# It is being suggested to boycott Amazon



## afishwithabike (Jun 8, 2005)

I just recieved this e-mail from an anti-spanking organization requesting you make a comment to Amazon as well as boycotting them until they stop selling the Pearl's book.

Dear Friends,

I think it's time to complain to Amazon about selling baby-whipping
books! Barnes & Noble had the decency to stop selling 4 of them, let's
ask Amazon to do the same!

Please write your comments in this box (scroll to bottom of page):
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/cus...nDate&n=283155

Here is a sample letter:

Dear Amazon, please stop selling the following books that recommend
whipping infants under 1 year of age:

1) "To Train Up a Child" by Michael & Debi Pearl
p.9 Whipping infants as young as 4 months with wooden sticks and
plastic pipes on their bare skin. Parents have been investigated by
Child Protective Services, children have been taken away from parents,
a restraining order against a father, and even a babysitter has gone to
jail on felony charges for following the Pearl's baby-whipping advice.
A mother beat her children and killed her son after following the Pearl's
baby-whipping advice http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/418676.html

I know the article in the news observer is not new to most but it was included in the e-mail I recieved so I thought I'd include it in this post as well.


----------



## Ellien C (Aug 19, 2004)

Buy Blue!

For political reasons, I've switched all of my online book buying to Barnes&Noble anyway.

The interface is harder to use than Amazon, but I'm committed to voting with my wallet.

http://www.buyblue.org/


----------



## HelloKitty (Apr 1, 2004)

I use only Barnes and Noble now for this very reason. Plus I like their shipping much better. Although I do still own stock in Amazon.







:


----------



## **guest** (Jun 25, 2004)

I sent my comment to amazon. I was a good customer but will NOT shop through them anymore.
I'm sure that they are NOT going to happy with what I put.
I think that perhaps Amazon should be SUED. Maybe then they will get the message that condoning CHILD ABUSE will not be tolerated.


----------



## afishwithabike (Jun 8, 2005)

I was actually shocked that these type of books were avail that openly. I always just figured you'd have to go to the Pearls site to get the Pearls books. WOW how little I knew until I began reading lately.


----------



## mom2x (Apr 5, 2004)

http://www.responsibleshopper.org/ba...m?cusip=023135

they have some other problems too.


----------



## kalisis (Jan 10, 2005)

I used to only shop at Borders - but then they got bought out by Amazon. I really don't like B&N - they're a PITA. I try to buy at my local Borders or small bookseller, but sometimes, I can't afford that extra money they charge.

I did put a comment up re: the pearls on amazon and it's still there. So, that's good.

Thanks for the linkies tho!


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

As much as I hate the Pearls I don't believe in censoring books. Education, education education.


----------



## HelloKitty (Apr 1, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Arduinna*
As much as I hate the Pearls I don't believe in censoring books. Education, education education.

You make a good point but I don't know... I'm still not confortable with saying I'm OK with supporting a company that resells child abuse manuals.


----------



## turtlewomyn (Jun 5, 2005)

I stopped shopping at Amazon.com a long time ago. I am originally from Minnesota and there is a feminist bookstore in Minneapolis called Amazon Bookstore. They got into a legal battle with Amazon for name rights (don't remember who sued who) and Amazon.com's legal defense was that the Amazon Bookstore owners were lesbians, and therefore not entitled to the name, or something like that.


----------



## DreamsInDigital (Sep 18, 2003)

:


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Arduinna*
As much as I hate the Pearls I don't believe in censoring books. Education, education education.

Yup, ditto.

dar


----------



## morning glory (Dec 8, 2005)

Quote:

As much as I hate the Pearls I don't believe in censoring books. Education, education education.
I don't consider telling a store that I will no longer shop there because their values seem to be out of line with my own censorship. Thats using my consumer power to make a statement. They still have a choice about what to do.

Casey


----------



## Greensleeves (Aug 4, 2004)

[


----------



## MillingNome (Nov 18, 2005)

While I certainly don't believe in the book, I am very much against censorship. On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with voting with your wallet!


----------



## PikkuMyy (Mar 26, 2004)

As the PP pointed out, it is not censorship. Censorship involves the gov't deciding what is OK and what is not. How is asking Amazon to stop selling those books and start having ones its customers want any different than Mothering's "no supporting spanking" policy?


