Amazon removing gay ebooks from their catalog again

[Xanthe]

Still have to disagree with you.

They can have a vague "no objectionable stuff" rule and decide on an individual basis what constitutes objectionable stuff to them. It may not be objectionable to me or to you, but if they deem it so, then it is so on their site. There is nothing that requires them to apply any consistency in what they consider objectionable. Again, we might want them to do so, but they are under no legal obligation to treat what they might consider pornography in a consistent manner.

They are marketing to different locales, different countries, where attitudes toward sex and the public depiction of it differs widely. They are in the business of making money, not being harbingers of change. They've got to sell what can make money for them, and yet not cause them to run afoul of the anti-porn crowd and hurt their sales. And frankly, the public at large is not going to get worked up over Amazon putting limits in that area; all that's needed are a few parents complaining to the media that Amazon is selling porn to their teenagers and watch what a sh*tstorm will occur - a much greater one that folks here crying discrimination.

[crich70]

Actually the idea that they sell to different countries with different standards doesn't quite cover it either I don't think Xanthe. They could set things so that the product is unavailable in country X I would think. I've seen it before with Kindle ebooks on Amazon. So if they can decide that a given ebook is available in Australia but not in India say then they can apply some such blocks to keep a given product from showing in searches in a given area I would think.

[carld]

Having the legal right to discriminate makes it no better to do so. That's called rule by law, rather than the rule of law. All sorts of unbelievably heinous things have been perfectly legal in this country and others.

Being legal has no bearing on it being discrimination or not, or being wrong or not.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Xanthe

Still have to disagree with you.

They can have a vague "no objectionable stuff" rule and decide on an individual basis what constitutes objectionable stuff to them. It may not be objectionable to me or to you, but if they deem it so, then it is so on their site. There is nothing that requires them to apply any consistency in what they consider objectionable. Again, we might want them to do so, but they are under no legal obligation to treat what they might consider pornography in a consistent manner.

Yes, they are: it's against the law to do business with some people and not others and imply you have the same standards for everyone.

They can use whatever standards they want, but they can't say "straight sex is allowed to be explicit; gay sex is limited to kissing"--at least, not in much of the US; discrimination by sexual orientation is illegal. And while they're allowed to say "we have content requirements for books, which we're not going to tell you," they're not allowed to have different content requirements for different clients and not tell them what's different. (I'm not sure they're allowed to have different requirements, period; that's one of those fine points of trade law. But I know they're not allowed to claim standards or consistency that don't exist.)

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by carld

Being legal has no bearing on it being discrimination or not, or being wrong or not.

Exactly.

The problem with these conversations is that there's always someone who starts to argue the issue from a "legal" point of view.

The legality of the behavior is, at best, secondary to the discussion. I don't think anyone is arguing that Bezos should be hauled off in an orange jumpsuit.

The *point* of this thread - as I see it - is to inform MR users that boy-on-boy sex is being quietly pulled from Amazon while mixed-pair and girl-on-girl is still allowed under the vague "no objectionable content" rules. In other words, if you are gay or if you like gay erotica, Amazon finds you more objectionable than if you are straight or like "girl-on-girl" erotica (I hesitate to call it lesbian erotica since so much of it is clearly manufactured for a straight male readership).

The posters can then choose to not spend their money at Amazon and/or complain to their customer service as they see fit.

I've already said that my argument is not a legal one but rather a moral one. Arguing with me on legal grounds - as Xanthe is doing - is utterly pointless because my argument is not a legal one, which is what I said from the outset. (It would be like going back before the civil rights movement and arguing that "separate but equal" wasn't discrimination because the law said it was fine and dandy.)

[Sil_liS]

I would like to suggest another reason why people might have a problem with a yaoi manga that has as protagonists 17 year old boys.
I was reading yaoi manga a couple of years ago so I can tell you that the setting for teenagers tends to be the schools, and for two boys that means mostly boys only schools. You can also find the not-so-subtle indication that with the lack of girls most of the boys turn gay. Add to that the fact that in the stories that are in the PWP (Plot, what plot?) category the whole school is basically gay, and the thoughts of a non-Japanese reader might move towards a similar boys-only settings in their society, such as, let's say the military.

[wyndslash]

i also read a lot of yaoi manga, and obviously, not all of them have the settings to be schools. it really depends on the plot, and there's a reason why a PWP is called a PWP, regardless whether it is straight or gay o_O

i'm not really a big fan of school settings, though. (they're usually boring and predictable)

[Xanthe]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Yes, they are: it's against the law to do business with some people and not others and imply you have the same standards for everyone.

But they are not violating the law by doing business with some people and not another. There is no law that says a company must sell every product under the sun. It is up to the person to decide whether or not Amazon is selling what they want to buy. Amazon is not forcing them to buy only from them nor is it trying to stifle anyone else from selling what they don't choose to. And given the seemingly deliberate vagueness of the wording of their content agreements, there is no implication that their standards are the same across the board for every type of product that they might sell.

