Help Stop eBook Censorship

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Catlady

So then the store makes a choice, and the customers make a choice. Where is the problem?

The problem is that the 2% control the choices for the 60%, and the 60% are not even fighting back. Anything that is not acceptable to that small, vocal minority is being pushed to the fringe of society.This leads to an erosion of civil liberties. Isn't that bad enough?

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

The problem is that the 2% control the choices for the 60%, and the 60% are not even fighting back. Anything that is not acceptable to that small, vocal minority is being pushed to the fringe of society.This leads to an erosion of civil liberties. Isn't that bad enough?

That tells me your 60 percent don't care. Don't blame the minority if the majority don't care enough to be involved.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Catlady

That tells me your 60 percent don't care. Don't blame the minority if the majority don't care enough to be involved.

Not that he necessarily represents a majority in this case, but the OP is trying to get people to get involved to protect their rights. Exactly what he should do in a case like this.

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Not that he necessarily represents a majority in this case, but the OP is trying to get people to get involved to protect their rights. Exactly what he should do in a case like this.

And what has been pointed out by others is that their rights are not in jeopardy.

OTOH, if there was a counter-petition, I certainly wouldn't bother signing that one either.

[cfrizz]

Originally Posted by Harry_Y

I'm sure the tobacco companies are all laughing all the way
to the bank, and I'd bet the smokers like the taste as well.

I'm pretty sure they don't care what others think either.

But I have no desire to smoke.

Neither do I. But at least we have the CHOICE to smoke. But since 2nd hand smoke has been proven to be detrimental to those of us that don't smoke, (cancer) the smokers have to be restricted in where they can smoke.

You are more than welcome to kill yourself, you just aren't allowed to take anyone else with you!

Reading whatever genre that you want does NOT impact anyone elses life, so WTF do you care. Live & let live.

If people could follow this simple bit of advice, life would be so much simpler.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Not that he necessarily represents a majority in this case, but the OP is trying to get people to get involved to protect their rights. Exactly what he should do in a case like this.

And that would be just peachy if the OP didn't immediately cry censorship. That knee-jerk claim is what is objectionable.

[spindlegirl]

Originally Posted by Catlady

And that would be just peachy if the OP didn't immediately cry censorship. That knee-jerk claim is what is objectionable.

And as I write this, it still remains the OP's first and only post.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Anything that is not acceptable to that small, vocal minority is being pushed to the fringe of society.This leads to an erosion of civil liberties.

You seem to be saying that there was some golden age when novels depicting stuff mentioned by the thread starter, such as having sex with your non-genetically related brother, was mainstream. But, now, such "is being pushed to the fringe." Do I understand correctly? If so, when was the golden age, and what country or countries are you thinking of?

As for the US, I think the level of tolerance for smutty prurient books is at close to a record high. One bit of evidence for this is how old-fashioned my last sentence sounds.

[VaporPunk]

Originally Posted by Harry_Y

I can also choose to Not sell an Item that may offend a customer.
(and yes a lot of people get offended by music) So if I have 2%
of my customers that want an album but I know it will offend
60% others in just makes straight business sense to Not sell it.

I like Heavy Metal but I'm sure many others do not appreciate it.
Some is from ignorance, they see the band name and think they
are "Evil" without realizing where the name came from.

Again motivation matters. I'm not asking that CC be forced to play anything. I'm suggesting that we, as Americans, shouldn't tolerate CC banning a band from the airwaves because of their political views. Or a liberal-owned radio station banning Ted Nugent.

Instead of just defending their right to do so, what we should be saying, right, left, and center is - Yes, you have a right to play what you want on your own radio station but banning a band solely because of its political views is censorship. And that is BS and you shouldn't do it in America. Or anywhere else, for that matter.

Originally Posted by RHWright

While I agree with the general position here, what would you think if the decision to sell/not sell were based on content that is about religion/race/politics and not when those factors are expressed outside that content (a la the DT's politically inoffensive music getting pulled for political views they expressed on stage)?