----------



## aisraeltax (Jul 2, 2005)

thanks for the posts..i love that website! now my bucks with go to b&n too!


----------



## littlest birds (Jul 18, 2004)

OT...

Another good internet seller, BTW, is AbeBooks. I work at a little independent bookstore, and our books sell on Amazon, Alibris, B&N, and AbeBooks. I like AbeBooks best and it is easier to find things (I use their site as my first-choice reference when setting/comparing used book prices. )

Do they restrict based on content--or would they for this? I don't know. I doubt they have been approached. They company started in the UK, I think, FWIW it is different in that way yet most of their listings are available here in US.


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PikkuMyy*
As the PP pointed out, it is not censorship. Censorship involves the gov't deciding what is OK and what is not. How is asking Amazon to stop selling those books and start having ones its customers want any different than Mothering's "no supporting spanking" policy?

I guess we disagree on the definition of censorship then. Because I see it as a much broader definition than just government. Have you ever lived in an area where you can't get the info you are seeking because someone else has decided that you shouldn't read it? How would you feel if a group decided to boycott bookstores for selling books about gays and lesbians? Or about sex education? Or about vaccine awareness? Or about political views that are controvesial? I can tell you right now that there are plenty of groups that think that those books shouldn't be available either.

I live in a city well known for it's supposed decadence and I can tell you right now that there are books that you don't see on the shelves of the local bookstore that I'm forced to buy at Amazon. I thank the Gods that places like Amazon exist and that I have an internet connection to shop online.


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

oh and FTR of course if you don't want to shop somewhere for whatever reason don't. But I do take issue with attempting to limit other peoples access to books based on your values.


----------



## HelloKitty (Apr 1, 2004)

You are absolutely right Ard and I've changed my mind. As much as I hate the Pearls and wish they would disappear, I'm not digging the idea of censoring people's access to books.


----------



## minkajane (Jun 5, 2005)

I stopped buying from Amazon when I found out they sell young boys' "gymnastics" videos - naked boys doing gymnastics! It's kiddie porn masquerading as a children's workout video!

I do still use the website to read reviews and for the wishlist, but I don't buy anything there. Does anyone know of another website with a wishlist function?


----------



## afishwithabike (Jun 8, 2005)

I'll look for you minkajane. I am sure there is something else out there.


----------



## afishwithabike (Jun 8, 2005)

Barnes and Noble does have a wishlist function. I'll see if I can find more. I LOVE options.


----------



## MistyMM (Aug 7, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *minkajane*
I stopped buying from Amazon when I found out they sell young boys' "gymnastics" videos - naked boys doing gymnastics! It's kiddie porn masquerading as a children's workout video!

I do still use the website to read reviews and for the wishlist, but I don't buy anything there. Does anyone know of another website with a wishlist function?

This is also when we stopped buying from them.


----------



## HelloKitty (Apr 1, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *minkajane*
I stopped buying from Amazon when I found out they sell young boys' "gymnastics" videos - naked boys doing gymnastics! It's kiddie porn masquerading as a children's workout video!

This is the first I've heard of this. Very troubling. How is that legal to produce?


----------



## charmander (Dec 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Arduinna*
oh and FTR of course if you don't want to shop somewhere for whatever reason don't. But I do take issue with attempting to limit other peoples access to books based on your values.









:


----------



## minkajane (Jun 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HelloKitty*
This is the first I've heard of this. Very troubling. How is that legal to produce?

It's legal as long as they portray it as "artistic" and not sexual. Same as those disgusting websites with naked kids modeling. It's legal because the kids are not in inherently sexual situations or poses.


----------



## Itlbokay (Dec 28, 2001)

I buy my books from independent booksellers whenever possible. I used to work for one and would be sad to see them die out due to places like Amazon, Borders, Barnes and Nobles and such.

I also try and buy almost everything I purchase from mom and pop shops. Yes, prices are often higher, but buying from lower cost chain stores comes with it's own price.

So I buy less, and when I do I shop with my conscience.