I think that trying to separate the legal and moral arguments is disingenuous in this instance. People who are trying to make a case against what Amazon has done are implying that they are violating laws against discrimination, yet when it is being pointed out that no such thing is being done they are saying that it is a moral issue instead of a legal one, and dismissing the legal facts. You can't have one without the other. Either something is discrimination under the law, or else it's merely something that you (a general "you" here) don't think is fair - and that definition of fairness is not necessarily that of others.

This is not an issue comparable to the legal/moral battles fought during the civil rights era. This is corporate policy regarding what they choose to sell versus what some people think they should be selling - a totally different creature. Trying to elevate this issue to a level comparable to a broad-based, in-grained, society-wide behavior of racial discrimination is trying, IMO, to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

A thought: if Amazon no longer sells certain types of yaoi, is that being viewed as removing the mainstream "seal of approval" so to speak, from it? Is that possibly what is underlying some of the consternation? Because if Amazon won't sell it, it becomes a more marginalized genre once again and loses the protective cloak of "well, if Amazon sells it then it isn't really pornography"?

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by Xanthe

I think that trying to separate the legal and moral arguments is disingenuous in this instance. People who are trying to make a case against what Amazon has done are implying that they are violating laws against discrimination, yet when it is being pointed out that no such thing is being done they are saying that it is a moral issue instead of a legal one, and dismissing the legal facts. You can't have one without the other. Either something is discrimination under the law, or else it's merely something that you (a general "you" here) don't think is fair - and that definition of fairness is not necessarily that of others.

I think you may find that the people on this thread who are upset about Amazon's actions are not an homogeneous mass hive-mind.

Some people appear to be arguing that Amazon's actions are illegal. Some people definitely are arguing that Amazon's actions are immoral. (I say 'definitely' because I'm doing that, and while I may not know what other people are arguing, I know what I'm arguing. )

There are multiple definitions of discrimination; the word doesn't just mean legal discrimination.

You seem to be upset that not everyone wants to have the same argument (i.e., the "is someone going to go to jail over this" Rules Lawyer version) as you. That's okay - I mean, you're not obligated to address the morality issue, but don't breeze in and say "I don't see an issue here" and then get upset when people point out that there are more issues at state here than the U.S. legal code.

TL;DR: We can have it both ways (legal issues and moral issues) because there are a lot of different individuals in this thread approaching the issue from different viewpoints. A dismissive "nothing to see here, move along" comment isn't going to change that.

[Xanthe]

I'm not upset at all; just because I'm continuing to argue my point doesn't mean that I have any emotion vested in it - I like to argue points just for the sake of the argument. I don't really have a horse in this race. I've read yaoi and as a woman it just doesn't interest me, so whether Amazon sells all types of it or just certain types of it is more of an intellectual exercise to me than any type of attack on my "rights".

Nor have I alleged that the people who participate in this thread are part of a hive-mind. Though I would posit that the people who are participating in the thread would have a great deal more similarities with one another regarding interest in the unfettered dissemination of information of whatever type than with the people who are ignoring this thread.

When folks start bandying words like discrimination around and try to tie it to the civil rights struggle, then it is a legal definition of discrimination that they are trying to finesse. "Discrimination" is a word that has weight and history; the non-legal usage you're implying makes it seem comparable to my 5 year old niece telling her mother that she's being discriminated against because she can't wear her sparkly sneakers to school.

I still think that this whole thread is a non-issue. It's just a reiteration of one that usually pops up whenever Amazon exercises control over their product and some take exception to that control. I'm not saying that people shouldn't discuss the matter if they want, just pointing out that it's something that can be counted on as sure as the sunrise - especially if Amazon is involved. If folks want to talk about the same issues that's fine - there's usually a new crop of members for whom the discussion is new and they might enjoy it. But I can "breeze in" and state whatever I want; you don't have to agree with me, just like I don't have to agree with you. Stating "been there, done that" regarding the argument retreads is also a valid opinion even if some might not like to think so.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by wyndslash

i also read a lot of yaoi manga, and obviously, not all of them have the settings to be schools. it really depends on the plot, and there's a reason why a PWP is called a PWP, regardless whether it is straight or gay o_O

i'm not really a big fan of school settings, though. (they're usually boring and predictable)

I didn't say that all of them were in schools, but most of the ones with teenagers are. And I should apologize because I was under the impression, after reading through the thread that the manga involved was with teenagers.

But I've read the article linked in the OP, and I've come to some conclusions:
- They only removed the digital versions

Amazon has removed several yaoi manga from its Kindle Store and refused to allow others to be offered for Kindle, although the bookseller continues to sell the same manga in print and to offer more explicit erotic books in both formats.

