Amazon Censorship Expands

[nashira]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

See also:
http://www.ala.org/ala/newspresscent...2010/index.cfm

http://www.comicsalliance.com/2010/0...ook-week-2010/

Banning the dictionary has to be the funniest one.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Do you have data/references to back that up? Links? Studies?

Kenny, take a look at the history of American censorship during World War I and the Espionage Act of 1917. American censorship began with the Peter Zenger trial in the late 1700s and don't forget the Alien and Sedition Act of the 1790s.

In more recent times, in the 1950s there was the McCarran Act. World War II saw censorship of lots of books and articles by the Office of Censorship.

[kennyc]

Thanks Richard I will check it out when I have the opportunity, but it sounds like those situations are all national defense related which I mentioned. Perhaps not....I was thinking of the cases where the U.S. Government was "banning" something like "Harry Potter".....I don't know of any such case unless it is somehow associated with the situations/episodes you mention.

[kennyc]

Here's a link to the McCarran act in wikipedia. Says it has been mostly repealed...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarra...l_Security_Act

Here's a link to Alien and Sedition act which also has expired

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts

I'm seeing no specific mention of banning books in those (admittedly brief) synopses.

Now the Espionage act entry says:

"The Espionage Act of 1917, 18 USC § 792 et seq.,[1] is a United States federal law passed on June 15, 1917, shortly after the U.S. entry into World War I.

It prohibited any attempt to interfere with military operations, to support America's enemies during wartime, to promote insubordination in the military, or to interfere with military recruitment. In 1919, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Schenck v. United States that the act did not violate the freedom of speech of those convicted under its provisions."

It is unclear if or what books (or a count of them) were banned.

Guess I'm still searching for evidence/data that says the U.S.A. Government is the #1 banner of books as was claimed.



Interesting note in that last one:

"Julian Assange

The Washington Post reports that sources have said that federal authorities are considering prosecuting WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange under the Act, though the previous day Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. "did not indicate that Assange is being investigated for possible violations of the Espionage Act."[34]"

[boxcorner]

This list of banned books includes Little Red Riding Hood, which was banned in two California school districts in 1989, apparently because it showed the heroine taking wine to her grandmother!

onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/banned-books

Also, it mentions the Dmitry Sklyarov case. He was arrested by the FBI in 2001 at the request of Adobe, after delivering a lecture about the weakness of e-book access control systems.

[jamthecat]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Correct, but irrelevant.

The terms of the agreement -- which I suppose are between your publisher and Amazon -- clearly state they are entitled to pull an item. As is any retailer, for almost any reason.



If you object to the terms, then don't sign the contract.

There is absolutely no obligation for a contract to be excruciatingly specific. You and/or your publisher made a free choice to accept their terms; there was no force or duress in effect.

If you, or your publisher, agrees to terms that you believe are vague or unfavorable, then that is your own parties' fault, and you have to live with the consequences.



Apparently, someone at Amazon does not agree with your characterization of your work. One person's "obvious" is another person's "maybe" is another person's "murky depths." C'est la guerre.



Yeah, no.

They pulled your book without fanfare and without comment. It was your choice to publicize the affair. They crimped your availability, but hardly cast any aspersions upon your character in the process.

Perhaps it is more accurate to say that you defamed yourself by publicizing the reason for the removal of your book?

Oh, there was fanfare. A reporter for KCPQ, the Fox affiliate in Seattle, did a report using my book as an example of pronography "still available through Amazon, despite their T&Cs." Shortly thereafter, my book was removed from Amazon's list, not just on Kindle but also in paperback. I did not ask for this. The publicity was thrust upon me. I'm merely fighting back -- first against Amazon for tacitly giving that woman's claim validity. As for the reporter, I'm looking into legal action.

Which begs the question -- what else would you have me do? Roll over and play dead?

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by kennyc

It is unclear if or what books (or a count of them) were banned.

Guess I'm still searching for evidence/data that says the U.S.A. Government is the #1 banner of books as was claimed.

