Borders Books: What a difference 5 years make

[Manny]

Ooh, doesn't wash, though. They haven't "banned it from the store" any more than I "banned the NYT from my apartment." They haven't banned anyone from reading it, buying it, or even taking it in the store. I choose not to subscribe to the NYT (or Free Inquiry, for that matter), and they choose not to carry this magazine.

It's not banned in any sense except the extreme hyperbolic.

I definitely agree with this interpretation as it regards those stores which don't customarily carry the magazine. After all, they probably don't carry Fuzzy Bunnies Monthly -- a Crafts Magazine not a Porno Mag, You Deve! (circulation: 1) but that doesn't mean it's "banned."

On the other hand, I think "banned" is a reasonable term as regards those stores which carried the Feb/Mar issue and will carry the June/July issue but not the one in between.

It's tough for Borders, I have to admit. On the one hand, one doesn't want one's stores blown to bits. On the other, one doesn't want to cave into Muslim whackos any more than one wants to cave into Christian ones or anyone else. But getting back to the first hand, going to an employee's funeral and telling her mom that she died at her $6/hr college job to make a point about intimidation doesn't sound like very much fun.

 

[drkitten]

Huh? School districts and municipalities tell the libraries that they own not to carry certain books because of their content.

Municipalities and public school districts are public entities, and as such as subject to more restrictive rules.

 

[BPSCG]

It's tough for Borders, I have to admit. On the one hand, one doesn't want one's stores blown to bits.

So the Islamists win. They can cow the big corporations - the New York Times company (which is several newspapers, magazines, radio stations), the Washington Post company (which owns, besides its flagship paper, Newsweek magazine, Salon's website, and, as of yesterday, a radio station), and Borders - into knuckling under to their demands to shut up or be killed.

If mega-corporations don't dare stand up to the Islamists, who does?

 

[Manny]

Well, that's right. And it sucks. In a lot of ways, it's more difficult for a mega-corp to resist this terrorism than it is smaller companies, because they provide a tempting footprint anyway.

If I were a thoughtful progressive concerned about the concentration of power in large corporations, I'd be thinking something like, "Hey, here's an example of the downside to these megacorporations which resonates with thoughtful people on the other side of the aisle. I'm going to stick this one in the file along with maybe some research on how many people are now more than X miles away from a bookstore which is not B&N or Borders."

 

[Skeptic]

Well, that's right. And it sucks. In a lot of ways, it's more difficult for a mega-corp to resist this terrorism than it is smaller companies, because they provide a tempting footprint anyway.

But if the Mega-corporation won't resist them, why should the small bookshop owner, who has enough trouble anyway, resist?

 

[Thanz]

If mega-corporations don't dare stand up to the Islamists, who does?

If you seriously expect mega-corporations to protect your civil liberties, I have got a great deal on a bridge in Brooklyn for you!

The primary goal of the corporation is to make money. I doubt the sales of this particular magazine chain-wide would cover even one bombing of a store, if it were to happen. So, they don't carry the magazine. Simple dollars and cents decision.

Some people get huffy for a short time on the internet, tlak about how cowardly Borders is, and vow never to shop there again - until, at least, they want a book and it is the cheapest/most convenient place to buy it.

Why would anyone expect Borders to be "brave" here?

 

[Manny]

But if the Mega-corporation won't resist them, why should the small bookshop owner, who has enough trouble anyway, resist?

Couple of reasons. First, it's easier to hide and there's strength in numbers. So say you and a thousand other bookstores carry the thing and the bad guys hit one. Even with one guaranteed bombing you've got a 99.9% chance of it not being you. Borders has a thousand stores on its own (assuming the bad guys are smart enough to include the Waldenbooks stores). They've only got to hit one of them to hit "Borders."

Second, principle. A smaller bookstore can give a pep talk to the employees beforehand, consult with them, etc. And it's less likely to have outside shareholders to answer to. So a pissed-off small bookstore owner has fewer and smaller constituencies to answer to.

Third, large absolute numbers with dispersed decision making. Maybe Bob's Bookstore does decide to leave out the magazine. So does Mary's Bookstore. And Mike's Books. But Sue's Books decides to carry it. At Borders there's one decision-making process for the chain.

Don't get me wrong -- I like chain bookstores generally. They carry larger inventories than most smaller bookstores, they have more resources to easily obtain books not in stock, they're less likely to sneer at you if you have the audacity to actually want a best seller, they negotiate low prices which they pass on to the consumer, you can give a gift card nationwide, etc. But that something is in general "good" doesn't mean that it's all good. And in this instance I think Borders' large size works against them and is a reminder that small businesses are also a good thing. So this weekend, stop by your local small bookstore or magazine shop and pick up a copy of Free Inquiry (heh - if they have it -- again, one of the advantages of the chains in the first place is their larger inventory) and maybe another book and say, "Hey, thanks for being here."

 

[Skeptic]

Simple dollars and cents decision... Why would anyone expect Borders to be "brave" here?

I didn't expect bravery; but that hardly means I shouldn't point out their cowardice.