----------



## HelloKitty (Apr 1, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *minkajane*
It's legal as long as they portray it as "artistic" and not sexual. Same as those disgusting websites with naked kids modeling. It's legal because the kids are not in inherently sexual situations or poses.

Ahhh. Gross.


----------



## Ellien C (Aug 19, 2004)

I'm really confused about this board.

I really agree with Arduinna about cencorship of books and media, but I've moved to B&N for other reasons. When this post came out on this board with a "no debate" policy, I said the only supportive thing I could.

But I think voices like Arduinna's need to be heard. Does that not violate the no-debate policy?


----------



## charmander (Dec 30, 2003)

I don't think it is debating anything to reveal our reasons about whether we believe in boycotting or not boycotting somehting.


----------



## afishwithabike (Jun 8, 2005)

Debating and belittling is one thing. Making your opinoins known so others can see your point quite another. Some are not going to agree and that is fine. I was merely sharing an e-mail I recieved so others would know what is happining and make the decision that is best for them. Everybody looks at activism differently. I am rather enjoying beciming farther informed and taking offense to NONE of it.


----------



## Ellien C (Aug 19, 2004)

I agree with the last 2 posters. I think we had a nice civil discussion. Can't we allow that on Activism?

But the sticky says: "In addition - if you do not agree with a call to action/rally/protest, please do not post to the thread. Instead begin a thread in News & Current Events, or other appropriate forum, for discussion or the topic. Do not discuss the thread, or the original poster of the thread. If you find a counter cause of one posted here to be worthy, please start a new thread in Activism. THIS IS NOT A DEBATE BOARD."

and I'm of course, violating everything by discussing the policy (at all) and doing so on this board and in this thread rather than on Questions and Suggestions.

Off-topic. Sorry. I'll shut up now, but I think we've all done a civil job and making our positions known.


----------



## JamesMama (Jun 1, 2005)

I've boycotted Amazon since the "Gym Boys" ordeal, those movies are gone now, but they still have NAMBLA stuff.

I use Amazon to browse and buy at Barnes & Nobel or a local smaller bookstore


----------



## afishwithabike (Jun 8, 2005)

I don't think my boycotting them will amount to much but I will continue to do so. They power babies r us and toys r us online retailing so that alone will keep them in business for years to come.

I feel like i am in the same lose lose situation that I am with Wal-Mart.


----------



## Greensleeves (Aug 4, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *JamesMama*
I've boycotted Amazon since the "Gym Boys" ordeal, those movies are gone now, but they still have NAMBLA stuff.










Ugh, I did a search on Amazon just now, you are right. That is deeply disturbing. Blech.


----------



## BusyMommy (Nov 20, 2001)

That's a really tough subject.
I honestly don't know if I'd support such a boycott on free speech. I agree the Pearls are evil, don't doubt me on that. But, refraining from selling the books won't eradicate them or their message. Sometimes, we need to see the actual, original message to see how stupid and evil it really is. But, then again, some people obviously buy into their ideas.

Gym Boys? Never heard of it.


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

I have just always gone to Barnes & Noble because I like the store and feel comfortable with them, long before I ever knew anything about the Pearls & the Ezzos. I never bought anything off of Amazon before. Now, I have one more good reason not to. In the name of free speech they are willing to hand out misleading information that will lead to child abuse, just to make money. They will sell anything to satisfy their greed, and they obviously could care a less who it hurts. I will not ever buy from Amazon, not until I see books like this removed.


----------



## Montessori Mommy (Jul 10, 2006)

there are many books on amazon and other places that I don't agree with, but the fact that they sell them anyway, is a beautiful thing. We have freedom of the press in US and I hope that never changes. I can decide what I do and do not want to be exposed to, and I don't want the gov't or any other political/activist groups to make that decison for me.


----------



## Harper (Jul 10, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Itlbokay*
I buy my books from independent booksellers whenever possible. I used to work for one and would be sad to see them die out due to places like Amazon, Borders, Barnes and Nobles and such.

I also try and buy almost everything I purchase from mom and pop shops. Yes, prices are often higher, but buying from lower cost chain stores comes with it's own price.

So I buy less, and when I do I shop with my conscience.

Thank you so much for this!!









