Canceled by Amazon: Clarence Thomas, Michael Brown documentaries, books on gender top growing list
By: Ryan Anderson (Fox News)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
When Harry Became Sally' author Ryan Anderson details the situation on 'The Ingraham Angle'
Amazon, the online retailer founded by liberal billionaire Jeff Bezos, has developed a reputation for canceling content that doesn't coincide with progressive politics.
In recent memory Amazon has removed books from its online store, used its web services to deplatform a social media app popular with conservatives an even blocked a film about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas from its streaming service.
Amazon has developed a reputation for canceling content that doesn't coincide with progressive politics. (Reuters/Carlos Jasso)
Here are some of the examples so far:
The documentary about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas vanished from Amazon's streaming service during Black History Month. The film, which chronicles Thomas' journey from "the depths of poverty" to the Supreme Court and everything in between, features archival footage of then-Sen. Joe Biden grilling Anita Hill during the infamous confirmation hearings.
Filmmaker Michael Pack told the Wall Street Journal that he was never offered an explanation as to why Amazon removed it.
Our distributor, who's the one who made the deal with Amazon, has repeatedly asked them for explanations but they haven't given any," Pack told the Journal. "I don't think Amazon should get away with doing these things without suffering at least some PR consequences."
Conservative author Ryan T. Anderson said this week his book, "When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment," was removed from Amazon last month.
"When Harry Became Sally," which had previously been on Amazon's bestseller list, aimed to provide "thoughtful answers to questions arising from our transgender moment" and offered a "a balanced approach to public policy on gender identity, and a sober assessment of the human costs of getting human nature wrong."
A search of Amazon for "When Harry Became Sally" doesn't find Anderson's book, instead suggesting books with the opposite view such as "The End of Gender: Debunking the Myths about Sex and Identity in Our Society," "Understanding Gender Dysphoria: Navigating Transgender Issues in a Changing Culture" and "Let Harry Become Sally: Responding to the Anti-Transgender Moment."
Parler
Parler, a social media platform popular with conservatives because of its emphasis on free specch, was booted off Google Play and the Apple App Store following the deadly Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol. Soon after, Amazon Web Services disconnected Parler from its servers with just 24 hours notice.
"Unreported Truths about COVID-19 and Lockdowns"
Amazon initially told Alex Berenson last year his booklet on coronavirus, "Unreported Truths about COVID-19 and Lockdowns: Part 1," didn't meet the company's guidelines.
The former New York Times reporter quickly launched a protest on Twitter, calling the move "outrageous censorship from a company that gained hugely from lockdown" as millions were forced to shop online. SpaceX CEO Elon Musk and other prominent journalists defended Berenson, and Amazon eventually allowed the book to be sold on its platform. It became the No. 1 best seller in Amazon's Kindle Store once the online retailer allowed it to be available.
Berenson had been outspoken about the country's response to the coronavirus outbreak, irking liberals in the process. At the time, Amazon told Fox News it was an "error" and the book shouldn't have been held up, but Berenson had his doubts.
"They didn't say to me that it was a mistake… I do believe that I'm not the only person who has run into this. They need to be clear what their position is on publishing controversial material on political issues," Berenson told Fox News at the time.
"It doesn't seem to me that this was an error, but I don't know."
Similar situations occurred when Berenson released additional sections of the series.
"What Killed Michael Brown?"
Filmmaker Eli Steele said last year Amazon blocked his film about the death of Michael Brown from appearing on its platform and he feels it was simply because his story "is not the politically correct narrative."
Brown's 2014 death sparked massive demonstrations in Ferguson, Mo., and around the country, helping solidify the Black Lives Matter movement in the process. Amazon told Steele via email that the film did not meet the tech giant's "content quality expectations" and would not be eligible to appear on the service.
"We will not be accepting resubmission of this title and this decision may not be appealed," Amazon's email added.
"Never once did it occur to me that the film would be rejected for content," Steele told Fox News at the time. "It was shocking to me... if you watch the film, you hear voices from all over."
He said Amazon allows other Brown-related films that are the "appropriate narrative," compared to the one his father penned.
"Our side is not the politically correct narrative," he said. "We speak the truth... we make no assumptions, no conspiracy, we don't do any of that. It's an intellectual film, it's not a conspiracy film or anything that would warrant being blocked."
