Amazon Censorship Expands

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

~sigh~

• The Kindle is not the only ebook reader / app / platform in existence.

Are you suggesting that Kindle owners should buy an extra (different) reader just so that they can read books that Amazon does not want them to read? As well as a computer, assuming they don't already have one, so that they can buy those books and put them onto this second reader?

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by screwballl

Everything being said here is all rehash of what has already been said over the past 13 pages so it may be better for all to just let this subject die.

Where's the fun in that? This discussion is probably the most exciting thing that will happen for me this weekend. It's either this or head back over to the two "Kindle is stupid, Nook is smart" discussions going on.

[boxcorner]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Are you suggesting that Kindle owners should buy an extra (different) reader just so that they can read books that Amazon does not want them to read? As well as a computer, assuming they don't already have one, so that they can buy those books and put them onto this second reader?

Lateral thinking ... read a paper book instead.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by boxcorner

What is your source, for that assertion? According to this source, Christians are the second largest religious minority community in Pakistan. "The total number of Christians in Pakistan is approximately 2,800,000 in 2008, or 1.6% of the population." By saying "... anyone who owns a copy ..." you seem to be implying that all Christians in Pakistan who own a copy of the Christian Bible are liable to be accused of blasphemy and receive a death penalty. That seems to be a sweeping statement, which could exacerbate the Christian Muslim conflict.

I suggest you read this article from today's New York Times.

[boxcorner]

Originally Posted by rhadin

I suggest you read this article from today's New York Times.

I have read it. So, what's your point? The article doesn't mention the Christian Bible. If you are referring to the case against Asia Bibi who was sentenced to death by hanging for "blasphemy", the sentence has to be upheld in higher court before it can be executed. If executed, Bibi would be the first person in Pakistan to be lawfully killed for blasphemy. That's a single case and note that the case against her does not involve the ownership of a Christian Bible. If you are referring to the fact that "... religious extremism that is on the rise in Pakistani society ...", I think that is hardly very surprising given the secretive war that that US has been waging in some parts of Pakistan, since 2004, which has resulted in the deaths of at least 1,365 people in Pakistan. My point is your statement, "... anyone who owns a copy ...", is an inaccurate generalisation that should not be applied to the entire population of 2.8 million Pakistani Christians (ie approximately equivalent to the population of Kansas).

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by dmikov

Well for people who already invested in the Kindle it is effectively censorship.

*sigh*

No, it isn't. There are numerous other places you can self-publish in a Kindle-compatible format, especially if you are willing to remove DRM. And nothing stops a Kindle owner from buying content from another vendor.

Originally Posted by dmikov

It's like saying there was no censorship in Soviet Russia, because author could publish his work in some other country.

Yes, I can see how facing jail time for comments written in private letters, in a totalitarian state that made emigration nearly impossible, is similar to an author getting kicked off of a hardware platform. Which, of course, he can still sell to under numerous circumstances.

Originally Posted by dmikov

And your talk about how it is legal doesn't really change anything by the way, in some countries censorship is legal, but still called censorship.

That does not change the fact that this is not, in any way shape or form, "censorship" in any meaningful sense of the term.

There is nothing "official" about Amazon; there is plenty of competition; there are numerous options available to the author and the audience.

Freedom of speech does not in any way, shape or form guarantee that an individual will be granted the ability to force a commercial entity or an individual to publish and/or distribute a specific author's work. You, as with so many others, are utterly fail to distinguish between "editing" with "censorship."

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by boxcorner

Lateral thinking ... read a paper book instead.

When Amazon removes an ebook it also removes the paper version from Createspace.

[boxcorner]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

When Amazon removes an ebook it also removes the paper version from Createspace.

I didn't mean read that book! I meant read a paper book, any book, 'cos having to buy another reader and a PC just seems like too much effort.