I sometimes wonder why more people don't have a problem with big box stores like B&N and Borders or on-line monsters like Amazon . I realize that some people don't have access to independent bookstores (I wonder why???) but there are other online options like Abe Books or Powells.

Full disclosure: my dh is the manager of a large independent bookstore that loses customers to the B&N in the same neighborhood and, of course, Amazon.


----------



## Maddy9199 (Feb 8, 2006)

OMG that NAMBLA stuff...








That alone is enough for me.


----------



## GinaNY (Aug 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Itlbokay*

So I buy less, and when I do I shop with my conscience.

love this


----------



## prettypixels (Apr 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Arduinna*
As much as I hate the Pearls I don't believe in censoring books. Education, education education.

I agree. I would hope anyone with an ounce of sense would drop a book in horror upon reading a suggestion to beat a 9 month old baby with a switch! But regardless, I don't believe in trying to "force" any book to be banned. Ever. Just like I believe in the right of the KKK to exist; and me to go out and protest their existence. Freedom means tolerating even things we find morally abhorrent.

It's a mighty slippery slope, considering how many people think it is abusive to breastfeed a toddler, or sleep with your kids, or NOT spank, or.... (I do not think those things. But lots of mainstream folks DO!)


----------



## celia (Apr 22, 2005)

_I don't believe in censoring books. Education, education education_

As a librarian in training I say...







:


----------



## Zach'smom (Nov 5, 2004)

UGH! I thought Nambla was made up for a bad South Park episode. I didn't realize it was real and that amazon sold it along with the Pearl garbage.

Amazon has the right to sell what it wants. But I have the right not to shop there and to tell them why.

I won't be shopping there anymore!


----------



## gwynthfair (Mar 17, 2006)

Amazon.com sells a lot of controversial books, including the highly controversial _Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion_, a widely discredited anti-jewish conspiracy book. However, I don't want amazon.com to start limiting what they sell based on certain "values" even if I agree with them. That's because I also don't want them to limit access to books that they might disagree with, but I don't. It's a slippery slope. I just want access to the information and I'll decide what I believe. Amazon.com has a great review system and discussion forum that allows for different perspectives on these type of books.


----------



## EFmom (Mar 16, 2002)

Quote:

As much as I hate the Pearls I don't believe in censoring books. Education, education education.










As a practicing librarian, ITA. I'm not getting behind a censorship drive.


----------



## darsmama (Jul 23, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Arduinna*
As much as I hate the Pearls I don't believe in censoring books. Education, education education.

That is my sentiment exactly. It would be the same as saying they are not allowed to sell The Satanic Verses because it goes against Christianity, etc. If anything, I like that Amazon has almost every book on every subject. Besides, if only the Pearls sold the book - you couldn't leave feedback as you can do on Amazon.


----------



## HollyBearsMom (May 13, 2002)

sorry meant to start new post!!


----------



## LittleMonkeyMom (Jul 25, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Montessori Mommy*
there are many books on amazon and other places that I don't agree with, but the fact that they sell them anyway, is a beautiful thing. We have freedom of the press in US and I hope that never changes. I can decide what I do and do not want to be exposed to, and I don't want the gov't or any other political/activist groups to make that decison for me.

What she said.


----------



## twopointysticks (Aug 29, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Montessori Mommy*
there are many books on amazon and other places that I don't agree with, but the fact that they sell them anyway, is a beautiful thing. We have freedom of the press in US and I hope that never changes. I can decide what I do and do not want to be exposed to, and I don't want the gov't or any other political/activist groups to make that decison for me.

this is pretty much exactly how i feel.


----------



## Maddy9199 (Feb 8, 2006)

Well, I probably agree with y'all. But books about Satan are one thing, books advocating the rape of young boys are another.


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

I'm not for censoring opinions and ideas, but peddling dangerous misinformation is very different in my book.


----------



## darsmama (Jul 23, 2004)

Right, but how is it different? I mean, the Satanic Verses could be dangerous to SOMEBODY (possibly), books on bomb building could quite possibly dangerous to someone, etc. etc.

Dosen't mean we should have access to them?

I mean, what if we had someone delegating what we could read and what was sold? What if they were anti-homebirth and decided that was dangerous?? Where would we get our 'proof' then? or the chance to educate ourselves?


