off dictatorship. Anyone who fails to vote doesn't deserve to call themself American.
26
@Jomo
But they said don't be evil and didn't let the FBI have access and well Bezos is nice. What could possibly go wrong?
1
Sorry, can't get excited about this. Amazon,although large, operates in an effectively competitive market and can buy and sell what it chooses. Otherwise I'm sure Trump's FTC and DOJ anti-trust authorities would move to break them up. Looks like a great opportunity for another book seller to offer for sale these books for $150 or $973 and make a BIG profit. That's called the competitive market place.
6
@P Locke Did you not read the last paragraph?
"Some of the books dropped from Amazon are available on Abe. Recently, there were 18 copies of Mr. Duke’s books on Abe, at prices up to $150. Amazon, which owns Abe, declined to comment"
3
@P Locke
"Otherwise I'm sure Trump's FTC and DOJ anti-trust authorities would move to break them up."
Sure, are you? The politics of doing so is massively complex, with Bezos currently the owner of the Washington Post, and the DOJ effectively a vassal of the current White House.
2
I watched The Man in the High Castle. It was an excellent series with excellent script and actors (although the book was terrible). It did not glorify the Nazis. There was no question as to who the bad guys were. It was like any other piece about the phenomenon of Nazi Germany. And in the end, the good guys won. The theme was that the Germans and Japanese won WWII and defeated America. So of course there were Nazi symbols everywhere, even on the Statue of Liberty and in Times Square. How anyone could take offense in this context unless they have the sensitivity of an eggshell.
12
@styleman The article states that the Nazi symbols were censored because the book will go on sale in German where it's illegal to display them.
1
@styleman
The original novel, by Philip K. Dick, was published in 1962; it won a Hugo Award in 1963. I am curious whether Amazon sells the book, which featured half of a swastika and half of a rising sun, on its cover.
2
They are also censoring Romance books. It is not just hate books that are being quietly censored. I think that it is a problem that there are no rules and pulling the books seems to happen in a capricious way with no justification.
5
@Matt
Which is the whole point of freedom of expression.
1
@Matt The fewer bodice-ripping rubbish there is around, the better it is. If someone needs 'romance' books, go to any Salvation army, they are still selling them, for 10c apiece; load up.
Business opportunity: Banned books dot com. I haven't read or watched The Man in High Castle and I sure wish Nazis never existed in reality. But if you erase them from books how easy is it to erase them from history? We must never forget, irrespective of ethnicity, religion, race. Human history, however horrible, must remain a reference point. And, yeah, who is Amazon to decide what stays and what goes?
26
@ShelbyC72 Well said!!!
1
Therein lies the fundamental flaw in the argument against Amazon self censoring, it takes maybe 30 minutes to stand up an independent eCommerce site. Even if companies like Square Space or GoDaddy refuse to host your site you can always host your own website it isn’t that hard. It is the height of laziness to say that I must be able to purchase my divisive texts and Nazi memorabilia from the same place as I get my TV and toilet paper.
3
@ShelbyC72 If only there were other sources of information... Wait! I found it! More than 4 Billion (with a B) articles on World War 2! We are saved from Amazon's control on the world's flow of information and what stays and goes. I'm so relieved. Phew, that was a close one.
2
I'm tired of having to listen to the white supremacists and other assorted racists who are constantly yelling that their First Amendment rights are being violated. Germany would put this vermin in jail, and the country is probably more democratic than we are.
Likewise, Floyd Abrams, the "free speech" mouthpiece, who I am sorry to say, went to the same law school (Yale) as I, is always looking to gut campaign finance laws under the spurious grounds of "free speech." He and his buddy Ken Starr, gutted McCain- Feingold, and Floyd gave us Citizens United.
The only thing that matters to these sophists, is winning.
Good for Amazon.
46
@george eliot
"The only thing that matters to these sophists, is winning."
