Amazon Censorship Expands

[ebookrights1]

Let's look at this another way:

If the ebook that was pulled had been written by Ann Coulter, George W. Bush or Sarah Palin, most of you would not be crying about Freedom of Speech.
You would be dancing in the streets.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by nguirado

Yes, it does. It shows that there's a way to talk about reality without succumbing to the prurient. I'm sure you can tell the difference between books that discuss rape and incest to make a point and those that do to titilate.

You need all possible input to fully understand and discus a subject.

And from what I have heard rape and incest is not discussed in the Bible. As I understand it is is shown as totally acceptable.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by ebookrights1

Let's look at this another way:

If the ebook that was pulled had been written by Ann Coulter, George W. Bush or Sarah Palin, most of you would not be crying about Freedom of Speech.
You would be dancing in the streets.

No, the same discussion would be had. Do you believe that people would dance in the street just because you would do it if your enemies books was removed?

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by crich70

Go to any publishers website and you will find clear concise guidelines as to what they buy (fiction or non-fiction), length of manuscript and genre (in the case of fiction), but it sounds like they don't do anything like that at Amazon and then just go about yanking books off the shelves without making it clear as to why they were pulled. To me that just doesn't sound like good business.

So if you send a manuscript to a publisher that meets their guidelines, they will publish it?

Of course they won't, which is why these calls for written standards are so intellectually dishonest. Normal publishers don't do this and no one complains of censorships. Amazon presumptively publishes *everything*, and yet get accused of censorship despite the fact that they reject an order of magnitude smaller number of books.

[nguirado]

Originally Posted by tompe

You need all possible input to fully understand and discus a subject.

And from what I have heard rape and incest is not discussed in the Bible. As I understand it is is shown as totally acceptable.

This is a very long, complicated discussion that touches upon thousands of years of theology and history. I wouldn't just toss it out there.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by eppythacher

These treads will also be important for future students and scholars to show how people thought in this time.

Originally Posted by eppythacher

This is one of the things I don't understand about people or companies; that they are going against the tide of history.

I hate to break this to you, but very few events are truly predictable in this fashion.

I also find it rather hilarious that you describe Amazon as though they were Luddites who resist changes. Amazon sparked and/or capitalized on numerous major changes in book retail (online sales, long tail, pushing ebooks, self-publishing). They are hardly dinosaurs of an earlier era.

Originally Posted by eppythacher

How do you think history will judge the people that are anti gay, drug, and pro censorship?

There is absolutely no way to know.

Practices that were tolerated, accepted or downright expected in Ancient Greece and Rome (homosexuality, pedophilia, death in sporting events) became outlawed, taboo and unacceptable in subsequent eras. A nation like Lebanon could swing from a relatively relaxed and liberal attitude towards social behaviors, to more restrictive social codes if the government swings towards a strict form of Islam.

Or, the Hispanic population -- which is heavily Catholic and not especially tolerant towards homosexuality iirc -- could continue to grow in the US, and may put the kibosh on some of these types of recent changes.

History is not teleological nor guaranteed to move in a particular direction.

Nor can we take unknown future attitudes as a viable guide for ethical behavior. Either you believe that gay marriage is acceptable, or you don't. There is no point cowering in fear over what judgment some unknown future observer will pass upon the present.

[nguirado]

I agree with Kali. Things are too complicated for such certainty, not that all speculation is bad. I would just do it with some humility.

I'm not accusing anybody of being anything, but this type of secular eschatology started with Marx and we know how most of his predictions ended up.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by nguirado

Yes, it does. It shows that there's a way to talk about reality without succumbing to the prurient. I'm sure you can tell the difference between books that discuss rape and incest to make a point and those that do to titilate.

It would appear that Amazon is incapable of seeing the difference though. And since there is no way to appeal, whatever they decide is final.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

I doubt very seriously it will last 50 years. I don't even think it will last 5!

Within 5 years there will be nothing left to ban. Enjoy reading your Narnia books.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by ebookrights1

Let's look at this another way:

If the ebook that was pulled had been written by Ann Coulter, George W. Bush or Sarah Palin, most of you would not be crying about Freedom of Speech.
You would be dancing in the streets.

Not at all. As I've said many times in these threads. Freedom of speech is independent of the content of the speech.

Also a retailer can choose or not choose what they offer the public.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

So if you send a manuscript to a publisher that meets their guidelines, they will publish it?

Of course they won't, which is why these calls for written standards are so intellectually dishonest. Normal publishers don't do this and no one complains of censorships. Amazon presumptively publishes *everything*, and yet get accused of censorship despite the fact that they reject an order of magnitude smaller number of books.

Amazon is a distributor, not a publisher.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Within 5 years there will be nothing left to ban. Enjoy reading your Narnia books.

If they whacked 10,000 books off the rolls in one day, you might have a point.

Then again, people aren't necessarily proclaiming Apple as "censorious," although they heavily restrict the content available via the App Store, iBooks, iTunes and so forth -- and there is plenty of content available from them desipte these restrictions.

I recommend you keep this action in perspective -- namely that it is still small and isolated.

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

So if you send a manuscript to a publisher that meets their guidelines, they will publish it?

Of course they won't, which is why these calls for written standards are so intellectually dishonest. Normal publishers don't do this and no one complains of censorships. Amazon presumptively publishes *everything*, and yet get accused of censorship despite the fact that they reject an order of magnitude smaller number of books.

You can't compare Amazon to a traditional publisher. It's more akin to a self-publishing platform attached to distribution. Different animal.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

I recommend you keep this action in perspective -- namely that it is still small and isolated.

It's only just started, and these type of people are never satisfied with any of their victories.

[carld]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

I recommend you keep this action in perspective -- namely that it is still small and isolated.

I would say it's not so small and isolated to the author who has a rather different and pertinent perspective. It's also only small and isolated when it's not something you want to read.