Amazon removing gay ebooks from their catalog again

[jhempel24]

Originally Posted by Nyssa

I think the legal age for everything should be 21. I agree that it is ridiculous for a boy to offer to lay down his life for his country but be denied a drink when he comes home alive.

As for Playboy: I actually haven't seen one since I was a preteen so I have no idea. Is it all "just" naked pictures or do they show people in the act?

Actually, I thinks its a very tasteful magazine. My wife and I have been a subscriber for a long time. Alot if great short stories and reviews of movies, music and games.

The pics are done well, no porn just nude modeling (there is a difference). We only stopped a few years ago when we had our son. Bt we have 5-6 years of them in a box upstairs.

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by BuddyBoy

Edited to add: just reviewed the legal cases, and the laws introduced over the last 10 years. I see the argued theory is that cartoon depictions can lead to copycat abuse.

I have a real problem with "copycat abuse" as a legal theory because it can so easily be applied to anything else. If taken to its logical extension, it would ban the depiction of any illegal, or socially undesirable, activity because someone might decide to do the same, giving us a market-wide Comics Code.

If we ban all depictions (written, drawn, etc.) of children having sex because if they were real they would be a criminal offense, then it is not much of a step to banning all depictions of murder, an even more heinous act, for the same reason. There goes the entire mystery genre, not to mention the TV show Dexter, where the protagonist gets away with it. Should we not? If someone is likely to abuse children because they've looked at a picture of cartoon children having sex, wouldn't someone be likely to commit any other crime if they've seen pictures of cartoon characters ... or dramatic characters ... or real people ... committing that same crime? Some serial killers do in fact keep clipping books of their own crimes, or those of other killers they admire; should news articles about them be banned?

I don't want to live where some modern Comics Code Authority has control over what I can read, what I can write, what I can draw.

[ardeegee]

Hm. A quick search at Amazon for the word "yaoi" shows nearly 200 items still available for the Kindle.

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

I have a real problem with "copycat abuse" as a legal theory because it can so easily be applied to anything else.

Yes, I definitely oppose the abuse of copycats.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Nyssa

I think the legal age for everything should be 21. I agree that it is ridiculous for a boy to offer to lay down his life for his country but be denied a drink when he comes home alive.

As for Playboy: I actually haven't seen one since I was a preteen so I have no idea. Is it all "just" naked pictures or do they show people in the act?

Just pictures. And not even terribly explicit ones at that. Certainly no sexual acts. It really is pretty mild.

[caleb72]

Originally Posted by Nyssa

I think the legal age for everything should be 21.

I like the idea of people legally drinking a couple of years before they touch a car. That's pretty much a reversal of the laws in the U.S. but I hate the idea of people experimenting with alcohol while they're driving, I like them to be serious and practised alcoholics before getting behind the wheel.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

To my knowledge, every time the US Supreme Court has ruled on this matter they have disagreed with you.

You are confused. There is an important legal distinction between "obscenity," which is not protected by the first amendment, and "pornography," which absolutely is. (And then there is child porn, which is also not protected, but for a different reason - making it is directly harmful to the kids involved).

The "community standards" test is part of the legal definition of obscenity...but only one part of the test: even the most prudish community can't ban penthouse or even nude dancing establishments, regardless of local community standards.

[cfrizz]

Thank you!

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

You are confused. There is an important legal distinction between "obscenity," which is not protected by the first amendment, and "pornography," which absolutely is. (And then there is child porn, which is also not protected, but for a different reason - making it is directly harmful to the kids involved).

The "community standards" test is part of the legal definition of obscenity...but only one part of the test: even the most prudish community can't ban penthouse or even nude dancing establishments, regardless of local community standards.

[GA Russell]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

...even the most prudish community can't ban penthouse or even nude dancing establishments, regardless of local community standards.

Thanks, Andrew. But I'm not sure that that is right about the strip clubs. Ten years ago I lived in rural Winder, Georgia, and a fellow wanted to open up a nudie bar, and they wouldn't let him.

I don't recall the legal arguments. Perhaps they wouldn't grant him a liquor license, but I don't think that was it. I just don't remember.

PS - The more I think about it, the more I think that the liquor license was the deal. I have a vague recollection that he opened up with nude girls serving soft drinks and nobody wanted to go, so after a few weeks he closed.

