The next time you find yourself purchasing a product using the convenient services of Amazon, consider whether it is discomforting for you, as the consumer, to know that they were recently the sellers of "The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure." Some may consider Amazon's initial decision to protect the third party's right to sell the e-book as a protection of individual rights, whereas others potentially may see it as a disgusting and upsetting decision to market a product that clearly necessitates complete censorship. Despite the sensitive nature of the book's subject, any actions of corporate censorship could entail censorship of potentially more disconcerting topics on a larger scale.
Behind every thriving corporation, there's a self-created rulebook, and these companies at times are not subject to the rules of the government. These "strictly business" decisions aren't always corporate moves in the eyes of the public, but they are decisions that could potentially jeopardize the rights of individuals.
Amazon defended its initial decision to circulate copies of the book in a statement made shortly after: "Amazon believes it is censorship not to sell certain books simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable. Amazon does not support or promote hatred or criminal acts, however, we do support the right of every individual to make their own purchasing decisions."
Like many other provocative and offensive pieces, it is ultimately not an illegal act. Paintings that portray mass murders or novels that deal with similar controversial themes do not receive as much outrage and disapproval as this book has. The seller has the freedom to distribute what it pleases as long as there are no explicitly illegal violations, whereas the buyers should have the freedom to decide what they desire to read. By selling "The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure," Amazon was fundamentally protecting the first amendment right to freedom of speech.
Despite its initial statement, Amazon did not hesitate to pull the item from its website to protect and generate sales after an explosion of threats to boycott the website. In the end, Amazon determined what was ethically right without regard to principles and individual rights — in the end it was most likely about revenue, profit loss and the monetary complications of lawsuits.
In an era when search engines provide convenient access to worldwide content and information, it is distressing to realize that a company-generated filter can possibly separate the public from lawful and unlimited content. In an effort to preserve corporate reputation, Amazon inadvertently deprived potential buyers and sellers of their rights. It made the decision to eliminate the circulation of this product, acknowledging the implications of this censorship. Amazon interchangeably shifts between the role of defender of individual rights and that of the corporate filter that promotes censorship.
Senator Al Franken recognizes a growing "Big Brother" threat of content regulation by companies. He argues, "Our free speech rights are under assault — not from the government but from corporations seeking to control the flow of information in America." Amazon is not the equivalent of Google — however, it is a corporate power that threatens to complicate what Senator Franken describes as "net neutrality."
Amazon has joined the forces of content regulation at the expense of the seller's right to freedom of speech. By restricting the sale of certain products, Amazon altered its initial stance to promote the equal sale of all legal products. It has unintentionally become an advocate for censorship, despite how trivial it may appear.
Amazon's decision to cease distribution of the book could trigger more extensive control of product distribution and content regulation if it doesn't actively prevent it. Considering the nature of the book's subject, the company's action may in fact be negligible. However, it is still one large step further away from complete protection of individual rights.
Amazon did not anticipate the possibility that its contradictory actions would create ample opportunity for organizations to promote further censorship. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals saw the public frenzy as an "ideal climate" to criticize the sale of two animal fighting books: "The Art of Cockfighting — A Handbook for Beginners and Old Timers" and "Dogs of Velvet and Steel." The real question is whether Amazon will comply with these censorship demands yet again. It seems that this search for "moral" justice has complicated product distribution for Amazon and jeopardized free speech rights for sellers.
As the company confronts this growing public pressure to discontinue the sale of books that openly discuss controversial topics, Amazon may be unwillingly subjected to a coercive course toward censorship, but it has the resources and authority to fight against it. As the Los Angeles Times put it, Amazon can decide what it wishes to sell in the market without illegally violating any constitutional amendment. Because it is a corporation and not the government, its marketing decision is "a business decision, not a constitutional one."
Amazon may not be a government institution, but it is still its responsibility to uphold a company standard that protects individual rights. These influential and powerful corporations should take a strong stance to protect individual rights, and keep it.
Elizabeth Perez '13 is an economics and international relations concentrator from Hollywood, Calif. She can be contacted at elizabeth_perez (at) brown.edu.