[caleb72]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

I agree that getting a book pulled from Amazon is unquestionably a major obstacle. But the same holds for paper books that Walmart chooses not to carry, or B&N chooses not to feature, or a book that publishers reject (or pull after publication), or a newspaper editor chooses not to review, or a reviewer trashes. None of these facts change:

- Any retailer's right to pull a title, for almost any reason, at any time
- A publisher's right to pull a title, for almost any reason, at any time
- That freedom of speech does not guarantee you a commercial platform
- That no contracts were violated
- That pulling a handful of titles does not indicate an "expansion" of an existing policy

Need I go on?

While I agree about the rights and legalities you mention I think you'd probably see the same fuss caused by any publicised pulling of a title based on "content guidelines" from other traditional retailers as you see here. And I think you're much more likely to see if when the company in question is seen as the major commercial distribution point for that title.

I think it's very usual to see lovers of literature in all its guises to be concerned by content being pulled from the shelves virtual or otherwise.

Regards
Caleb

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by dmikov

Well for people who already invested in the Kindle it is effectively censorship.
You seem to forget, that while author can publish his work on Xyz site in Zyx format the reader who has the electronic device he paid money for are limited to only certain sites in this case Amazon.
It's like saying there was no censorship in Soviet Russia, because author could publish his work in some other country.
And your talk about how it is legal doesn't really change anything by the way, in some countries censorship is legal, but still called censorship.

People with kindles aren't limited to buying books from Amazon. They can buy books anywhere and sideload them to the Kindle. They can even buy non-DRM'd books in other formats, convert them in Calibre, and e-mail them to their Kindle.

And of course having a Kindle doesn't mean that you can't read a book in a different format on a computer, tablet, or smartphone.

As others have pointed out, your Soviet Union claim is both offensive and extremely non-apt: the fact that a dissident's book was published in France but unavailable to people in the USSR is not at all analogous to Amazon not publishing a book that is available on B&N or Smashwords *or the author's own site.*

Maybe there would be a point if Amazon's TOS required 5-25 years of imprisonment for reading any book not published by Amazon, in any format including paper.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by ebookrights1

When having morals becomes a bad thing, and the use of the word "God" more offensive than the rights of child molestors and rapists, it is a sign that the inmates are running the asylum.

No, in some cases it is a sign of the US constitution working it was intended to work, the claims of Christian facists notwithstanding.

Do you believe that people charged with child molesting or rape should not be entitled to a fair trial because they've been arrested for these things? Even before they've been found guilty? Because that's what it looks like you were saying.

But people convicted of these crimes can be sent away to prison for life. Can people using the word "God" be sent away to prison for life? Can they be sent away to prison at all? The answer to both of these questions is "no."

So, really, you're just whining that more people don't share your particular beliefs.

[ebookrights1]

Wrong.

I clearly said "offensive", not "criminal".

As far as child molestors and rapists are concerned, their inability to separate thought from action voids any protection they currently possess under Freedom of Speech.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by ebookrights1

......

As far as child molestors and rapists are concerned, their inability to separate thought from action voids any protection they currently possess under Freedom of Speech.

No, your statement that is absolutely wrong.

Innocent until proven guilty. If we lose sight of that it's all over.

[boxcorner]

Originally Posted by kennyc

... If we lose site of that it's all over.

Methinks you meant sight, but I agree, innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law, otherwise it's akin to a witch hunt, lynch mob or like being accused of heresy.

Originally Posted by ebookrights1

... As far as child molestors and rapists are concerned, their inability to separate thought from action voids any protection they currently possess under Freedom of Speech.

I find that statement very disturbing. Who is qualified to determine that someone is incapable of separating their thoughts from their actions? Surely someone would need to be able to read the minds of the alleged "child molestors and rapists" in order to prove that they were incapable of separating their thoughts from their actions, otherwise it would be a baseless accusation. Perhaps a psychiatrist would be able to give an expert diagnosis of a mental disorder, but surely not a layman. If someone breaks the law then they can be prosecuted and if found guilty they should be punished. However, they must remain innocent unless found guilty, in a court of law - not a kangaroo court. Accusations based on assumptions and imagined mind-reading sounds like dangerous gibberish to me.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by boxcorner

Methinks you meant sight.

Hee-Hee....fixed...

Thx~!