Help Stop eBook Censorship

[cfrizz]

Exactly right, but what's so hypocritical about it is that those same puritans of yesteryear & today are also probably the very sames ones that made the internet sex sites the most profitable numerous ones on the net. Internet porn is BIG business & the most profitable one going.

Everyone screams & yells about no sex then they sneak into x-rated theaters, bookstores and internet porn sites.

I get so tired of the do as I say, not as I do crowd. Take your hypocracy and stick it where the sun don't shine!

Originally Posted by HansTWN

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.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by nogle

His music or his opinions?

Yeah; his music is good, but his opinions suck.

[Joshua.P]

This isn't censorship. A business can choose what it wants to sell, that's its own right. Capitalism and freedom at work. If I own a mug store, and I choose not to sell blue mugs, nobody would call that censorship. It's only because of the controversial content that it is branded "censorship".

PS. I know it is a utterly, utterly horrible example. But you get my point.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by Joshua.P

This isn't censorship. A business can choose what it wants to sell, that's its own right. Capitalism and freedom at work. If I own a mug store, and I choose not to sell blue mugs, nobody would call that censorship. It's only because of the controversial content that it is branded "censorship".

PS. I know it is a utterly, utterly horrible example. But you get my point.

The example works fine - a Manchester United store will not sell Manchester City merchandise - No blue mugs

For a better example, go and buy a Sony laptop in the Apple store (Or vice versa)

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Joshua.P

A business can choose what it wants to sell, that's its own right.

Sometimes. There are some items that, through the force of law, are required to be sold by businesses or they'll face legal action for failing to do so. I won't go into detail, because that would send this thread to the political forum.

As far as I'm concerned, a business has the right to sell or not sell any legal item it wants to. I abhor laws that force them to do otherwise.

[VaporPunk]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

The corporate distinction has no baring on the issue. The 'public airwaves' matters only inasmuch as the licensing requirements associated with that bandwidth. The FCC has a decidedly hands-off policy regarding content. As well it should, because forcing a station to air that which they choose not to is no better than forcing them not to air something they want to; it is a form of censorship in and of itself.

As an aside, when a radio station plays the Dixie Chicks, then they become the consumer of the music; they have to pay the Dixie Chicks every time they play one of their songs.

Your retain the option to boycott Clear Channel, they retain the option to boycott Dixie Chicks.

if you're comfortable with somebody other than the free market/consumer deciding what you should listen to based solely on political preference, that's your right. I view it as censorship, plain and simple. I don't like other people deciding for me what I should listen to, just because somebody said something politically controversial. Be it governments or corporations.
As for rights, I'm sure China and North Korea view it as their right, legally, to try and control what goes on the airwaves too. All for the sake of the "public good". I still see it as censorship.

As to the public airwaves, they belong to you, me, the Dixie Chicks, and Ted Nugent. I too, do not want the FCC to step in and decide what people should or should not hear. Clear Channel has a responsibility to um, well, act responsibly, with the public airwaves. When a Country Western channel decides not to play a Country Western band because they criticized the president, that bothers me (see explanation above). I don't want government intervention, I want the people to tell Clear Channel to cut that crap out, whether you like the Dixie Chicks or Ted Nugent (or whomever) or not. Not defend them.

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by VaporPunk

if you're comfortable with somebody other than the free market/consumer deciding what you should listen to based solely on political preference, that's your right.

The free market is deciding. You want to force them.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

The free market is deciding. You want to force them.

The problem is that quite often it is NOT the free market that decides, but pressure groups.

[nogle]

Originally Posted by VaporPunk

As to the public airwaves, they belong to you, me, the Dixie Chicks, and Ted Nugent. I too, do not want the FCC to step in and decide what people should or should not hear. Clear Channel has a responsibility to um, well, act responsibly, with the public airwaves. When a Country Western channel decides not to play a Country Western band because they criticized the president, that bothers me (see explanation above). I don't want government intervention, I want the people to tell Clear Channel to cut that crap out, whether you like the Dixie Chicks or Ted Nugent (or whomever) or not. Not defend them.

If Clear Channel chooses not to play Dixie Chicks on a station because they think their audience doesn't like the music, would they be justified?

[BearMountainBooks]

No, I won't sign it. As others have said, businesses can carry what they want. If they don't carry what you want, don't shop there.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by whitearrow

Radio stations have blanket licenses from the big music publishers. They're paying the same amount whether they play one particular artist or not. They do not individually pay each artist each time they play a song.

OT: I saw your link to Shelfari and was going to follow your reviews, but it didn't work. Is that just Shelfari being Shelfari? I know sometimes it's in the weeds, but it could be you don't let people view or follow your reviews!!!

[Harry_Y]

Originally Posted by ucfgrad93

Businesses have every right to determine what they sell. Just because you write books doesn't mean All Romance eBooks has to sell them.

First post.

Personally I find sex in story's in poor taste.

[BeccaPrice]

Originally Posted by Harry_Y

Personally I find sex in story's in poor taste.

How nice for you. Personally, I find graphic depictions of violence in poor taste. Hence, I don't read that kind of book.

[Harry_Y]

Originally Posted by BeccaPrice

How nice for you. Personally, I find graphic depictions of violence in poor taste. Hence, I don't read that kind of book.

Nor do I

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

The problem is that quite often it is NOT the free market that decides, but pressure groups.

In no way, shape or form are presure groups not part of the market.
Presure groups are made up of people who are part of the market, not aliens from the planet Cheezeburgherkhat or the Elder Gods of Higglebotham. They are people participating.

Whether a pressure group persues one's own preference or something antithetical to it is irrelevent. They are legitimately part of the system.