Kenny, these acts were used to ban books, pamphlets, and newspapers, depending on the era and the act. One way the government banned material was by prohibiting its importation when it was published outside the United States (often done under the McCarran Act). Another method, which was the method used under the auspices of the Espionage Act until late in the 1920s, was for the postmaster, who was the chief censor, to prohibit the material from being shipped to anyone via the U.SD. Postal Service. This was very effective.

One well-written book on the subject is Unsafe for Democracy: World War I and the U.S. Justice Department's Covert Campaign to Suppress Dissent by William H. Thomas Jr. An even better written book is Democracy's Prisoner: Eugene V. Debs, the Great War, and the Right to Dissent by Ernest Freeberg. In both books you will find examples of publications that were banned and/or suppressed by the U.S. government under the auspices of the Espionage Act, including during the 1920s, after the end of World War I but during the beginning of the "red" scare.

[jamthecat]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Then your independent publisher agreed to these terms and it doesn't matter how vague things are, basically the T&Cs say that they can do almost whatever they want, yup looks like ass-covering to me as well but the damn things must have been agreed to or the book would never have appeared... and it isn't illegal until a court determines the T&Cs are unfair practice... Amazon and other companies rely on likely complainants being financially unable to go to court or, if they do, be unable to stay the course.

Don't have a go at me, I'm on your side as to fairness etc of your treatment but whether your books violate their ideas or not doesn't matter when the T&Cs say they pull a book for any reason if they feel like it... life ain't fair... figure out a way round it, get your book published somewhere else, set up your own website, get their actions publicised somewhere that matters, where people may notice and support you... you need to get some serious muscle on your side so that Amazon may actually do something if the publicity gets bad enough... bitching on here may be satisfying but it isn't exactly CNN or the New York Times etc.

Why do you think I haven't? I'm a member of the ACLU and have asked them to consider this. I'd notified people all over the world as to what Amazon's doing. I'm not just screaming on this blog; I'm also screaming on FaceBook and my own blog and blogs I follow and newspapers about it.

[jamthecat]

Originally Posted by caleb72

Hi JamTheCat. Good to see you in this thread.

A small question - is your ebook now available to Australia in any way? I'm not sure if your book was published with geographical restrictions or not, but I don't believe I can buy this book from Barnes & Noble or Borders.

Could I have bought it from Amazon when it was listed?

Also - for my own curiosity, can you confirm an assumption I've made reading your blog? Would you consider either of the books pulled erotica? I know you say they're not porno books, but I'm not sure if that actually means the same thing as erotica.

For the murder/mystery it looks like the rape mentioned is just a plot device to kick off the story.

I mention this because I'm surprised by how many responses have kept saying the books in question are "books about gay rape" which I don't feel is the case reading the summary of one of those books.

Not that my say-so means anything, but reading the summary of your books made me feel in no way that the books were sick, perverted or any similar words that seemed to make an appearence on occasion in this thread in some form or other.

Additionally, I don't see how the word "gay" should qualify the word "rape" in any way to make these books any more likely to be singled out.

However, although I think you've been a victim of a fairly clumsy attempt at removing offensive material from sale in reaction to the "how-to pedofile" saga, I do think they're working within their rights here.

I don't like considering where this "cleansing" might be heading and I sincerely hope the situation rights itself before too long and previously stripped books find their way back onto the virtual shelves of Amazon. In the meantime, can you try to make inroads into your previously enjoyed sales by publishing through other organisations like Smashwords? It's a bit of a consolation prize after Amazon, but at least you can find other avenues to get your works out there.

Regards
Caleb

I appreciate your response.

I can see my books being categorized as erotica because of the sex in them, but they also have realistic characters with arcs, solid storylines and have a point to make.

Every definition of pornography I can find says it's all about the sex. It's tittilation and an appeal solely to one's prurient needs. My books do not meet those criteria by any stretch of the imagination. The only reason Amazon pulled my books was because that reporter of KCPQ labeled them porn in a news segment.

