What I find interesting in this discussion is that so many people are talking about rights and law in the first place.
I would have thought this forum in particular would be more concerned about reading content and potential impact to it more than any other factor.
For the sake of discussion, let me quote this from Wikipedia:
Quote:
Self-censorship is the act of censoring or classifying one's own work (blog, book(s), film(s), or other means of expression), out of fear of, or deference to, the sensibilities of others, without overt pressure from any specific party or institution of authority. Self-censorship is often practiced by film producers, film directors, publishers, news anchors, journalists, musicians, and other kinds of authors.
In authoritarian countries, creators of artworks may remove material that their government might find controversial for fear of sanction by their governments. In pluralistic capitalist countries, self-censorship can also occur, particularly in order to conform to the expectations of the market. For example, the editor of a periodical may consciously or unconsciously avoid topics that will anger advertisers or a parent company in order to protect her or his livelihood. This phenomenon is referred to as soft censorship.
|
Could we entertain the idea based on the quote above that although Amazon itself is not censoring content, that the use of the word is still applicable in an ongoing discussion - even if it's in a different context?
Is Amazon's place in the some market verticals such that refusing that pulling titles such as these could lead to the kind of censorship described above?
If there is some merit in the argument that Amazon's decisions could cause the kind of censorship described above, should we as readers be concerned about the potential of this on our future reading material?
I would have thought ideas like this were worthy of discussion in a forum like this.
When I see sentiments such as, "Amazon is a private business, it can sell what it wants to - case closed", I have to admit feeling a bit confused. I tend to agree that no laws are broken by Amazon pulling books from the shelves - although I'm by no means a law expert. But that doesn't mean there's nothing to discuss.
When I see sentiments such as, "This is clearly not censorship as it does not stem from a government body", I'm equally as confused. I believe we should be able to step back a little and look at the word "censorship" in more than one context. I'm not saying Wikipedia is the "be all and end all" for facts, but it still seems to be a reasonable input to a discussion.
When I see sentiments such as, "If we give any time to complaints of censorship based on these incidents we'll be blind to real censorship when it comes", I feel a bit concerned. Because if we really have that idea then I feel we are potentially already blind to other less obvious forms of censorship that can manifest themselves.
I offer these ideas as points of interest in the ongoing discussion. I can't claim superior knowledge in this subject and it seems to me that there have been many people posting here who know a great deal more than I do on these kinds of topics.
However I am a reader - and these are the kinds of things that have disturbed me personally about some of Amazon's recent decisions relating to its content guidelines and some of the things that have interested me when reading this thread.
Regards
Caleb