So, they don't carry the magazine. Simple dollars and cents decision

Cowardice and rationality are not exclusive. Indeed, the very definition of bravery is to do something that is highly against your interersts, at least your immediate ones.

Of course it's more rational--in the short term at least--to just bend over backwards to whatever the Islamists demand and buy peace. Standing up to them will cost money, and is therefore economically "foolish" in the short run. You're absolutely right... and yet, it's still a blatant act of cowardice.

Epictetus said it best: "The brave man is called a fool--by the coward."

 

[Grammatron]

Since there never was a big deal about these cartoons in USA and it has been such a long time, this is really nothing more then publicity stunt -- LOOK AT US, WE ARE NOT SELLING CARTOONS HERE.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

I'm sorry, but those who will fight against Christian censorship of books and will not fight against Islamic censorship of books are, obviously, only willing to fight against censorship as long as their personal safety is not threathened in any way. Which is to say, not willing to fight against it at all. But what will they do when the Christian Right learns the Muslim trick and bombs a few bookstores as well?

I see your point but there is a difference between risking one's own safety and risking someone elses safety. The guys that make these sorts of decisions are probably not in any danger if some Muslim fanatics firebomb a bookstore, its the employees working in the store and the customers who are patronizing it who would get hurt/killed. I hate to say it, but the fanatics have booksellers by the short hairs on that one.

 

[bjb]

Does anyone else remember what happened when "Satanic Verses" came out back in 1988? The author was in a lot of trouble but the book could be purchased at any bookstore. Islamic people were very offended by the book but I don't recall any problems at the bookstores. I think things have changed but (some of) the Islamic people have changed more than the bookstores.

 

[drkitten]

Does anyone else remember what happened when "Satanic Verses" came out back in 1988? The author was in a lot of trouble but the book could be purchased at any bookstore.

Not true. Back then, it was Barnes and Noble that refused to carry it.

 

[Checkmite]

How ridiculous; any employer should have the right to risk its employees' lives for any reason. Especially bookstores - when those employees sign the contract, they are well aware of the sacrifice they're making.

 

[Mephisto]

Or if you're really interested, you could check it out at your local library. Of course, Homeland Security might want to know if you're interested in it because you're a Muslim extremist who needs an excuse to start a one-man riot.

 

[Beerina]

I think it is important to make some distinctions (which you omit) that books in the past were banned simply for the view they presented, while the skeptical organization magazine is banned because of the possible violence and danger to the store and the people in it. This is based off of past evidence of violence from the cartoon.

They're not simply banning the mag, but banning that issue of the mag, it sounds like.

Reminiscent of when Waldenbooks stopped selling Satanic Verses for the same reason.

At least they admit it's because they're afraid of (death of employees = expensive lawsuits.)

 

[Beerina]

They're supposed to do what all people are supposed to do: show bravery.

"And ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I ask you to consider: Should a corporation 'show bravery' on the backs of it's blown up employees? The possible results of this 'bravery' were easy to see, yet they proceeded anyway."

Hey, I don't make the laws allowing lawsuits like this to take place. Talk to your politicians. Warning! The party that loves freedom of speech the most also loves lawsuits even more.

 

[Skeptic]

I see your point but there is a difference between risking one's own safety and risking someone elses safety. The guys that make these sorts of decisions are probably not in any danger if some Muslim fanatics firebomb a bookstore, its the employees working in the store and the customers who are patronizing it who would get hurt/killed. I hate to say it, but the fanatics have booksellers by the short hairs on that one.

I see your point as well, but life doesn't come in tidy little packets like that. Only rarely can you do any real bravery without risking to some degree other people's lives as well. Taken with the fact that bravery is also, almost by definition acting against one own's self-interest, it is always easy to portrays the brave person as not only "stupid" for not folowing his self-interest but also as "irresponsible" for risking other people's lives. What if other people want to BE cowards and WANT to surrender to the Islamists' demand? What right have you to be brave and risk them?

That's all very "considerate" and "rational" and "realistic"... but by this standard virtually every act of bravery will be condemend and despised. It is, I am afraid, at bottom merely another example of the coward calling the brave man a fool, rationalizing his own cowardice.

 

[Thanz]

It is, I am afraid, at bottom merely another example of the coward calling the brave man a fool, rationalizing his own cowardice.

As opposed to the fool, calling the rational man a coward to justify his own recklessness?

 

[UserGoogol]

I don't see how cowardice is really involved. If Borders had stocked the naughty cartoons, the executives would probably have gone unscathed. As claimed by the spokeswoman, the employees would've been the ones to have to face whatever sh-t hit whatever fan. The executives would've been fairly uneffected.

It is a silly decision, but cowardice doesn't seem to enter into the equation.

 

[Skeptic]

As opposed to the fool, calling the rational man a coward to justify his own recklessness?

If you don't see how this is a cowardly decision, I can't help you there. It is "reckless" to skydive, perhaps; to refuse to bow to Islamist thugs isn't "reckless". At most it's dangerous. But that's what being brave is for.