View Single Post
Old 01-13-2011, 03:22 PM   #3
CWatkinsNash
IOC Chief Archivist
CWatkinsNash ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.CWatkinsNash ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.CWatkinsNash ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.CWatkinsNash ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.CWatkinsNash ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.CWatkinsNash ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.CWatkinsNash ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.CWatkinsNash ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.CWatkinsNash ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.CWatkinsNash ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.CWatkinsNash ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
CWatkinsNash's Avatar
 
Posts: 3,481
Karma: 32531038
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Device: Nook STR Glowlight, Sony T1, Acer Iconia A200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kali Yuga View Post
Well, I for one am downright stunned that Amazon says they'll reinstate his books. I did not think they'd change their minds, so in that respect I consider myself corrected.

Unfortunately, if he was correct that a local media outlet's attention got it pulled in the first place, this may not be over. Don't alert the media, I guess.
As far as the media involved goes, since Amazon apparently changed their mind after reading the content, I'd guess they have three choices if they choose to respond:

1)Continue to not examine the content and stand by their assertion that it's porn;
2) Examine the content and maintain their assertion; or
3) Examine the content and revise their assertion.

#1 could affect their credibility (ignoring for the moment whether or not they had any to begin with - apparently someone thinks so if that's how this started), #2 would put them on shakier ground than their initial assertion that it's porn, and #3 probably isn't likely to happen unless they really are worried about a lawsuit or they get publicly taken to task by their viewers.

My money says that they ignore it altogether and hope it goes away, unless they are forced to deal with it through litigation. It's one thing to make a pornography accusation the way they did, that's (sadly) typical media sensationalism, but it's another thing to come back and do it again without saying exactly what they mean by "pornography" or admitting that it's a subjective opinion, which could change the game.

I'm interested to see how it all plays out.
CWatkinsNash is offline   Reply With Quote