Washington Redskins merchandise
The Washington Football Team has ditched the offensive nickname and Amazon made sure that nostalgic fans can't pick up any of the old gear. Amazon removed Redskins merchandise from its site back in July, a few days before the team officially scrapped the moniker.
Ads for "Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters"
A prominent conservative publisher alleged last year that Amazon suspended a paid ad campaign for one of its books, claiming that it contains objectionable content about sexual orientation.
An email obtained by Fox News showed Amazon's Advertising Support service defending its decision to suspend Regnery Publishing's campaign for "Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters."
The book was written by Abigail Shrier, who has been outspoken on the issue, and, according to its description, it warns that ideas surrounding gender are prompting teenage girls to "disfigur[e] their bodies" with courses of testosterone.
A Regnery spokesperson said at the time the ad itself wouldn't have displayed the book description but simply buying options along with a photo of the cover, which features a drawing of a young girl with a hole in her abdomen.
In an email Regnery provided and said was sent by Amazon, the online retailer said: "It contains elements that may not be appropriate for all audiences, which may include ad copy/book content that infers or claims to diagnose, treat, or question sexual orientation. Hence, this campaign will not be allowed to be advertised."
Tags
Who is online
38 visitors
Good people don't ban books. As long as views counter to the progressive world view are being banned we will continue to hear the practice defended.
Books aren't being banned. A business is simply choosing not to sell certain books. There's a difference. And Amazon has the right to select what products it sells.
When all is said and done Gordy, what Amazon has done amounts to book banning and censorship.
Why are they afraid of different viewpoints?
You mean many businesses are choosing not to sell certain books.
The seed is about one business...Amazon. Do you have the names of the other businesses?
BS. go to a library or Barnes & Noble.
Exactly.
How many Christian book stores carry any books about trans anything, pro or con?
Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters
is linked to a book review on a gospel website, but to buy the book. there is a link to Amazon.
It is also available at Barnes & Noble.
So much hand wringing over nothing.
No Gordy, apparently now the conservative position is that government should dictate what services and products private business sell. But don’t worry, it’s not socialism because reasons.
Well then maybe the books aren’t worth selling? Market forces and all that, if a business stands to lose more by selling a book than by not selling it, well the obvious choice is to not sell it.
Right, but usually a store would choose to not sell a book because they can't make money selling it. They don't stock it because it doesn't sell. Here, we're talking about not selling a book because they don't like the content. That's the same reason that oppressive governments burn books. So, it's not all that different. Both are trying to hide opinions they dislike.
Same as the Christian baker choosing what kind of cakes he'll make.
What the huh?
That is their prerogative. But it's not banning books. So what's the problem?
Not even close. A business can choose what products it sells or not.
Irrelevant. A business is out to make a profit and entice customers. A business is not likely to offer a product they think will alienate dissuade customers. The same holds true if a product is not making money.
A poor analogy. Amazon is not a government and the actual government isn't burning books.
I dunno, ask all the radio stations that banned the Dixie Chicks.
Ok. Still you can all go to the publisher for Josh Hawley. I am sure you will have a grand time bashing all of your bogey men with testosterone poisoning.
I suppose they do. However, I buy a lot of books from Amazon. I won't be doing so in the future and I will be letting them know why. I don't need them telling me what books I can read and which I can't, which is what they are essentially doing, in my opinion. They are trying to promote a specific viewpoint over another. I'm not going to enrich them for that. This, you see, is a way I can use my dollars as votes. I hope other like minded people will join me. Further, I won't be buying anything at all from Amazon until they change this policy.
Neither of those points seem to be applicable here.
Then you did not understand the analogy or you simply refuse to acknowledge the truth of it. I never tried to claim Amazon was a government and I did not reference anything that would require it. I wrote of reasons for actions. You seem eager to ignore that. Although if you're going to defend this kind of thing, I guess you'd have to.
That seems to be mostly what is going on here. From what I've read, no one was complaining about those items being sold on Amazon. This seems to have nothing to do with either profit or alienating customers but, rather, what seems to be an attempt to keep differing points of view from reaching the public. That is, promoting one and suppressing another.
I find that to be expected, however. There seem to be forces herding the masses into a desired direction and less and less people are putting up a fight. It's as if the effort is to disconnect us from not only our past but reality as well.
I also cancelled by Amazon account. It will be inconvenient, but that's how it goes.
That is your prerogative.
They are not telling you what books you can read. They are simply not offering certain books for sale.