Would you be willing to draw a wide ring to encompass people you describe as sophists, Mr. Elliott? In any case, I agree with what you wrote about Germany.
2
@george eliot
Thank you for exercising your first amendment rights to argue that someone else's first amendment rights are not as important (or sacred) as yours.
4
@Kraktos Amazon is not a Government agency, so it does not have to appease anyone's 1st amendment. Free to choose, see. Maybe B&N should be required to carry those 'banned' books, eh. And libraries...
6
Good move by Amazon!
24
What about the religious texts that explicitly speak of violence against non-believers?
15
@Albela Shaitan
You can't touch religious texts. Only fiction and opinion, apparently. Religious texts (as outrageous as some may seem) are seen a the words of divinity, and you can't censor God.
@Kraktos And since the gawd notion is a myth, all religious texts should be categorized as such.
1
@Albela Shaitan You mean like the Bible, in which God orders the massacre at Jericho?
2
There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about the First Amendment. Amazon choosing to sell or not sell any book for any reason has nothing to do with the First Amendment, which governs the interactions of individuals and the government, not interactions among individuals and private corporations or other private individuals, etc. Amazon may be legally constrained from selling certain books if those books violate the law, such as laws that constrain violence or hate speech, but that's not a first amendment issue. Neither do the anti-trust laws likely force them to carry any book they don't want to carry; that would require the finding that they are a monopoly, which would be difficult given that there remain many other sellers of books who are easily found with a simple search. So their choice to sell certain books and not others, based on whatever criteria they choose to apply, is not "censorship."
I'm not an Amazon defender, but we need clear and critical thinking here, not emotion.
82
@John Binkley
"I'm not an Amazon defender, but we need clear and critical thinking here, not emotion."
Yes, we do not CLEAR and CRITICALLY ACCURATE thinking here. You might therefore want to explore the other threads here referring to the First Amendment. Emotions are not always bad; sometimes they lead s to a good solution!
1
@Angus Cunningham
"we do not CLEAR and CRITICALLY ACCURATE thinking here."
Huh?
I did explore other "threads" here; that's why I wrote my comment.
Emotions alone seldom if ever lead to good conclusions. They may have the best idea at heart, but only reasoned and deliberate lawmaking leads to good conclusions. For example, there have always been high emotions against other groups of people -- that has never led to a good conclusion.
10
@John Binkley
Me culpa: I wrote 'not' when I meant 'need'. In referring to emotions as sometimes leading to a good solution, I didn't intend to imply that such emotions are ALL we need. But, IF we become consciously aware of our emotions, and then explore their origins in a rationally accurate way, then my experience is that they often lead us to astoundingly good (joint) solutions. See, for example:
http://www.authentixcoaches.com/IHXENPayOff.html
1
"A bookseller since 2001, Mr. Delzer said he does not condone white supremacist material but believes people should be free to read what they want."
So, if Mr. Delzer wants to sell Nazi propaganda, let him sell it out of his own store. If he sells it, it seems likely that he does indeed condone Nazi propaganda.
36
@Pam
Perhaps he just believes people should have the opportunity to think for themselves?
5
censorship by Amazon ,,,,,,, WOW
2
No Nazi supporter, I, but whatever happened to the "marketplace of ideas"?
7
@Bowden
Just another myth.
5
@Bowden When the "ideas" are that certain people don't deserve to exist, that is a "marketplace" that should be closed.
3
@Bowden Private companies are not responsible for hosting a marketplace of ideas.
4
As objectionable as I find the censored work, we all know from 20th-century German history what happens when books are banned. Censored books (even their covers) become burnt books, and burnt bucks become figurative kindling for crimes against humanity.
13
@יצחק There is a huge difference between governments banning books and a vendor choosing not to sell them.
10
too much power in determining what people can read because of questionable titles . does this mean a comedy book with the title, When will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops? this book written by George Carlin is not a danger to ANY old or young. amazon too big to matter much longer.
