[Prestidigitweeze]

That's the lamest possible excuse they could have manufactured. "Blurring the line," indeed. Paypal are the ones blurring the line between legal and moral decisions.

"We're censoring words because they're the gateway drug to graphic images."

If that were the case, then the restriction would only apply to books that actually contained pornographic illustrations.

And if it isn't the case, then they're using a perceived restriction on subject matter to eliminate certain kinds of suggestive cover art and graphics (which aren't technically obscene) as the side effect.

Which is it? Will Paypal's legal department muster the courage to admit this is an imposition of personal beliefs, or will others have to expose their so-called compliance for the hypocrisy it is?

I'm glad to see Visa distancing themselves from this shell game of prudery and censorship masquerading as sensible commerce.