A business is driven by market forces.
They are perfectly applicable.
No, it's simply a bad analogy.
You made a comparison to government: "That's the same reason that oppressive governments burn books. So, it's not all that different. Both are trying to hide opinions they dislike."
You made an assumption. But I'd guess you'd have to since you do not know the exact reason.
Remember what you said about the Dr Seuss books? That I could get them on ebay?
Guess what?
I love the way you did that. This seed is specifically about what Amazon has cancelled, but there are other businesses who have been a part of this orchestrated effort. If you don't know that, you are woefully uninformed and if you do, you shouldn't be asking the question.
You're making it up as you go along. There is no orchestrated effort to ban books. No one wants to buy those books. Why the hell should Amazon continue to sell them?
Also you said Bezos is a liberal. Really?
And the idiots who burned their CDs!
I'm sure Amazon WILL REALLY MISS YOUR BUSINESS! LOL!
Declarations that Amazon is banning books is as ridiculous as claiming Blockbuster was banning adult films because they didn't rent such material out back in the video store age.
I don't see how you can say this and then say...
The reason given for not offering the books is not due to market forces. They say so themselves. So I don't understand what you are trying to sell here.
Since there is no reason given for not selling the books, it's just an assumption it's due to ideological disagreement from the company based on nothing more than opinion from a biased source. Given that market forces influence company product marketing or availability, it's not unreasonable to think Amazon doesn't want to offer an unmoving product or risk putting off their clientele.
there were 802 copies available at that time, now there are 139 mostly over $400 up to $4000
Much more moderately priced on FaceBook MarketPlace. 50 or so copies plus some books that were bundled together including one or more discontinued books.
Poshmark has multiple listings
There is still choice...
While Amazon "delisted" the discontinued books, the top nine best sellers yesterday were Dr Suess books.
Sounds like solid marketing by the Suess people.
Did you ever read one of those books to your kids or do you remember being read one of those stories as a child?
Question. Do you think they sell every book currently available, in every language, world wide?
If not, is that marketing or censorship
That is your opinion and an option.
There is no election...
Your choice. Let's see if anyone notices.
Vic, if there were 63 books published, I probably had them all. With VHS tapes, too.
Meanwhile to make your point of the silliness of Amazon and others, this is still available from Amazon.
It makes no sense at all, except to Frank Barnaby
That no reason for not selling the books is given is part of the problem, Gordy. And what you are describing as biased sources are the authors of the content being censored. If it were "market forces" as you postulate, would that not clearly be in the contract that if the product didn't move so many units within a given timeframe the product would be removed? And even if it weren't in the contract, how hard would it be to simply say they dropped it because it wasn't moving?
But the biggest reason your premise is ridiculous is that Amazon lists products it doesn't actually have in stock and haven't for years and doesn't know if it ever will again. Further, they don't even have to stock it. Sellers can list their product on Amazon, people search for it on Amazon, Amazon notifies the seller and the seller ships it, not Amazon.
Lastly, we don't know what the "market forces" would even be because they aren't allowed to be sold. Example:
So, you can keep on trying to sell what you're selling but I think you know everything I've said here already and you understand it as well as I do. It seems to me the only reason you keep on with the nonsense is that you disagree with the views being censored so you don't mind them being censored. Whatever. If that's your "scientific standard" for truth there's not much I can do about it. But, personally, I find it fairly frightening that something with the power Amazon wields can manipulate the public like this and get away with it. Until yesterday I had a Kindle account and I've bought a lot of books on it. Amazon knows my reading habits, yet even so, it pushed books by authors they had to know I would disagree with. And kept on pushing them. They weren't making suggestions according to my preferences, they were making them according to theirs.
Shop somewhere else.
It’s called freedom. Take full advantage of it and stop whining because you think it’s unfair that they don’t carry your products.
There are still some Places you can as well purchase “ Birth of a Nation” if ya really need it.
Depends on exactly what you mean. Does Amazon itself "sell every book currently available, in every language, world wide?" If so, no, they don't. Amazon as the seller only sells what itself stocks. But not all that is sold on Amazon actually comes from Amazon. Sellers that are not part of Amazon sell on Amazon and when a sale is registered, Amazon notifies the actual seller, which is not Amazon, to complete the sale and send the product. So, actually, what is the limiting factor concerning what books are sold world wide are limited by both what Amazon sells and non-Amazon sellers list with the company. Presumably, every book ever written in whatever language it has been published in can be sold on Amazon.
