Everyone's a freak and a weirdo, and the sooner we lay off other people for their kinks the sooner we may find acceptance for our own.
If I were running a store, I wouldn't want to sell baby rape erotica. I wouldn't want to make money that way. If people want to spank to that stuff, it's not my responsibility to assist in any way.
(Anyone familiar with the origins of the phrase should see the irony immediately)
Frankly I think it's kind of ridiculous to propose you can't ever give one grimy, muddy, bloodstained inch without being overrun. Niemöller was right, but it doesn't universally apply to EVERY case...
I don't mind Amazon choosing what it does and does not sell on their store. But as a Kindle owner, the remote deletion does worry me, even though I knew it was part of the deal when I bought the Kindle. Even worse that apparently when she complained, she was insulted for her choice of book. That's not so many steps away from reporting owners of banned books to some superior power.
Yet, what reason would we have to give this one, grimy, muddy, bloodstained inch?
Besides, Niemoller's point (though in this case unnecessarily melodramatic) is valid here. There is no shortage of sexual kinks in this world that will shock and/or disgust many. There's also no particular rhyme nor reason why this one was targeted over any other, and as such there's no reason to expect that other suitably controversial kinks aren't at risk of having its fiction banned.
The puzzling thing is why so many people are quick to judge and raise moral outrage over something that has absolutely no effect on themselves (the reading of fiction). It reeks of puritanism.
Child-molestation erotica is reason enough. They can distribute it as torrents, FFS.