----------



## Maddy9199 (Feb 8, 2006)

They could decide for themselves not to sell books that teach ways to have access to young boys without their parents knowledge, so as to be able to abuse them.

They don't need an outside entity to tell them that that's stupid.


----------



## darsmama (Jul 23, 2004)

Right Tree, but what if they decided that they didn't want to sell books on non-vaccination as an option because it was dangerous, or not smart, or whatever?
See what I am saying?
The Pearls and the other books are always going to be around, atleast they could track it off Amazon








If it's strictly a 'legality' issue and not promoting illegal activities, Home birth is illegal in a few states, what about Susun Weed's herb books in which she explains how marijuana is useful? I want access to these books, even though they might be prohibited.
I think independant book stores are the best bet, anyways.


----------



## unfrozncavegrl (Jan 6, 2005)

I, too, shop at our local book store. They can get me anything that B&N can, and I don't have to pay for shipping.


----------



## RomanGoddess (Mar 16, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Arduinna*
As much as I hate the Pearls I don't believe in censoring books. Education, education education.

Even in the most liberal of societies, some censorship is justified. Would you buy a book in a store that sold Hitler's "Mein Kampf"? I hope that I would not. I don't know about the States but in Canada, you are not allowed to distribute Mein Kampf or any book or other propaganda denying that the holocaust occurred (or any other anti-semitic or racist material, for that matter). This is absolutely a form of censorship but I think it might be justified. Would I put material advocating whipping babies in the same category? I would certainly think about doing so.

What about pornographic material showing women or children being beaten or put through meat grinders. This absolutely exists (even though illegal). Are you against censorship of this material? I would not think twice about boycotting a store that had this kind of material. I suppose whipping of babies does not fall into the same category but still, I think it comes close...


----------



## Periwinkle (Feb 27, 2003)

Just say no..... to censorship!!! If you don't like it, don't buy it.


----------



## mesa (Aug 19, 2006)

My local Barnes and Noble carries Mein Kampf. Censorship of all kinds is wrong, after all, how are people supposed to learn about history in all it's good (and bad) points without reading about both sides? I appreciate the fact that I am an American; when I get interested in a subject (which happens all the time) I love having the freedom and ability to analyze that subject from ALL POINTS OF VIEW and not just the point of view Big Brother wants me to have.

As for child porn (artistic or not), it is against the law. Those who distribute and profit from it should be pursued and prosecuted just like pedophiles and pornographers. NAMBLA is abhorrent.

Slippery slope, indeed. It seems like most people are against censorship when it concerns subjects important to them, but if it's a subject that they personally dislike or believe to be wrong, then they are all for it. It's just human nature. But if we wish to protect the information that is dear to our hearts, then we must accept that ideas that are diametrically opposed to our views also have a right to exist. Yin and Yang, darkness where there is light.

Or we risk a Fahrenheit 451 world where ideas of all kinds are destroyed. (and we're closer than anyone knows.)


----------



## RomanGoddess (Mar 16, 2006)

Quote:

As for child porn (artistic or not), it is against the law. Those who distribute and profit from it should be pursued and prosecuted just like pedophiles and pornographers. NAMBLA is abhorrent.
Well, if we are to be consistent in anti-censorship arguments, child porn should also be legal.


----------



## mesa (Aug 19, 2006)

that's what I meant, it's a slippery slope. Child porn is repulsive to ME so naturally I want it destroyed. That is what I was saying, that whatever is dear to a person's heart, they don't want censored, but what they find personally reprehensible is ok for censoring.

But it is a moot point, anyway, since child porn IS illegal. It's not an argument that is even open for discussion. But free speech is still legal in this country (for now anyway) and I believe we should do everything in our power to defend it.

As for books being sold that present a parenting philosphy that is contradictory to what we believe, well, that's America for you. Like someone else said, they will sell their book whether Amazon has it or not. People are going to hit their kids whether someone wrote a book about it or not. I would venture to guess that the majority of people who abuse their children never picked up a parenting book anyway.


----------



## RomanGoddess (Mar 16, 2006)

Quote:

But it is a moot point, anyway, since child porn IS illegal.
It is not a moot point at all. Making child porn illegal IS censorship. And it is censorship that you agree with. Therefore you do not disagree with all censorship.

