Amazon.com - Pedophilia is Objectionable

I sent the following letter off to voice my complaint; it explains what I wanted to say.

February 3, 2007

Amazon.com
Public Relations Department

Subject: Pedophilia is Objectionable

Dear Sirs;

I came across an article by Glib Fortuna while reading one of my regular blogs, Stop the ACLU, entitled, “Amazon defiantly, unexplainably continues to line pockets of a child molester” (link provided below). In the article was a response to a complaint regarding Amazon.com’s policy to include the work of a pedophile as a regular stock item.

“Thank you for writing to Amazon.com. As a retailer, our goal is to provide customers with the broadest selection possible so they can find, discover, and buy any item they might be seeking. That selection includes some items which many people may find objectionable. Therefore, the items offered on our web site represent a wide spectrum of opinions on a variety of topics Amazon.com believes it is censorship not to display certain articles because we believe their message is objectionable.” ( emphasis was added by Glib Fortuna in his article )

http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2007/02/03/amazon-defiantly-unexplainably-continues-to-line-pockets-of-a-child-molester/#comment-36382

I commented that this would fall under self censorship or the right not to do business with scum. It isn’t any different than the publishing house that backed away from OJ’s book, even if that took an angry public to force them into making that happen. The public’s outcry does have significant power. I enjoy the ability to purchase books and other forms of entertainment through the convenience of your site; fact is I made a purchase this past week and am awaiting its arrival.

I’ve never been a multi million dollar company with the ability to do what ever I pleased without regard for the loss of one or two customers, treating even the smallest customer who chooses to do business with me as if he/she were my only customer. I would think that companies which have the benefit of such power as Amazon.com could be more selective in their choice of marketing standards, call it censorship if you will; but you also have an obligation to maintain a minimum level of moral decency to be considered reputable.

Thank you,


T. F. Stern