Yes, it is both of those things. But as I told Gordy, until yesterday I had an Amazon and an Kindle account. I have bought a LOT of books on Kindle and they definitely know my preferences. Even so, early last year they started pushing me book suggestions that were the opposite of my preferences. Why would they do that if they weren't pushing a particular ideology, one they had to know was counter to my own? The only answer I can think of is that they simply don't care what my preferences are in this case.
And, again, while it is my opinion and an option, they don't come out of thin air. They are based on something. If Amazon bans certain books that present an opposing view to books they do allow and aren't egregiously ridiculous (a determination I prefer to make myself rather than Amazon, thank you) one has to wonder why they are doing so, especially when no reason is given and only one side of the argument appears to be being censored. One can pretend that Amazon not giving a reason for banning the books on its site means their answer isn't necessarily nefarious but if that held any water and the answer wasn't nefarious, why do they refuse to give an explanation?
That's totally untrue. Capitalism is one of the most democratic systems out there. Every single day someone spends a dollar they are voting. When someone buys an Apple phone over a Samsung phone or other brand, that person is voting for Apple, making it more successful. Every time someone goes to one grocery store over another because they feel the first store has better produce they are voting. If the second store loses more and more customers to the first store because it doesn't offer what the customer wants, it will likely eventually fail. Most of our dollars are in a very real sense, votes for one product over another.
I am under no illusion that Amazon is going to have a board meeting to discuss the emergency my cancellation fails to generate. Later tonight I will write an email to Amazon no one is likely to care about. I know I have inconvenienced myself by not using Amazon any more and will lose the convenience. But I'm tired of just having to accept what I don't agree with because doing otherwise is just too much bother.
Even so, it bothers me greatly that an entity with the power of Amazon believes it has the right to suppress dissenting opinions. It bothers me still more that so many who've commented on this have no problem with Amazon doing so. Yet, if Bezos suddenly had an epiphany of some sort and became a committed Christian, many of these same people would suddenly have a serious problem with Amazon if Amazon started banning books on the "virtues" of Transgenderism, right to choose concerning abortion and other progressive issues. Suddenly, it would matter and they would be the one's cancelling their accounts and calling for boycotts. So a reasonable person should be able to see that the issue isn't necessarily what's being banned but that an entity as powerful as Amazon is trying to control what people are allowed access to.
That's just wrong. And so, I cancelled my account. Will anyone notice? Assuredly not. But if enough people say to Amazon "I'm perfectly capable of making my own choices, thank you very much, so I will send my votes (dollars) to someone who doesn't think they can control what I have access to," maybe Amazon will change their practice. If enough people do it then they will notice if they want to remain in business.
Um, yeah!?! That's why I cancelled my account, right??? Or did you just assume I'd meant I'd never buy anything online again?
If you think it's about unfairness because of the product, you don't understand the issue. It's unfair because Amazon thinks it has the right to control your access to certain arguments and ideas and only promote ideas Amazon wants you to have. If that doesn't upset you then I can't imagine what would.
Oh, and thanks for the unsubtle slight on my character, although I'm glad I can obtain "Birth of a Nation" should I ever need it. Your slight, however, definitely gives me insight as to why what Amazon is doing doesn't bother you, so thanks.
So you are reasonable and anyone who disagrees is not. Got it.
Welcome to the human dilemma.
The whole purpose of a business is to maximize profits and the customer base. So a company will probably take steps to ensure that happens. This includes not offering products that might compromise profits or customers. But since the current trend is to jump on the so called "cancel culture" bandwagon and compliance about "big tech" companies, it's easy to see the author of the seeded article playing to a particular base by doing so. It's not really about what Amazon sells or doesn't sell. It's about attacking a "big tech" company under the guise of "being censored," which is just BS!
It doesn’t bother me because EVERY business has the right to chose what they sell. Their reasons vary, as is their right. In that sense every business has an agenda of their own. Some altruistic, some ambitious, some merely Curious, and some purely for monetary gain. And all of those choices are subjective to the owner of the business. Their business is a reflection of them.
If I want to find a particular read, I know where to look to find it. I’m not bothered by the reason why some sell some books and others don’t.
That’s America; choosing who you want to be.
Cool. Then you're okay with the Little Sisters of the Poor or any other business not providing what's being called "reproductive health" if they don't want to, right?
