The right to not sell a book...

A short while ago, Amazon began selling a book on Pedophilia; not just about pedophilia, but about how to be a pedophile. This, understandably, caused some uproar. But when Amazon removed the book from their virtual shelves, some people cried that it was a violation of free speech. An article in the Vancouver Sun had a few things to say on this situation: "there's a distinction between banning a book and asking a seller to take it off the shelf. A boycott is a market mechanism between sellers and customers. It isn't a form of coercion."

This article argues that the removal of the book is not a form of banning, since it is not trying to get rid of the book from ever existing, but simply a marketing strategy that conforms to the desires of consumers. I have no reason to counter this argument. Personally, I wouldn't want that book on any bookstore shelves at all, but that is not to say that I don't think the author had a right to write the book and get it published. There are differences there.

And, in fact, a positive conception of freedom of speech can lead to some perverse consequences. If everyone has the right to read books on pedophilia (distinct from the right to be protected from a government ban on such books), then they have the right to demand those books from bookstores -- which means someone might have to compel those bookstores to sell them.  

Any attempt to silence unpopular speech, even when it doesn't violate the right to free speech, is counterproductive. Denying someone a platform, in a democratic country with vigorous media, is the best way to make sure they get lots of attention.

Of course, other issues ensued from this debate.  Amazon defended the right to sell the book and defended the rights of those who may buy it, but soon after the book disappeared from the website with no fanfare, no statement, no defense.  They simply went against their policy at the last minute with no explanation.  This behavior from such a large and influential company is in itself rather disturbing.

Do you have any thoughts on the subject?  Do you think there is a distinction here between the right to free speech and the right to purchase literature?