6
@daniel r potter Slippery-slope 'logic' is never convincing. All those books that Amazon decided not to sell are available somewhere else. As well a nazi paraphernalia....
1
Judging the "appropriateness" of a book is, I guess, up to the retailer. Although when that retailer has a monopolistic control of the market, it more and more equates with censoring whatever they don't like, no logic needed. Something that Trump loves doing.
The concept of editing out the swastika? Ridiculous. Are they going to overlay heads onto hooded KKK images? Take whips out of the hands of slave masters?
13
There is a direct connection between the banning of certain books, and their subject matter, and at the very same time a concerted effort through legislation to quash any criticism of a foreign governments policies. These censorship actions being forced upon the American people are not the principles I fought for as a combat veteran. Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Google, all trying to censor views that offend a small, but very powerful minority. As the philosopher Voltaire stated, " If you want to learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize. "
28
@Rodney
"There is a direct connection between the banning of certain books, and their subject matter, and at the very same time a concerted effort through legislation to quash any criticism of a foreign governments policies."
Yes, and don't similar connections emerge into the light when it comes to trying to get a president to desist from barbarous, scandalous, tyrannical, dishonest, and other self-serving forms of behavior inimical to the values of a decent civilization?
9
Neo-Naziism and white supremacy are not views that “offend a small minority.” They should offend every decent human being, and I hope, and believe, do in fact appall the majority. Moreover, to claim that those racist views offend “a small but very powerful minority” sounds like exactly the sort of anti-Semitic paranoia Amazon is attempting, honorably, to disavow. I would also argue, respectfully, that America is supposed to be a country in which all citizens are equal and protected. Thus, Amazon’s is enacting precisely the sort of principle our combat veterans should be fighting for.
14
@Rodney Amazon does not have the power to ban any books. Amazon is a retailer, not a public utility, and they can not be required to sell any products they don't wish to sell.
14
Amazon is violating the freedom of speech amendment. Does anyone remember Ray Bradbury's novel "Farenheit 451?" Amazon should NOT be the arbiter of what books should or should not be sold.
11
@susan
Amazon is a private company. Why do they have to sell objectionable material?
53
@susan On the other hand, are you willing to say they MUST deal with all third party sellers and they MUST carry all titles? That's not good either.
No one bookstore or no single library system has every book out there available for sale or loan, nor should they be forced to.
12
@HD Because the government has allowed it to gain a near-monopoly power over the book trade. It may be privately owned, but it has dominant reach and influence in the book trade, and effectively acts as a cultural gatekeeper.
17
This is a subject of vast significance for the quality of our society. Kudos to David Streitfeld for writing about it. And kudos to the NYT's decision-making that this article is promoted in "Today's Headlines".
10
Amazon's decision to act as parent and guardian over reading material is precisely why this monopoly must be broken up.
Besides it's very difficult to ban an idea. People will find, read and talk about books and the potentially dangerous ideas they contain no matter what. Prohibiting the distribution of books that spout unpopular or politically correct themes by Nazi's or Black Panthers may seem easy at first. But where does one draw the line?
We are becoming less free as a society.
18
@PeterW
Freedom, unbalanced and untethered by another value, such as responsibility, could well be, could it not?, what is driving our society to increasing bouts of abandonment of behaviour that our forbears painfully learned leads to unnecessary division, conflict, bigotry and heartache (and many other ills too numerous to list here).
7
@PeterW Amazon is hardly a monopoly, or single source of information, especially in these days of the internet.
Years ago, I heard of "The Anarchist's Cookbook", a forbidden tome. Out of curiosity, I was able to locate a copy.
Amazon has a wide range of titles, and part of its allure is sheer convenience. If you want something that it doesn't have, that doesn't mean that the item is not out there, it means that you may have to do some more digging on your own.
19
@PeterW
Please do not put the Black Panthers and Nazi's as comparable. They are even in the same realm. Its Black History Month, please learn the history.
4