Some nice rationalizing, Gordy! Really nice.
Selling books and providing health care are continents apart. No comparison.
Put this In another way, that compares apples to apples.
My local Christian bookstore doesn’t sell Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses. As a matter of fact very, very few do. Are they censoring? Do they have an agenda?
I am aware of the store’s stances, and know what is available in their store. If they don’t carry what I want, I go somewhere else.
I do not concern myself about why I couldn’t get it there. Agendas are ubiquitous In our culture. Rather than railing against their Right to chose whatever they want to sell, and worrying about the agenda behind that decision, perhaps I should be asking myself if any of this even remotely affects my liberty. And, of course it doesn’t.
Knew you were going to say this. You also say:
If you really believed what you said, you'd apply the same to a company's health care. "I am aware of the company's health care offering, which doesn't provide the " 'reproductive healthcare' " that I desire so I will look for some other place to work that does provide it."
There's absolutely no obligation whatsoever for any company to provide it's employees healthcare unless it is a negotiated benefit between the worker and the company, just like salary. So why do you think they aren't comparable???? Why do you think they aren't obligated to sell a particular book but are obligated to provide demanded medical insurance? Where's the non-obligation as to one and obligation to the other????
Please! No one goes to a Christian book store in order to get something that isn't concerned with Christianity in some fashion. No one goes to a college bookstore to try to find their favorite Louis Lamoure western. No one goes to a hobby store hoping to find books about plate tectonics. This is because they do have an agenda and it is reasonably assumed by the name or function of the place of business.
Booksellers, such as Amazon or Barnes and Noble however, do have an expectation of providing whatever book is asked for, within reason. For instance, no one would expect either entity to sell them an original copy of the Guttenberg Bible or a rare copy only found in a few collections. People do have an expectation that they can buy most everything else, especially something new, unless it's something outrageous like the Joy of Pedophilia or something.
Like just about anything, one has to consider the subject. In the case of the Satanic Verses, one would reasonably conclude that selling that particular book might be physically hazardous to bookstore employees, corporate offices or individuals. Put another way, if someone came up with a book of Muhammed cartoons I'd hardly expect anyone to be eager to sell it for obvious reasons. The Satanic Verses have had the same effect on radicalized Moslems and it isn't reasonable to demand a bookseller to put themselves in danger just because I might wish to buy it some day.
There's only one way this could be true. Social media outlets are increasingly controlling what content is allowed, which is heavily favoring the Left. Amazon seems to be following suit. Even you can understand the issue with powerful companies such as these controlling the public conversation so your "...perhaps I should be asking myself if any of this even remotely affects my liberty. And, of course it doesn’t," more likely means you don't actually have a problem with the opposition being controlled in this manner because you disagree with them anyway. In this manner and way, you are not affected. In other words, they aren't doing anything you care about because it doesn't interfere with what you think or believe, or it actually supports what you think or believe. You want this to happen.
But, suppose the Left's bogeyman, Christian Dominionism happened to control or gains control of those companies and starts disallowing speech they don't like, I bet you'd feel awfully affected then. How valid do you think my stating that it's their company and they can do what they want would be then?
Cry more.
Amazon doesn’t sell stuff I like ,,,whaaaa whaaa whaaaa
Nice to see Republican's finally have a platform high enough to dive into the shallow end of the drained swamp.
So ... who are the guyz 'n galz who cancel out the Word of God to publish the Jesus Bible and charge twice the amount? Meh, Dems need to learn how to make money from cancelling shite.
I never got into the DS books as a kid. My bedtime stories consisted of horseracing stats which was my cup of tea back then.
Horse number six and horse number two, be brown and white, yet not Blue, cause horse number seven, met horse number eleven, and together they scratched horse number five, he had a B hive and it didn't jive, as this is the/a place to Bee N show how to Win, so itch that scratch off, and begin, as the lottery instance isn't always a lot offered to many, and all it takes, is a ticket and a dream, and maybe a penny, to scratch off that gambling desire, i'll bet they rent whorses for hire, cause we all seem to have advices, but, thanks to no thanks, my vices are a plenty, to add to them, would not be Good, just a Plenty, and Charlie always said, don't let the Cat, put a Hat on your head, cause he's one fish, two fish, red phish blew phish, so the red phish got paid, while the other, required , not laid, sorry, thought it needed said, don't worry, i'm out, and to you, dead