Help Stop eBook Censorship

[BeccaPrice]

Apparently incest and other such icky things are perfectly publishable if your name is Samuel Delany

we have father/son homosexual incest starting very young, bestiality, urine drinking, and a sexualisation of dirt.

not to mention coprophagia.

[plib]

Originally Posted by Harry_Y

First post.

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

This site may be able to help.

[cfrizz]

Originally Posted by Harry_Y

First post.

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

Good for you.

I'm sure that ARE, Harlequin, etc are all laughing all the way to the bank. And the millions of us who absolutely love reading these books, think that it is in very good taste.

So long as you and others like you don't try to tell us what we should be reading, or try to stop these stores & publishers from creating & selling these stories we don't care what you think.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Phogg

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.

True, so when a radical minority pressures companies to suppress all literature that they object to other people should speak up to let companies know that they are not only leaving money on the table, but that they also are upsetting a lot of people. Which is exactly what the OP is attempting to get people to do.

[VaporPunk]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

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

No its not. Its a bunch of suits in a corporate boardroom deciding that they will ban a popular band because of its political position. Its an attempt at censorship, plain and simple. It might be legally within their rights, but its not right.

Originally Posted by nogle

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?

Motivation matters. I'm not saying a band has a right to be played, I'm saying a corporation that bans a band that doesn't have the "right" politics is practicing a form of censorship. And it should be called out on it.

Going back to the roots of this discussion, it all started with this statement.

Originally Posted by xg4bx

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

I disagree. Corporations are also capable of censorship. See above for example.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

True, so when a radical minority pressures companies to suppress all literature that they object to other people should speak up to let companies know that they are not only leaving money on the table, but that they also are upsetting a lot of people. Which is exactly what the OP is attempting to get people to do.

When they are a fringe minority, they have zero effect and are ignored.
When they are a minority that seems to be persuading paying customers to their side, they have an effect.

But very, very often they are actually a majority, and one percieves them to be a minority if one desires to minimize the legitimacy of their point. I am guilty of this myself upon occaision.

[Harry_Y]

Originally Posted by cfrizz

Good for you.

I'm sure that ARE, Harlequin, etc are all laughing all the way to the bank. And the millions of us who absolutely love reading these books, think that it is in very good taste.

So long as you and others like you don't try to tell us what we should be reading, or try to stop these stores & publishers from creating & selling these stories we don't care what you think.

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.

[Harry_Y]

Originally Posted by VaporPunk

No its not. Its a bunch of suits in a corporate boardroom deciding that they will ban a popular band because of its political position. Its an attempt at censorship, plain and simple. It might be legally within their rights, but its not right.



Motivation matters. I'm not saying a band has a right to be played, I'm saying a corporation that bans a band that doesn't have the "right" politics is practicing a form of censorship. And it should be called out on it.

Going back to the roots of this discussion, it all started with this statement.



I disagree. Corporations are also capable of censorship. See above for example.

While I understand your position, I have to say one of the things that I
Love about the USA is that we as people (and ones who own companies)
can (for the most part) chose what to sell or not.

If I own a store I do not have to sell an item that I don't want to sell.

So I could chose to sell a particular; I can also (for the most part)
chose to not sell an item. I can also in a way "Censor" the purchases
to customers at my discretion. I can choose to Not sell razor blades
and apples to a person on Halloween.

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.

[HansTWN]

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.

What if 60% want an item and 2% are offended by it? But the 2% make a giant racket, forming protest lines in front of the store, making frequent calls, harassing your customers, etc? That is what it usually comes down to.

[morantis]

It just needs a little extra effort to be put in between the first screen and the end user. I have kids and could care less if erotica is in the marketplace, I just don't want it on the front page of Amazon, lol.

[RHWright]

Originally Posted by VaporPunk

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.

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.

[Penforhire]

I think we should have the right to read all those works and more (anything ever written IMO). That doesn't mean any particular store should be forced to sell them. But if it ever boils down to just one source then the rules change (no censorship). Right now I don't see too much danger of, say, Amazon becoming the one-and-only e-retailer for the world. But it could happen.

[Harry_Y]

[QUOTE=HansTWN;2099740]

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.

/QUOTE]

What if 60% want an item and 2% are offended by it? But the 2% make a giant racket, forming protest lines in front of the store, making frequent calls, harassing your customers, etc? That is what it usually comes down to.

Yep and it is on both sides of nearly issue.

It is like this petition they are trying to force the seller to sell
something they do not want to sell (for whatever reason)

Someone is always against someone else,
or trying to force their desires on others.


I like Heavy Metal music and have been told how "bad" it is....

"Could it be you're afraid of what your friends might say
If they knew you believe in God above?
They should realize before they criticize
That God is the only way to love " - Black Sabbath


Then I listen to the lyrics on country and think how "bad"
they are songs "glorifying" infidelity with another's spouse etc.


Someone always will have an opposing viewpoint no matter the subject.




.

[Scott Nicholson]

Like erotica is in danger of vanishing? Sheesh.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

What if 60% want an item and 2% are offended by it? But the 2% make a giant racket, forming protest lines in front of the store, making frequent calls, harassing your customers, etc? That is what it usually comes down to.

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