Help Stop eBook Censorship

[xg4bx]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

It's not just filth, I had a story that contained no sex of any type banned by Barnes & Noble recently (though they have since reinstated it after I made a fuss). These sort of clampdowns always start with something that is difficult for libertarians to defend, then once they have the precendent they start chipping away at everything else.

bingo. how can anyone provide a reasonable defense of a book that contains baby killing or necrophilia? they'd have to be sick! thats why we must take that book off the market, to keep that sick filth from sick minds. why are you sticking up for it? you must like necrophilia!

i'd defend said book because it just words. i don't have to like it but i defend its right to be published. i'd stand up for the right of almost literally any type of fiction to be published. don't like it? don't read it.


what the answer is is what the above poster said: fill the niche. team up with these authors and start your own distribution model. thats capitalism. its not 'censorship' if its not done by a government entity. while what paypal is doing may be annoying, they're merely practicing freedom of association.

[plib]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

It is, of course, true that book sellers should have the right to decide what they want to sell. Unfortunately the system seems to have been perverted by a very small, but vocal and active minority of the public that wants to impose their morals on others and businesses decide to give in and get rid of any "offending" items rather than fight it.

But we can't blame it on the businesses, but rather on those who fail to stand up for freedom of speech.

And isn't it interesting that that small, active, vocal minority always seems to be obsessed with sex. I can think of many more activities or subjects that are more objectionable or more damaging to society but somehow they never seem to generate the same level of outrage or calls for censorship.

[VaporPunk]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

instead of setting up petitions you should see this as an entrepreneurial opportunity. you should set up erotica ebooks distribution .com and sell your books tht way and also become a reseller for others who have been pushed out of other distribution channels

This. Businesses have the right to sell what they want.

Originally Posted by xg4bx

its not 'censorship' if its not done by a government entity.

Not this.

Organized religions don't censor information? Or corporations? Any attempt to suppress information is censorship. That's different than deciding to sell or not sell a product that is available elsewhere.

2. any person who supervises the manners or morality of others.

Clear Channel didn't censor the Dixie Chicks? By deciding that they weren't "American" enough, weren't they imposing their values on others? Who are they to decide what people can listen to on the public airwaves?

When a corporation tries to block a story that may damage it in the public eye, isn't that censorship?

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by plib

And isn't it interesting that that small, active, vocal minority always seems to be obsessed with sex. I can think of many more activities or subjects that are more objectionable or more damaging to society but somehow they never seem to generate the same level of outrage or calls for censorship.

It is America's puritan heritage that has led to an obsession with sex. Sex has been cast as the source of all evil. But the more you try to ban it, the more people will think about it.

[kleinste]

I agree with those who are saying that you should fill the niche and team up with other erotic authors. At the end of the day, people will go where they can find what they want to read - if they want to read glittery vanilla romance, they'll go to ... what did you say that website was called, All Romance Books? And if they want some hardcore erotica, more and more will turn to your website if you really work on your bases, and get out there contacting erotica authors and publishers, promoting it on twitter on the likes.

If anything, you shouldn't get angry about this - you should see it as a business opportunity. This is giving you the perfect chance to start up your own ebookstore!

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

i'd defend said book because it just words. i don't have to like it but i defend its right to be published. i'd stand up for the right of almost literally any type of fiction to be published. don't like it? don't read it.

How come a book filled with sexual excesses and perversions is "just words," but the PC police are horrified by racial slurs and other insensitivities, in print or in speech? Aren't those "just words" as well?

You can't dismiss everything as "just words." Words have power.

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by VaporPunk

This. Businesses have the right to sell what they want.



Not this.

Organized religions don't censor information? Or corporations? Any attempt to suppress information is censorship. That's different than deciding to sell or not sell a product that is available elsewhere.



Clear Channel didn't censor the Dixie Chicks? By deciding that they weren't "American" enough, weren't they imposing their values on others? Who are they to decide what people can listen to on the public airwaves?

When a corporation tries to block a story that may damage it in the public eye, isn't that censorship?

You're just going to have to find a better word that fits the act; 'censorship' isn't the right word. Choosing not to publish, support or host a work, no matter its form, is different than forbidding the work.

Clear Channel is a good example. They didn't stop the Dixie Chicks from singing, recording, or finding other venues. They simply stopped playing their music on their network. What gives them the right? The same thing that gives you the right to turn the channel when you hear something you don't like.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

But the more you try to ban it, the more people will think about it.

Are you sure that's your position?

This actually would be part of a subtle defense of mild censorship, or at least self-censorship. Double-entendre might then be more effective, from a purely pro-sex standpoint, than the likes of how-about-we-do-it-in-the-road.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Are you sure that's your position?

This actually would be part of a subtle defense of mild censorship, or at least self-censorship. Double-entendre might then be more effective, from a purely pro-sex standpoint, than the likes of how-about-we-do-it-in-the-road.

I look at it from a freedom of speech standpoint, not that I am against sex....

[plib]

Originally Posted by Catlady

How come a book filled with sexual excesses and perversions is "just words," but the PC police are horrified by racial slurs and other insensitivities, in print or in speech? Aren't those "just words" as well?.

The PC police are horrified by just about everything.

You can't dismiss everything as "just words." Words have power.

Indeed they do. Which is why they should not be censored in any way. If an argument has merit it will stand, if it does not then it won't. The best way to dismiss any argument or attitude which you think is false is to expose its weaknesses to the light of day, not to let it gain power fermenting in the shadows.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

You're just going to have to find a better word that fits the act; 'censorship' isn't the right word. Choosing not to publish, support or host a work, no matter its form, is different than forbidding the work.

The word is discernment.

[VaporPunk]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

You're just going to have to find a better word that fits the act; 'censorship' isn't the right word. Choosing not to publish, support or host a work, no matter its form, is different than forbidding the work.

Clear Channel is a good example. They didn't stop the Dixie Chicks from singing, recording, or finding other venues. They simply stopped playing their music on their network. What gives them the right? The same thing that gives you the right to turn the channel when you hear something you don't like.

Nah, deciding not to play the Dixie Chicks because they didn't like their political message on publicly owned airwaves is a form of censorship. Unless, of course, you are of the opinion that corporations have more rights than people. I tend to think that the Dixie Chicks have as much right to free speech as I do, and being censored solely because of my political views, be it by governments or corporations, is intolerable.

Returning to the original intent of this topic, if a website decides not to sell hard-core erotica, that is their decision. And as long as they impose that rule for everyone evenly its a decision I can support. If they decide not to sell certain hard-core erotica because they don't like the author's religion, color, or political views, then it is not a decision I can support.

[tubemonkey]

I oppose tax funded censorship and support the right to engage in privately funded censorship.

[JeremyR]

Oh please, the Dixie Chicks only got "censored" because the country stations didn't want to lose listeners.

Bruce Springsteen & Bon Jovi pretty much say the same things, yet the demographics of rock radio is different than country. Ditto for Green Day and Rage Against the Machine on "Modern Rock" stations.

Stations tailor their music to their audience.

OTOH, I didn't hear many complaints about some people boycotting Ted Nugent's music for his recent comments. Funny how it only goes one way...

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by JeremyR

Oh please, the Dixie Chicks only got "censored" because the country stations didn't want to lose listeners.

Bruce Springsteen & Bon Jovi pretty much say the same things, yet the demographics of rock radio is different than country. Ditto for Green Day and Rage Against the Machine on "Modern Rock" stations.

Stations tailor their music to their audience.

OTOH, I didn't hear many complaints about some people boycotting Ted Nugent's music for his recent comments. Funny how it only goes one way...

Out of those mentioned, Green Day is the only one worth listening to