After Amazon.com banned his book "Nobody Died at Sandy Hook," Jim Fetzer became famous virtually overnight for being selectively silenced by Amazon.com due to the political conclusions of his book.
Amazon.com has now decided it is your Orwellian Big Brother, and it alone will now decide what you're not allowed to read. Any book that questions the official narratives of the corrupt Obama administration may now be subject to "online book burning," reminiscent of the actions of the Third Reich in World War II. (Ironically, Amazon.com is happy to continue selling "Mein Kampf" by Adolf Hitler, which calls for genocide against Jews...)
15 comments
Mike (a Nazi himself, btw) is clearly against private enterprise. Amazon being one such.
It is a good point about Mein Kampf, though: why do they sell that, if they have a policy of not selling offensive material?
Amazon is a private company and they may sell or not sell anything they like. It is not "censorship". Mein Kompf is considered a historical document that provides insight into the insanity of, arguably, the worst butcher in history while the sandy Hook book makes claims that the friends and relatives of the victims would find extremely upsetting. A comparison isn't even "apples and oranges". It's apples and raw sewage.
I believe every book (As long as it's not plagiarized from someone else) has every right to be published, Oh course I also believe that book providers and stores have every right to refuse to sell or carry a book. Amazon is not "Silencing" Jim Fetzer they simply don't want to support his book in any way.
They are not deciding what we can ready they are deciding what THEY want to carry. Big difference.
While I agree 100% with points raised above, it does concern me when a first-stop resource (e.g. Amazon, Google, etc.) refuses to engage certain topics, especially when that merchant has the practical space to keep a supply.
It's an uncomfortable precedent when such an important source of knowledge decides to not permit some information while allowing others, regardless of kookiness.
While private enterprise can certainly engage anything it wants, I think once you hit a certain size and importance, it's unethical to restrict information.
Amazon.com has now decided it is your Orwellian Big Brother, and it alone will now decide what you're not allowed to read.
No, they've decided as a private business what books they care to carry and which ones they don't. Why are you against free enterprise and allowing businesses to make their own decisions?
@Opaque
It's an uncomfortable precedent when such an important source of knowledge decides to not permit some information while allowing others, regardless of kookiness.
You're assuming that they are refusing to sell it because it promotes the idea that Sandy Hook was a government plot and not because the book is poorly-written garbage. I'm not saying it is, because I haven't read the book, but that's always a possibility. Or they may only want to sell books they know will sell well. Very few books, even well-written ones, get on the shelf if the bookstore doesn't think anyone will buy it.
I guess that’s one of the drawbacks of us living in the age of self-publishing. Only a few years ago, such a book most likely wouldn’t have found a publisher and the author’s only option would be having it printed on his own costs by a vanity publisher. No one would have expected any book dealer to stock such a book.
Now with easy self-publishing and e-books, every crank feels entitled to have their “magnum opus” sold by Amazon
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
