First he stated that Amazon had no right to remove the book. When over and over again it was pointed out how they were well within their legal rights to remove the book he finally concedes this position only to take up a more ludicrous one, that Amazon had a MORAL obligation (post #390) to sell his books.
The moral road leads him nowhere so he then explains how he has been maligned,
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamthecat
Oh, there was fanfare. A reporter for KCPQ, the Fox affiliate in Seattle, did a report using my book as an example of pronography "still available through Amazon, despite their T&Cs."
|
He goes on about how he and his work have been damaged by this smear. The only problem is that if you listen to exactly what the reporter said, and I did, she referred to the authors book, and the two other books that were offered as examples, as 'racy content'.
"...but there's still plenty of racy content for sale despite the company's clear policy of prohibiting pornography. We found such titles as (insert title here)..." Not once was the book referred to as pornography.
So much for those damages you were counting on...
I find it quite understandable that his publisher wishes he would not participate in public discussions about this issue. The idea of someone who earns some, or any part, of their livelihood from writing, from the use of words, to be so ignorant as to not understand the definition of censorship is appalling. For this same person to misquote a reporter in the hopes of swaying public opinion in his favor, to enable him to further his pretense and continue to play the tragic victim, is pathetic.