There are plenty of countries that have freedom of expression/speech (Canada being one of them) in which books like Mein Kampf are banned. You just happen to draw the line at a different point.


----------



## kittywitty (Jul 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *minkajane*
I stopped buying from Amazon when I found out they sell young boys' "gymnastics" videos - naked boys doing gymnastics! It's kiddie porn masquerading as a children's workout video!

I do still use the website to read reviews and for the wishlist, but I don't buy anything there. Does anyone know of another website with a wishlist function?

I agree and I had a post awhile back about a list that was recommended to me entitled "I am gonna rape you in 4 minutes" or something like that. It was highly disturbing to me. I do NOT support companies that sell this crap.

Not only that, but I am not 100% against censorship. Child porn, books and materials supporting abusing children, etc. are all things that I would like to see censored.


----------



## darsmama (Jul 23, 2004)

THANK YOU FOR BRINGING UP THE CHILD PORN ARGUMENT! I have tried to bring this up before, and my mom and friend just blew up and looked at me like I was some sort of...degenerate?
I am against censorship- but the idea of child porn being AVAILABLE just...makes me sick to the core. However, if I am anti cen. then I would have to put that in the 'ok to have available' mind camp.
My friend (who I love dearly) sputtered words like "immoral", etc. (and she is a lefty) my mom said "sick, Ilegal" etc..
But it didn't really answer my question.
So, I think my censorship opinion is really something I must look at. It's either all ok, or its ok to censor.
I dunno..It's a line you have to draw, or not.


----------



## mahrphkjh (Mar 31, 2006)

Making child porn illegal is NOT censorship - the difference with child porn is that most often it involves actual children being used in the photos in sexually explicit situations. Those pictures are proof that a crime is being commited and perpetuated over and over against that child.


----------



## darsmama (Jul 23, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mahrphkjh*
Making child porn illegal is NOT censorship - the difference with child porn is that most often it involves actual children being used in the photos in sexually explicit situations. Those pictures are proof that a crime is being commited and perpetuated over and over against that child.

Thanks so much for explaining that to me. Honestly, you are the only person who didn't freak out and just explained it to me. I appreciate it


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

Opinions, perspectives on history, religious and political views, etc. don't do nearly as much harm as the advocation of illegal practices such as child abuse or the distribution of child pornography. I think that is what our first amendment meant to protect: art, expression, opinon--not advocation of crime or abuse of others, especially children. I don't think people should be able to use freedom of speech to hurt, abuse, even kill children or anyone else. I think the death of the boy beaten with the pipe is proof that children are being abused because of this book.


----------



## Coconut Chronicles (Aug 31, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Arduinna*
As much as I hate the Pearls I don't believe in censoring books. Education, education education.









:


----------



## mahrphkjh (Mar 31, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
I think the death of the boy beaten with the pipe is proof that children are being abused because of this book.

No more so than if a child ended up dying from a disease because they were not vaccinated. Accidents happen, extremes are taken. I do not advocate this book or these people but limiting speach based on preceptions, opinions or even isolated incidences is extremely dangerous for everyone and all ideas.


----------



## RomanGoddess (Mar 16, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mahrphkjh*
Making child porn illegal is NOT censorship - the difference with child porn is that most often it involves actual children being used in the photos in sexually explicit situations. Those pictures are proof that a crime is being commited and perpetuated over and over against that child.

It could be illustrations rather than photos and it would still be censored. Also, there is other pornography that is between consenting adults that is considered considered illegal to distribute because it depicts violence or inhumane acts (particularly toward women). From a feminist perspective, I appreciate why distribution of such "literature" is illegal.


----------



## soygurl (Jan 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *minkajane*
I do still use the website to read reviews and for the wishlist, but I don't buy anything there. Does anyone know of another website with a wishlist function?

http://thethingsiwant.com/ is a universal wishlist site. It works great and I love it!. There is another similar site but I didn't like it as much and don't remember the name.

ETA: Oops. I just realized how old this thread is....

~Kelsie


----------



## minkajane (Jun 5, 2005)

Does Amazon still carry NAMBLA stuff? Last I heard, they stopped carrying the gymnastics videos. If they don't have NAMBLA stuff anymore, I'll shop there again.


