I have to agree with the anti censorship crowd here (rem and francois, et al )
Basically, people are applying a "sliding scale" rule for what they find offensive. I'm 110% sure there are other books that Amazon sells that you guys find "offensive" that you will not boycott, but since pedophilia is a "hot button" issue, and one that may be a bit close to home for some, we can all rally behind this one.
Like most of you, I abhor pedophiles and think they are the vilest of humans. I also abhor racist, most of you probably do too. But does that mean that a book like Mein Kampf should be banned from bookstores because it presents ideas we disagree with? You can make the argument that reading Hitler's book could impress on the mind of some people, turn them into anti-semites, and they can start doing horrible things, even kill some people. However, is banning Hitler's book truly the answer, and doesn't Hitler have a right to express his views? Wouldn't it be much more effective, and indeed morally better, simply to discredit Hitler's claims instead of supressing his nonsense?
Should we try to supress a book simply because the majority does not like it? Unless there is illegal material published in there, I think this is an immoral stance. Where would we objectively draw the line? Would it be OK for fundy christains (if they become a majority), to try to ban Amazon.com from selling books that proclaim homosexuality not to be morally wrong? This would be a big issue for them, for such a thing would be considered a form of blashemy or something, right? Should they be allowed to censure because it's a "hot button" issue? Afterall, Amazon doesn't have to sell books like that, right?
I still don't get the people who say that Amazon is "promoting" pedophilia. They also sell anti-pedophilia books, so perhaps they (Amazon) are confused ? To say that this book will turn people into pedophiles seems baseless, as pedophiles don't learn their "craft" from reading pseudo-scientific books, but by other means. This book will only justify actions in the minds of already sick people, and can provide insight (for researchers, doctors, even laymen like us) into the minds of these disturbed people, and afford us an opportunity to rebut their nonsense (as an Amazon person has done, among others). This excersize in open debate may potentially help some pedophiles to see the folly of their ways, but even if it doesn't the pedophile has a right to express his opinion nontheless (we should keep a close eye on the author of this book, though).
Freedom of speech is too precious, IMO, to supress simply because people don't agree with a person's view (and YES you are trying to supress speech by making it harder to get the book, like the JW org. does with its older publications).
