In
the technical sense, the First Amendment applies somewhat in a limited way to
life. It typically has to do with a
government’s restriction on free speech.
But does its spirit apply to the book world? Can retailers decide not to sell a book simply
because they don’t agree with what a book says?
Amazon
recently removed a pair of books that claim to contain cures for autism, according to the New York Times. It is a move “that follows recent efforts by several
social media sites to limit the availability of anti-vaccination and other
pseudo-scientific material.”
On
the one hand, you might applaud them for scrubbing the shelves of ignorant if
not dangerous, views. But the other hand says:
Who determines which views are wrong, unproven, or dangerous? And even if a book is deemed to not be in the
public’s interest, should it be banned by the nation’s dominant and largest
book retailer?
Think
back at books that suggested civil rights, women’s rights, and the abolishment of
the death penalty were good things.
Think back when people advocated for gay marriage. Then think of how the laws and nation’s mood
were contrary to those books. Would censorship
of such books back then been harmful to public discourse?
Think
about books that discussed chiropractors and alternative medicines or holistic
treatments. A few generations ago
chiropractors were ridiculed. Now
everyone sees one.
Think
about books in favor of marijuana legalization in the 1980s, when the nation had
a bloody war over crack and cocaine. Such books now are embraced.
The
list goes on and on. Take any major
social ill, political issue, or human right.
Books have and will come out to support a side that the vast majority or
institutions detest. A few generations
later the tables are turned.
That
doesn’t mean that these autism cure books have validity nor does it mean that
current science knows everything about autism.
The epidemics caused by non-conformity on vaccinations comes, in part,
because medicine has not helped prevent or treat the increased incidents of autism and so
in the vacuum of the unknown and fear, we try to desperately find solutions,
reasons, or alternative ways to help. If
science knew everything, we’d know whether these books have merit or not.
I do
believe in free speech to the point that it should allow all books to exist and
be sold. Should they come with a warning
label? Should there be a database of
books people deem inaccurate? Should the
media and scientific community do a better job of combating
misinformation? Maybe it’s up to the
courts. Let parents of autistic children sue, and say these books are lies.
Otherwise
so many books would disappear fast, without consistency or fairness. How many books on dieting and investing
should be banned? How man novels that
fantasize a slew of crimes should be censored?
What if Amazon doesn’t agree with one’s politics? would it sell an expose about
Amazon?
Free
speech means access to all writings and ideas.
We have to put up with some garbage in order for the bigger truths to
become apparent. If a book really could
cause harm, sue the publisher and prove your case. Otherwise, allow for a spectrum of views to
co-exist and may the facts and truth win out.
DON”T MISS THESE!!!
Some key principles to rally your book marketing around
How to write powerful, effective book advertising copy
that sells tons of books
So what is needed to be a champion book marketer?
The Book Marketing Strategies Of Best-Sellers
How authors can sell more books
No. 1 Book Publicity Resource: 2019 Toolkit For Authors
-- FREE
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.