Should a site have to sell Mein Kampf? Or Michael Moore's books? Or books by Marx? What if they decide to carry no politically-oriented books of any persuasion?

I'm a big proponent in freedom of expression for individuals, but when you dig into it, many of these decisions have to made on a case-by-case basis.

As an extreme example, would I force a store run by the KKK to sell books by MLK? No. Are they censoring MLK and other authors that don't share their worldview? Yes, of course they are. I would just call it what it is. From Wikipedia -

Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body. It can be done by governments and private organizations or by individuals who engage in self-censorship. It occurs in a variety of different contexts including speech, books, music, films and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of reasons including national security, to control obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, to protect children, to promote or restrict political or religious views, to prevent slander and libel, and to protect intellectual property. It may or may not be legal. Many countries provide strong protections against censorship by law, but none of these protections are absolute and it is frequently necessary to balance conflicting rights in order to determine what can and cannot be censored.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

You seem to be saying that there was some golden age when novels depicting stuff mentioned by the thread starter, such as having sex with your non-genetically related brother, was mainstream. But, now, such "is being pushed to the fringe." Do I understand correctly? If so, when was the golden age, and what country or countries are you thinking of?

As for the US, I think the level of tolerance for smutty prurient books is at close to a record high. One bit of evidence for this is how old-fashioned my last sentence sounds.

I am not referring to erotica specifically, but to a general intolerance. "I don't approve of this material so we will try everything to make it disappear from all major avenues of distribution", rather than just not looking for it and not buying it. This leads to a very one dimensional society, where many people are never exposed to anything outside their comfort zone. In the end it is their loss, too.

Of course, erotica are a cultural thing. What is being called 'pornographic smut' in the US will only elicit a "what is all the fuss about" response in Central and Northern Europe.

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

I am not referring to erotica specifically, but to a general intolerance. "I don't approve of this material so we will try everything to make it disappear from all major avenues of distribution", rather than just not looking for it and not buying it. This leads to a very one dimensional society, where many people are never exposed to anything outside their comfort zone. In the end it is their loss, too.

When has this ever not been the trend moreso than now?

Pick any decade within any century in U.S. (or even western) History that was more tolerant than our current one.

Pick any decade where those who seek to control and censor have had less influence and power than they do now.

I've got an open mind. Give me some examples.

From my pov, with the exception only a few taboo topics, the only intolerance we're intolerant of now is intolerance itself.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Catlady

And that would be just peachy if the OP didn't immediately cry censorship. That knee-jerk claim is what is objectionable.

Yeah, I get really tired of that as well. Snort.

And as the other poster below yours pointed out, the OP hasn't even bothered to come back and say thanks for taking a look or anything else. Just a drive by author or poster with a personal agenda they expect people to blindly sign up for.

Piffle!

[nogle]

Originally Posted by VaporPunk

Again motivation matters. I'm not asking that CC be forced to play anything. I'm suggesting that we, as Americans, shouldn't tolerate CC banning a band from the airwaves because of their political views. Or a liberal-owned radio station banning Ted Nugent.

...

As an extreme example, would I force a store run by the KKK to sell books by MLK? No. Are they censoring MLK and other authors that don't share their worldview? Yes, of course they are.

You don't think these two opinions are contradictory?

If motivation matters, then don't you think the second point is wrong?

[Shopaholic]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

Yeah, I get really tired of that as well. Snort.

And as the other poster below yours pointed out, the OP hasn't even bothered to come back and say thanks for taking a look or anything else. Just a drive by author or poster with a personal agenda they expect people to blindly sign up for.

Piffle!

Exactly! and for that reason the Mods should close this thread.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

And as the other poster below yours pointed out, the OP hasn't even bothered to come back and say thanks for taking a look or anything else. Just a drive by author or poster with a personal agenda they expect people to blindly sign up for.

But he/she provided a platform for a lively discussion. That's gotta be worth something.