But let's get back to your obscenity/pornography dichotomy. "Obscenity" is a legal term of art, but is the word "pornography" ever used in the Court's decisions? Has the Court ever explicitly made a distinction between obscenity and pornography, or explicitly stated that pornography is protected unless it is obscene?

It seems to me that there was a case where the Court ruled that the govt could ban works which appealled to "prurient interest". And wasn't that then overturned by the Fanny Hill case, which as I recall demanded that the work be "utterly without socially redeeming value"? Then wasn't that overturned by the "community standard" case?

[CommonReader]

Originally Posted by Nyssa

I think the legal age for everything
As for Playboy: I actually haven't seen one since I was a preteen so I have no idea. Is it all "just" naked pictures or do they show people in the act?

The most shocking aspect of Playboy photos is probably the silicone content of the young ladies who are on display.

[Nyssa]

Originally Posted by jhempel24

Actually, I thinks its a very tasteful magazine. My wife and I have been a subscriber for a long time. Alot if great short stories and reviews of movies, music and games.

The pics are done well, no porn just nude modeling (there is a difference). We only stopped a few years ago when we had our son. Bt we have 5-6 years of them in a box upstairs.

Originally Posted by HarryT

Just pictures. And not even terribly explicit ones at that. Certainly no sexual acts. It really is pretty mild.

Originally Posted by CommonReader

The most shocking aspect of Playboy photos is probably the silicone content of the young ladies who are on display.

Well, if that's the case, then, no, I do not consider it "porn". To me, porn = explicit, sexual acts (including self gratification).

[RainingLemur]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

Thanks, Andrew. But I'm not sure that that is right about the strip clubs. Ten years ago I lived in rural Winder, Georgia, and a fellow wanted to open up a nudie bar, and they wouldn't let him.

I don't recall the legal arguments. Perhaps they wouldn't grant him a liquor license, but I don't think that was it. I just don't remember.

PS - The more I think about it, the more I think that the liquor license was the deal. I have a vague recollection that he opened up with nude girls serving soft drinks and nobody wanted to go, so after a few weeks he closed.

I imagine it was the liquor license.

In the town I grew up in, there were similar issues with someone wanting to open a strip club. Their biggest hurdle was the liquor license. They wanted to serve alcohol AND be full-nude. They settled for just topless and booze, but later got busted (several times) for "secretly" having some all-nude shows. That, and selling porn on the property.

The city had its own ordinances regarding SoB's along with the ones defined by the state laws. My mom owned an adult video store for several years, and she was constantly under scrutiny from the city council and such for being "on the border" with her store. The city has some regulation in place that states that a business can't have more than a certain % of its floor space dedicated to the sales of adult materials. If it is any greater than the limit, then it would need to be moved to a different zone. The state of Nevada has given all cities authority on location of SoB's, and that was the compromise that the city made in regards to those types of establishments.

[mariel9898]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Oh, please.

If they pulled every single work of gay erotica, then you'd have a valid claim. When they pull 10 books (which may include graphic depictions of underaged sex) out of about 1,000,000 ebook titles, it's nothing. Especially since they offer domestic partner benefits.

This might be why they removed those particular titles.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by Bani

It seems like this case here is more about Amazon objecting to one of the characters being 17 years old.

Is that the case? In which case, the question isn't necessarily about gay porn, but about underage porn. Saying that, 17 is legal everywhere, no? Still, it's sailing a bit close to the wind and is, as I said, is a separate deal.

And is it the case that amazon only banned one other gay content item and that it was subsequently reinstated? If so, this may be a storm in a tea cup. Still, it was fun.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga View Post
Oh, please.

If they pulled every single work of gay erotica, then you'd have a valid claim. When they pull 10 books (which may include graphic depictions of underaged sex) out of about 1,000,000 ebook titles, it's nothing. Especially since they offer domestic partner benefits.

Not that I support kiddie porn, but I think there is a world of difference between a drawing of a character who is (according to the story line) supposed to be underage and a photo of an actual underage human being. Manga is stylized to a degree and not usually a completely realistic portrayal of a real person (features are simplified and/or exaggerated) so I don't see how they can equate a manga drawing with an actual photo. They are two different things.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by Rizla

If so, this may be a storm in a tea cup. Still, it was fun.

Censorship, delisting products on one subject while keeping others and the nature of pornography or not, obscenity or not are worthy subjects to discuss no matter what set them off, or at least that's my opinion.

We're here because we read and have some affinity for technology, these topics touch both subjects.

So not just fun, but worthwhile.