I don't know if "How To Rape A Straight Guy" is available as an e-book in Australia. I've been told by the publisher you can get a paperback copy through Bulldog Books. And Barnes & Noble has it available as a Nook, but I don't know if that's available down under.

[whitearrow]

Originally Posted by jamthecat

While true in the strictest legal sense, it's not true morally

Contracts are about the law, not morals.

If the contract had a clause that said the book could be delisted at any time, then there was no breach of contract.

Many of us have employment contracts that state our employment is at will and can be terminated by either party at any time. It doesn't matter if we're employed for one month, three years, or twenty years -- it's not a breach of contract to end it by its terms. (And it's not against the law in general unless the termination was for an illegal reason, such as race, gender, etc.)

I'm not saying what Amazon did was a good idea. I am saying it probably isn't a breach of contract.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by rhadin

Kenny, take a look at the history of American censorship during World War I and the Espionage Act of 1917. American censorship began with the Peter Zenger trial in the late 1700s and don't forget the Alien and Sedition Act of the 1790s.

In more recent times, in the 1950s there was the McCarran Act. World War II saw censorship of lots of books and articles by the Office of Censorship.

And don't forget the Comics Code Authority. It took over 30 years for that one to be relaxed.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by jamthecat

Oh, there was fanfare. A reporter for KCPQ, the Fox affiliate in Seattle, did a report using my book as an example of pronography "still available through Amazon, despite their T&Cs." Shortly thereafter, my book was removed from Amazon's list, not just on Kindle but also in paperback. I did not ask for this. The publicity was thrust upon me. I'm merely fighting back -- first against Amazon for tacitly giving that woman's claim validity. As for the reporter, I'm looking into legal action.

Which begs the question -- what else would you have me do? Roll over and play dead?

Good luck with it. Is your publisher offering any help/finances towards it?

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

And don't forget the Comics Code Authority. It took over 30 years for that one to be relaxed.

It was instituted in response to, and destroyed, one of the finest comics lines ever produced (EC comics).

[Jim Lester]

Originally Posted by boxcorner

Also, it mentions the Dmitry Sklyarov case. He was arrested by the FBI in 2001 at the request of Adobe, after delivering a lecture about the weakness of e-book access control systems.

The following is my own personal opinion, and does not represent the view of anyone else - especially not Adobe Systems Incorporated.

Well yes he was arrested after giving the lecture, but that doesn't give the correct flavor of what happened.

1.) It was done at Black Hat because it was on US soil (no extradition)
2.) It was done specifically after the presentation instead of before, since it was his selling of the software that was the issue (not the presentation)
3.) Not often discussed in the case, but he was also distributing copies of his company's software at BlackHat.

[boxcorner]

Originally Posted by Jim Lester

The following is my own personal opinion, and does not represent the view of anyone else - especially not Adobe Systems Incorporated.

Well yes he was arrested after giving the lecture, but that doesn't give the correct flavor of what happened.

1.) It was done at Black Hat because it was on US soil (no extradition)
2.) It was done specifically after the presentation instead of before, since it was his selling of the software that was the issue (not the presentation)
3.) Not often discussed in the case, but he was also distributing copies of his company's software at BlackHat.

Very interesting. Thanks for that. For the benefit of those who haven't followed the link that I posted earlier (Post #410), here's the full text from onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/banned-books:

"In July 2001, Russian programmer Dmitry Sklyarov was arrested by the FBI after delivering a lecture describing the weaknesses of "e-book" access control systems. The arrest was made at the request of Adobe, which sells some of the access control systems that were demonstrated to be flawed in Sklyarov's talk. Sklyarov was charged with distributing a program he had written in Russia that a reader could use for disabling some of these access controls for Adobe-formatted "ebooks" after they had bought them. This article from EFF describes some of the free speech and fair use issues at stake. And Dave Touretzky is now building up a Gallery of Adobe Remedies as a companion to his Gallery of DVD decoders. (By December 2002, charges against Sklyarov had been dropped, and his company was acquitted of the charge of willfully violating the DMCA.)"