----------



## shanesmama (May 11, 2005)

I'm sorry but censorship has nothing to do w/ this book. This is a book on child abuse. How to beat ones kid. The book says not to do it in front of people at church, etc, becuase they might call Soical Services.

Child abuse is illegal!!!

Would it be okay then to have companies selling a book on how to molest little children too, or exploit children, perhaps a book about how to get 8 year old girls in hooker costumes and posing positions. Perhaps this book will tell you to make sure your curtains are closed so other people dont' see what your doing becuase they too might call police on you.

HMMMMM???????????


----------



## soygurl (Jan 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *minkajane*
Does Amazon still carry NAMBLA stuff? Last I heard, they stopped carrying the gymnastics videos. If they don't have NAMBLA stuff anymore, I'll shop there again.

The still have the NAMBLA stuff. I just did a search yesterday after seeing this thread.


----------



## frog (Jun 1, 2005)

I boycotted them after they put the Amazon Book Collective through the wringer. That was enough for me.


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

Quote:

no more so than if a child ended up dying from a disease because they were not vaccinated
I disagree. There is a difference between taking a risk or not performing a medical procedure because of a book and beating your child because of a book. This book itself takes spanking to the extreme; I know spankers that would cringe at its contents. This book isn't encouraging something that may or may not do harm, like vaccinating; it is advocating outright child abuse. Child abuse is illegal, and soliciting crime is a crime in many states. Freedom of speech and censorship don't apply to every subject or it would be fine for an adult to speak asking a child for sex or for a person to try to convince someone else to kill someone. There's a difference between advocating something risky or controversial and advocating something that is always harmful or illegal.

Quote:

Perhaps this book will tell you to make sure your curtains are closed so other people dont' see what your doing becuase they too might call police on you.
ACtually the Pearls book does imply that you should keep your mouth shut about the child abuse and definitely not tell social workers or others you can't trust. If a book has to encourage you to keep quiet about doing something, because you might get in trouble...then you probably shouldn't be doing what they are advocating, because it's probably illegal...and soliciting crime is also illegal in some states. So yeah, I definitely agree. Just because a book isn't child pornography or child abuse, in and of itself, doesn't mean it's not still offensive and/or harmful.


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cmlp*
Even in the most liberal of societies, some censorship is justified. Would you buy a book in a store that sold Hitler's "Mein Kampf"?

What about pornographic material showing women or children being beaten or put through meat grinders. This absolutely exists (even though illegal). Are you against censorship of this material? I would not think twice about boycotting a store that had this kind of material. I suppose whipping of babies does not fall into the same category but still, I think it comes close...

I would absolutely buy from a store that sells Mein Kampf and I probably have although I've never looked for that book. I don't support the views of the Natzi's but many books such as this are important from a historical stand point. In fact I think they should always be published as a way that we can address openly the beliefs we find so abbhorant.

And yes there is always censorship as you said. The censorship that comes from laws, which we may or may not agree with. You citing illegal pictures showing crimes being committed isn't really applicable to the discussion since they are already illegal and as such subject to removal from the store so I'd report them.


----------



## aywilkes (Sep 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Arduinna*
I guess we disagree on the definition of censorship then. Because I see it as a much broader definition than just government. Have you ever lived in an area where you can't get the info you are seeking because someone else has decided that you shouldn't read it? How would you feel if a group decided to boycott bookstores for selling books about gays and lesbians? Or about sex education? Or about vaccine awareness? Or about political views that are controvesial? I can tell you right now that there are plenty of groups that think that those books shouldn't be available either.

I live in a city well known for it's supposed decadence and I can tell you right now that there are books that you don't see on the shelves of the local bookstore that I'm forced to buy at Amazon. I thank the Gods that places like Amazon exist and that I have an internet connection to shop online.

I second that. It kind of reminds me of the Dixie Chicks being "un"played on te radio b/c of their anti-Bush comment.

Plus, although MDC moms view this book as advocating child abuse and don't want that kind of advice, there are things that some AP and no vax parents do that others wouldd consider child abuse. I certainly don't agree with whacking babies though but there are African-centered non mainstream books that I can't get in B &N but can get on Amazon.


