Does any one else have issues with Amazon.com hiding behind the 1st Amendment?

Question

I was sickened to find out Amazon.com is selling books on how to raise and train fighting pit-bulls. I was troubled even further when I contacted them about this and they hid behind the 1st Amendment. I am all for free speech and not trying to suggest censoring anyone, but I think there are limits! I was going to jokingly ask if they would sell a manual on how to build an A-bomb, but then I checked their site and they actual do! Maybe I am sensitive because I lost many friends on 9/11 and I own a dog that was raised for “bait” and “raping” (she was 2 of 35 dogs that did not have to be euthanized and it took almost 2 years to nurse her back to health).

I think there is line where the rights invoked by the 1st Amendment need to be tempered against moral and ethical responsibility.

Am I wrong?

If you agree, PLEASE boycott Amazon.com and pass this info along to all that you can. If you disagree, then look at this as my way of exercising my rights to the 1st Amendment.

Tater - I don't feel I am hiding behind the 1st Amendment. I came right out and said what I had to say. How is that hiding? I am simply opening a question I have for other people's opinion. I am not confused about anything, I know what I think and feel and was curious to see what others felt about this issue. Seems like you might be confused because you won't allow me to speak my opinion with out slurs.

I truly appreciate the responses. I wanted to see how other people felt on this issue and am open to all the replies. I just want to clarify that no where in my post did I say Amazon.com did not have the RIGHT to sell these materials. My intent was/is awareness.

Based on responses I have an additional question (and I truly pose this in an effort to understand, not to incite); as an analogy, why is it illegal to own/possess a bong if one is not actively using it and the police find it? If the act of smoking pot is illegal, and the police consider a bong as “paraphernalia”, then why isn’t the same for a book outlining the details of how to commit an illegal activity? FYI - I never claimed to be a saint and broke this law in my college days.

Answer 1

I agree with you.. people shouldn't be allowed to use the first amendment to justify promoting illegal activities..

if this is allowed, then where do they draw the line? what if they had a book that gave instructions on how to trick children into getting into your van? or a book that gives all the recipes for designer drugs?

I know that our founding fathers didn't have this crap in mind when they came up with the term "free speech"..

Answer 2

Amazon has the right to list any book on any topic they like. The inventory is based on whether the public has an interest on such a topic. If no one buys it, then it is eliminated. If the book bothers you fine, more power to you. You do not have to buy the book. But please do not impose your views on to the buying public. What you are advocating is far worse than some obscure book on dog fighting. Did you read the book? Do you know what it contains? What the message is? You are being way too "moral" here, I don't recall anyone placing you in a position to be the book police. Get over it!!! If the topic really bothers you that much then start working at an animal shelter etc. I'm sure that book has been in circulation for quite sometime and you lived just fine not knowing about its exsistance. Stop being so judgmental and oppressive in your views. You will be much better off.

Answer 3

You ask about where the line is.

I also ask the same question. Where do you draw the line if you want them to ban books about dog fighting. What if didn't like a certain religion, drugs, sex, masturbation ect? Where is that line. If you don't like this material, don't buy it and don't let your kids have it.

If amazon.com is selling things that are legal to possess, I would no problem with them selling it.

Look at it this way. You are the prosecutor trying to convict Michael Vick...you want a book about dog fighting so you don't look like an idiot if this thing has to go to court. You try to buy a book on it from amazon.com...but someone doesn't want it on there and they took it down. Oh no....you go to court unprepared and Vick walks.

A bit far fetched, but the point is, knowledge isn't always evil.

Answer 4

Yes, you are wrong. If you don't like the books, don't buy them. That's it.

The First Amendment was created so that you, as the consumer, can refuse to buy books you disagree with -- others don't have to stop writing, publishing or selling them. You can also do what you're doing here and argue against dog fighting (which I also agree is horrible, but that's not related to free speech).

Answer 5

Some people reference so-called bad books for just that...referencing. Not all people that want to read up on dog fighting and or dirty bombs plan to engage in that activity. Banning such books just makes us a dumber people. It's unfortunate that some people would indeed look for a book to teach themselves how to be a jackass. Once you start limiting what people can and can't read, you start treading dangerous territory and limit people.

Answer 6

Your doing the only thing you really can do in boycotting, remember in this country we have to take the good with the bad, if the government passes a law that censors books on fighting pit bulls then it opens the flood gates for any book to be censored.

Answer 7

Love animals and have no subject with Amazon merchandising those books. you could not start up drawing strains in the process the 1st modification with the aid of fact which you sense some thing is immoral (and that i agree, canines-scuffling with is). Doing so will merely create extra gray factors in accordance with each and each persons' values and thoroughly undermine the intentions of the modification to start with. i'm against canines-scuffling with, yet i'm unable to declare that I disagree with the business enterprise. EDIT: possessing a bong isn't unlawful. possessing a bong with drug residue in it fairly is. possessing a canines-scuffling with e book isn't unlawful. possessing a canines-scuffling with e book with pictures of you committing unlawful canines-scuffling with acts could desire to get you in subject. :) i will work out your factor however.

Answer 8

You are incorrect in my opinion for the following reason.

They DO have the right to sell these items. They are not illegal, and thus are legal to sell.

Moral and ethical responsibility? Sites that have those are for people with ethics and morals.

That's your power. Choose not to buy from them.

Use your own free speech to speak up about how you feel about it, even suggesting that people should consider whether they purchase anything from them. That's your right.

And you've used it, well.

I disagree. I will still buy at Amazon.

Keep speaking up. Your post brings awareness.

Answer 9

Why is it okay for you to hide behind the 1st Amendment but not okay for Amazon.com?
You are not for censorship but there should be limits...if you censor a book then you are limiting the speech of the writer.
Sounds like someone is a tad bit confused about what they think...
Edit: You hide behind the 1st Amendment by criticizing Amazon.com but you want them to stop them from expressing their 1st Amendment rights by stopping them from selling a book you don't like.
I expressed my opinion that you appear to be confused by on the 1 hand using your 1st Amendment right to criticize Amazon.com but on the other hand trying to suppress their 1st Amendment right to sell a book you don't like.
I don't think I'm confused since I'm not arguing both for and against the same thing.
Now I have exercised my 1st Amendment right.