Why We Need Profanity Warning Labels on Books to Protect Our Young People

"You're assuming that adults have access to these books first, that they are allowed to do "research" first, stand between vulnerable young people and the offensive and damaging material, which in this case is a book." -The internet exists so that people can share information and etc. Book reviews are more accessable than ever before. Does not take much effort to either read the back of a book or look up the book online. If the back of the book was misleading about the content, then the person in question would post a review online, and others would be discouraged to purchase the book. If a parent wishes to know what their children are buying, then they will research a book before buying it for them, or if they don't want to do that, then they will look for a rating. If the book does not have a rating then the parent will not buy it. Therefore, the company loses potiental profits. Like i said earlier, for the company not to appeal to the group of people who do not want to buy a book unless it has a rating, will cost them money. "The issue is that it's not responsible adults left to make these decisions. Books -- even harmful ones (as the recent pedophile book on Amazon.com proves) -- are completely left unguarded and available to anyone, and maybe this is under the assumption that young people "won't read" anyway? Well, in the case of the anti-social and highly negative (and in my opinion harmful) work of Chuck Palahniuk, this is absolutely incorrect." -If it is left unguarded and available to anyone, then the adults who do read it will warn their friends not to buy it because of it's lack of a rating. The title of the book you are talking about "Parmanent Obscurity" is actually titled (maybe you shortened it for the sake of not having to type the complete title, i don't know) "Permanent Obscurity: Or a Cautionary Tale of Two Girls and Their Misadventures with Drugs, Pornography and Death", not only is the title completely open about what the book is about, but the description also reveals a great deal about the content. Even if a book is very transparent, and it is hard to decide whether or not it is good or bad. Then the costumer will be discouraged to buy it. The group I'm sure you are defending are the unsuspecting parents who irresponsibly buy a bad book for their children without being informed of what it was about. That is not the companies responsibility to ensure that the book is only viewed by eyes mature enough to handle it's content. That is up for the parent. Just like a movie, the parent must decide if the child can watch. "Before people can access certain books on Amazon, there should be at least an age verification pop-up window, don't you think?" -Sure it could, but that is still no excuse why parents can't research or read the information amazon provides about the book in question. It pretty much already warns parents of what they are getting. "Now -- back to our issue -- who should apply warning labels? Well, industries/corporations, left to their own devices (and profit scales), won't regulate themselves. Warning labels were put on foul-mouthed "rap" CD's only after protests by concerned and responsible citizens, and the same goes for movies, years ago. But individuals alone -- parents alone -- can't realistically gauge if every single item their child comes in contact with will be harmful." -I completely disagree, they do regulate themselves. You even give me evidence to show why. Producers of rap CD's began to lose profit for people boycotted them for their lack of a rating. The company lost profit and now has more because it has a warning label. This did not need the government to step in and tell them otherwise. If they refused they go out of business or never gain profit. Communities (collectives of concerned adults) should together be allowed to regulate material such as books. Just as communities vote in government -- and vote out government. We -- the people, the adults -- are the government, and it seems that people often forget that." -No, communities should let people and companies regulate themselves, and tell each other what to buy and what not to buy like they do today anyway. No government intervention needed.