I Was Proud of You, Amazon

In library school, we get a version of ethics training. It often centers around a case study involving both censorship and privacy, using the book Final Exit as an example: a teenage girl comes into the library asking for that book, then checks it out. What happens next? How would you feel if the girl then committed suicide? What if the family confronts you? Should the library have had the book at all?

Most librarians – myself included – are passionate supporters of access to information, protection of privacy, and anti-censorship. It’s why we make such a big deal out of Banned Books Week, and why we were the most outspoken group against the government’s right to access patron’s library records. It is NOT up to a library, government, bookseller, church, or school to universally decide what book should or should not be available to the public. It’s not even up to the general public. The Constitution guarantees this.

This is why I was so proud of Amazon for refusing pull a controversial book from their inventory. When Phillip R Greaves’ self-published ebook, The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure, was met with outrage and threats of boycott, Amazon released a statement saying, it “believes it is censorship not to sell certain books simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable.” Yes, the content was about something upsetting and illegal – though keep in mind that it’s not illegal to talk about something illegal. But there is little difference between this book and Final Exit, The Anarchist’s Cookbook, The Fermata, and countless others – including, as a friend of mine points out, Dexter, which is a step-by-step guide to serial killing which is now a popular tv series. I don’t hear anyone calling for that to be banned. Oh wait, it’s fiction, so it’s ok. Oh wait, who’s making these decisions anyway?

It is a scary, scary world when every book has to pass through an approval process before being accessible to the public, even if that approval process is whether or not it causes mass moral outrage. Someone said that banning the Greaves book was a “no-brainer.” Well, in some places, it’s a “no-brainer” to ban books about gay people, or Jewish people, or interracial couples. I can name dozens – hundreds! – of books that cause(d) moral outrage, including HARRY POTTER.

So who decides what’s a “no-brainer??” Librarians? Sarah Palin? The exces at Amazon? The guy in the cube next to me?  Hell, I’m a manager at Barnes & Noble, so why don’t I just start pulling books I don’t like off the site? I’ll start with all the Holocaust denial literature, since that’s a “no brainer.”

As I am writing this, Amazon seems to have pulled the book. I’m not completely surprised; they have a lot to lose, especially facing a boycott in the holiday season (and they are a store, not a library). Yet with their power, they also had a chance to take a stand and protect the liberties this country is supposed to represent: “I don’t like what you’re saying, but I respect your right to say it.” This argument is NOT about the content of the book – it’s about a right to self-expression and access to information. And by calling for its ban, the public hasn’t just stripped away Greaves’ rights, but all of ours, as well.