[Prestidigitweeze]

One last thing:

As I mentioned earlier, I once spoke with Andrew Vachss about the prosecution of depicted as opposed to literal crimes (he's a detective writer and former legal defender of sexually abused children).

The distinction he made was clear. He felt that the distribution of graphic media evidence of a sexual crime (tapes, films and photos of the crime in process) should sometimes be illegal (the audio murder tapes of Ian Brady and Myra Hindley, for example, which Vachss told me had been distributed widely in certain pedophile rings). But he also said that written descriptions of those same acts should remain legal. "We have enough real cases to prosecute," he told me. Too many of those, he said, get shelved without our wasting even more legal resources on descriptions of acts in books.

And, he added, I don't want to live in a world where fiction is illegal.

I suspect he'd feel the same way about fiction being effectively banned by a transaction company:

There are enough real issues of abuse, pedophilia and criminal deviance to consider and try to solve without Paypal's misdirecting booksellers to fix their attention on excluding depictions of it. And sometimes the careful consideration of an inhumane idea leads to the solution to a human problem.