Andrew Bolt does not support “Amazon bombing” critics’ books, and he wishes his readers would stop following the link he gave them
What’s it called when someone tries to get a mob of supporters to run across to the Amazon entry for an opponent’s book and leave negative reviews? Amazon bombing?
We hope no-one suggests that that is exactly what Andrew Bolt was doing with this post today:
Nor may you safely say no to Heiss, not publicly, if you live in Australia.
But the United States, unlike Australia, has a constitutional protection of free speech – and a cultural predisposition towards it.
So it will be interesting to see what Heiss, her publisher or her supporters will do to stop the US-based Amazon site from publishing the kind of comments that have been removed in Australia by the ABC and Random House.
See? He’s just ASKING QUESTIONS. He’s very definitely not doing anything more than that. And if you’re confused – or you’d already clicked on his Amazon link to race across and give Heiss’ book a negative review under the misunderstanding that that is what he was advocating – Andrew tries to set the record straight:
Note: I am not trying to incite anyone into attacking Heiss’s book. She is entitled to express her point of view. I am simply pointing out that I am not entitled to express my own, and nor is anyone of like mind who disagrees with Heiss. This is not a hate-Heiss session, but a protest against limits to free speech in debating an issue I believe is of significant public importance.
And that’s why I doubt there was a sudden stampede of WHERE IS MR BOLT’S FREE SPEECH? one-star reviews after the Southbank Martyr’s post went up. If there was, I’d be as surprised as I’m sure he would be.