Amazon Censorship Expands

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by kennyc

No, your statement that is absolutely wrong.

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

Exactly. Too many people think the accused should be treated the same as the convicted. Not to mention that "inability to separate thought from action" defines illness rather than the crime, further muddying the issue, unless we want to get into the rights of the mentally ill. I can only assume that this is a crossover from "the other thread", since we're back to bringing up child molestation and this discussion is supposed to be about gay erotica.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash

Exactly. Too many people think the accused should be treated the same as the convicted.

An example are the former Duke University lacrosse players.

The law permits this. In sexual assault or molestation cases the woman and child's names are not revealed. Yet the men are quickly identified and names are released to the press.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by boxcorner

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.


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.

Not much you can add to that

[nguirado]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

The Patriot Act greaty accelerated things, but it really began with religious groups trying to set (or rather influence) the agenda for print, radio, and TV.

But even I don't like to visit the US anymore, you get fingerprinted, your eyes are being scanned, and now you have to fill out long forms in advance. Makes you feel like a criminal being booked at a police station.

Happy New Year right back at you -- though the big festivities here are for Lunar New Year.

I know that you're not from the US, but this is very ignorant. Can you tell me one aspect of the Patriot act that has impacted American freedom? You might be right about the freedom, however: What do you think about state health insurance and other regulations or the Patriot act?

I think religious groups have impacted media since about 1776. Freedom isn't just looking at dirty pictures.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by nguirado

I know that you're not from the US, but this is very ignorant. Can you tell me one aspect of the Patriot act that has impacted American freedom? What do you think will impact more Americans' freedom: state health insurance and other regulations or the Patriot act? I think religious groups have impacted media since about 1776. Freedom isn't just looking at dirty pictures.

The patriot act is basically against all the ideals that created the U.S.A.

It gave the government full and complete power to spy on any and all citizens without court approval.

Let's start here from wikipedia:

The Act dramatically reduced restrictions on law enforcement agencies' ability to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records; eased restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States; expanded the Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and broadened the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts. The act also expanded the definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism, thus enlarging the number of activities to which the USA PATRIOT Act’s expanded law enforcement powers can be applied.

The Act was passed by wide margins in both houses of Congress and was supported by members of both the Republican and Democratic parties.

Opponents of the law have criticized its authorization of indefinite detentions of immigrants; searches through which law enforcement officers search a home or business without the owner’s or the occupant’s permission or knowledge; the expanded use of National Security Letters, which allows the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to search telephone, e-mail, and financial records without a court order; and the expanded access of law enforcement agencies to business records, including library and financial records. Since its passage, several legal challenges have been brought against the act, and Federal courts have ruled that a number of provisions are unconstitutional.

The Patriot Act is the biggest atrocity that has been foisted on the American people since we've been a people. This thread though is not the place. Please start a thread in the Politics and Religion forum if you'd like to discuss it.

[nguirado]

I didn't bring up the Patriot Act. Still, this will be the last I say about it, lest I take this too far off topic:

The Patriot Act may or may not be useful, but it's to gather intelligence against suspected terrorists. Many of the rules were to counter recent restrictions like FISA, so it would have been a return to the past rules. I don't know of any cases in which it's been used any other way.

If you find this a greater restriction on your freedom than rules that tell you what insurance you must have, what light bulbs to put in your house, what foods to eat, and other regulations, then we just worry about different things.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by nguirado

The Patriot Act may or may not be useful, but it's to gather intelligence against suspected terrorists. Many of the rules were to counter recent restrictions like FISA, so it would have been a return to the past rules. I don't know of any cases in which it's been used any other way.

I do not believe this is correct but event so if you have tools they will be misused so google "patriot act misuse" and you will get a lot of the bad effect of the patriot act.

[nguirado]

I will. Thanks.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Forgive me for this one-time-only posting of a book image. I realize it makes the page load longer, but I feel in this instance it is pertinent to the discussion.

Available from Amazon:



The Rape of the A.P.E. has nothing to do with rape. It's a humorous look at the "sexual revolution." I read it years ago. I was put off by the title, but read it because I liked Allan Sherman. "A.P.E." in this instance stands for "American Puritan Ethic."

Could it be that there are different rules for books by third-party sellers or older established titles?

as I said earlier when someone posted the print of the book about the "rape" of China, or somesuch, it is word usage. I do not believe that Amazon is targeting "rape"

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.

WE ARE NOT LOCKED

INTO AMAZON WITH

A KINDLE!!!!!

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by boxcorner

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.

So when Amazon removes an ebook it does have consequences after all?

[crich70]

That's along the lines of the point I was trying to make. Amazon's wording of their guidelines seems so broad and vague in its scope that technically no one should be able to submit anything for publication since there has to be someone out there that could/would be offended by said submission. In essence if I read it right you have to please everyone or your book is probably going to be yanked eventually when someone does complain, and it is impossible to please everyone. I just used the Bible as an example. Amazon sells several different copies of the text and according to the quote that I originally posted if someone is offended by it Amazon can just pull it off the shelves without a second thought. So any book is a potential target.

Originally Posted by rhadin

In Pakistan, the christian bible could well be an insult to islam, requiring not only its banning but the death penalty for anyone who owns a copy.

[Sydney's Mom]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

I wouldn't call their market share of Kindle-compatible ebooks a small portion.

Agreed. But I would argue that Amazon is acting as a publisher in this instance, so we would have to look at its share of the overall publishing market.


Even if it were applied based on ebook share, I don't think that would work, either. I heard there were certain books and movies that Walmart won't sell. I don't believe anyone has brought an antitrust suit against them.

[nguirado]

It seems that people want to use the legal system and/or government to force a store to sell something they don't want to. Isn't that restricting freedom?

[gollu]

One more "amazon bashing thread" to be added to the the "ignore thread list". If anyone from Amazon is reading this - then know you have my full support for not selling whatever you choose not to sell.

[boxcorner]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

So when Amazon removes an ebook it does have consequences after all?

Did I say it didn't?

Obviously, it has all sorts of consequences:

• It affects Amazon's business, with the likely effect of reducing their profit line (unless you believe these antics are some kind of a bizarre gorilla marketing campaign aimed at enhancing Amazon's reputation), the author's revenue and anyone who might want to buy the book, until such time as they can buy it elsewhere (and anyway restricts the range of choices that are available to them).
• Perhaps it also affects those who subscribe to the idea that the removal of one book is a part of an alleged creeping censuring, by America's Christian right, of the type of books that Amazon sells, based on their religious beliefs about what constitutes morality, (irrespective of the fact that moral codes are not only limited to religious belief systems; otherwise because it might provide those fundamentalists with encouragement) and it might lead to an infringement of their rights under the First Amendment, or even somehow threaten the precepts of the American Constitution.
• Apparently it affects those who subscribe to the idea that Amazon is obliged to publish all genres of books submitted to them, otherwise it might be an infringement of their rights under the First Amendment (as they have been moved to comment about it, at length, in this thread and others).
• Seemingly, it affects those who believe that Amazon's action is "censorship", despite the efforts of those detractors who believe that "censorship" can only be carried out by a state, because they continue to bang on about it in these threads.
• Also, it affects those who believe that threads like this are yet another attempt to "bash" Amazon - when the effect is that they choose to ignore them.
• Possibly, who knows, it might delight some non-religious non-homophobic pacifists, who find a "how to" book about homosexual rape offensive, because sexual rape involves violence?
• Another consequence is that it provides a bit of entertainment for those who enjoy contributing to these threads.

Need I go on ... ?

Perhaps you think it affects me, because we are nit-picking or splitting hairs here, or am I being too pedantic for you?