----------



## thefragile7393 (Jun 21, 2005)

Every single bookseller sells something that is offensive to someone. That's the beauty of freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Amazon, B&N, Borders (which BTW is teamed with Amazon), they ALL sell Babywise, the Pearls, etc. If a copy isn't availible on B&N, you can order it through one of their authorized dealers. http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...2C+michael&z=y
Powells.com, while not having any in stock, do have a button you can click on to be notified when a copy of the Pearls' books come.

NAMBLA is a legal corporation---sick yes it's VERY sick! As it's a legal corporation some stores may choose to carry their...books or whatever. I'm not sure of the technicalities of how on earth it's able to exist freely but it does.

I see no reason to boycott Amazon when, frankly, you can find offensive stuff at any major or small bookseller. Like I've said before, Amazon is not the only place that sells these books...you might as well boycott libraries that carry the books and all bookstores. If it offends you, don't read it, don't buy it, don't look at it! This all reminds me of the controversies that people make with school libraries wanting certain books taken off the shelves...nevermind that if a child or teen really wants to read a certain book all they have to do is go to the library or bookstore.

People have the right to read whatever sick stuff they want.....it's only when the demand goes down that these people will be out of business. When people are educated and come to see for themselves as to why the messages in these books are horrid and wrong, that people will stop buying/reading these books and they will stop being printed.


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

It's not about it being offensive. It's about it encouraging actions that are dangerous and illegal. Not every single bookseller sells something that solicits crime and encourages doing harm to others. Censoring women who disapprove of the president is a bit different from censoring child abuse advocates, just like censoring a well-spoken satanic worshipper is different from censoring a cussing Christian. Freedom of speech does not apply to everything, and a child abuse manual doesn't seem the kind of expression our ancestors wanted to protect. I think beating a 4-month-old is something most people would consider abuse, as like I've said, there are parents who do spank that think these books are atrocious.


----------



## thefragile7393 (Jun 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
It's not about it being offensive. It's about it encouraging actions that are dangerous and illegal

The real culprits are the people who are publishing and writing this...they don't view this as child abuse. The people who buy the books and apply the counsel within don't view it as child abuse. Why haven't they been arrested and put in jail? Just because we all view it (and know it) as child abuse dosn't mean that everyone in the world who has ever used these books does--that's where the problem is. Yes it's pretty blatently obvious you would think, but apparently it isn't obvious enough because the Pearls, the Ezzos, the Dobsons, all still making the books. Once again, boycotting Amazon isn't going to do much of anything because *if there weren't people wanting these books, they and other booksellers wouldn't be selling them in the first place.* Boycotting Amazon will not refute the bad information or put the Pearls/Ezzos/Dobsons out of business, people will merely go elsewhere to find them, even ordering them straight from the authors themselves. Put fliers in the books, like the ones at www.ezzo.info warning people of what is inside, spread the word any way that you can. As I repeat myself from my earlier post

Quote:

When people are educated and come to see for themselves as to why the messages in these books are horrid and wrong, that people will stop buying/reading these books and they will stop being printed.


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

Then obviously we need a clear definition of what child abuse entails to base our laws on, that way even if everyone in the country can't agree, at least our laws will be based on the majority. The woman who beat her kid with a lead pipe didn't think that was child abuse, but it clearly was. A pedophile might not think he's a child abuser, but that doesn't mean we'll let him go free because he believes he's not hurting anyone.


----------



## thefragile7393 (Jun 21, 2005)

If that would happen, that would be great, for then the Pearls et. al would truely be out of business.


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

Civil rights are never about the majority, if they were we would still have Jim Crow laws ect. It's about the civil rights of kids to have bodily integrity and never having to fear being hit because it's illegal. But pinning that on some concept of majority is a huge mistake.


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

Our government was designed to cater to everyone's civil rights, of course, but based on majority vote. That is what I meant. We elect the decision-makers and thus influence decision-making. We always give the minority a chance to speak their part, but in the end, majority rules. What civil rights we have are based on our Supreme Courts, whom we as a population put into place by voting for the president. Civil rights are thus always about the majority, not in who they apply to but in who choses what civil rights entail.


----------