- The problem wasn't related to yaoi manga alone

At least one non-yaoi erotic graphic novel has also been removed from the Kindle Store this week.
[...]
Lui said that he had noticed that a number of non-yaoi adult manga from other publishers that had been added in recent months has disappeared in the past few weeks.

- Age isn't a problem, and the works are rated

"I asked them why, and they said take a look at their content policy and directed me to what I had read a couple times before," he said. Lui said that he is not aware of any recent changes in the policy, and that DMP has been putting books rated for ages16+ and 18+ on the Kindle for the past few years with no problem. Digital does not publish any stories involving characters under 18, he added.

- Amazon isn't trying to be clear in their guidelines

What we deem offensive is probably about what you would expect.

Sorry again about posting without reading the article.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by Xanthe

When folks start bandying words like discrimination around and try to tie it to the civil rights struggle, then it is a legal definition of discrimination that they are trying to finesse. "Discrimination" is a word that has weight and history; the non-legal usage you're implying makes it seem comparable to my 5 year old niece telling her mother that she's being discriminated against because she can't wear her sparkly sneakers to school.

The only way I can understand you using this analogy is if you (a) don't understand my argument or (b) don't understand the concept of discrimination.

The idea that the only discrimination on earth is illegal discrimination boggles my mind. The only way for this definition to make sense is if you believe that all discrimination laws leapt forth fully formed from the head of Zeus at the beginning of time - and, of course, that no further possible means of discrimination exists beyond what has been legislated against.

There are MANY forms of discrimination that are not illegal at a federal level in the U.S. (And there are, for the record, a lot of places on earth that aren't the U.S. - also worth noting when you want to stick to a "legal history" argument.) Weight discrimination, for one.

Peggy Howell says she will never forget the day her boss told her she either had to lose weight or lose her job. She weighed 280 pounds at the time and was working as a librarian. Feeling as if she had no choice but to comply, Howell joined Weight Watchers.

This behavior is illegal in San Francisco but not in, say, New Mexico. According to your argument (that any discussion of "discrimination" must be a legal argument or it's a non-issue and no more discrimination than 5-year-old dress decisions), people in New Mexico can't call this behavior "discrimination" because, legally-in-their-area, it's not.

Morally, of course, it is. And the people in New Mexico may well be working towards legislating the behavior. But the fact that it's not currently illegal doesn't mean that they can't or won't or shouldn't call it "discrimination" - because that is what it is.

[RichL]

On the bright side Amazon renewed a $25K grant for new LGBT writers.

http://www.lambdaliterary.org/memo/0...ant/#more-4719

[Xanthe]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

The only way I can understand you using this analogy is if you (a) don't understand my argument or (b) don't understand the concept of discrimination.

Or if I was being facetious and you completely missed my point in your rush to wave the flag of righteousness.

The idea that the only discrimination on earth is illegal discrimination boggles my mind.

I didn't say that, but feel free to continue to be boggled.

According to your argument (that any discussion of "discrimination" must be a legal argument or it's a non-issue and no more discrimination than 5-year-old dress decisions), people in New Mexico can't call this behavior "discrimination" because, legally-in-their-area, it's not.

Nor did I say that.

Please re-read what I wrote and do not extrapolate extreme positions for me in your flights of moral outrage.

There are differing degrees of discrimination, ranging from the legal definition to my sparkly shoes example. A company deciding not to sell a certain type of what might be considered pornographic material is not comparable in degree to a broad class of people being denied their right to housing or to vote or to marry, to people being threatened with job loss because of their weight, etc. To try to raise it to that level winds up making "discrimination" a throw-away term, to be used in any instance ranging from a fit of pique to a racially-motivated murder.

My point is, and has been, that Amazon removing a certain type of yaoi is insignificant and not worth the sturm-und-drang that some seem to be trying to foment by labeling it "discrimination" and attempting to give it greater gravitas than it merits. My point is, and has been, that there are certain people who will always rush to condemn Amazon as the Big Bad and will use any action by them as a reason for it. (There are also, to be fair, the Amazon apologists, but they seem to be avoiding this thread .)

[carld]

Originally Posted by Xanthe

A company deciding not to sell a certain type of what might be considered pornographic material is not comparable in degree to a broad class of people being denied their right to housing or to vote or to marry, to people being threatened with job loss because of their weight, etc. To try to raise it to that level winds up making "discrimination" a throw-away term, to be used in any instance ranging from a fit of pique to a racially-motivated murder.

Speaking of extreme positions, where was it said that these two unrelated situations were equivalent? And even given that they're not, so what? Should people in the civil rights movements have just shrugged their shoulders and said "You know, the Jews had it a lot worse"?

Originally Posted by Xanthe

My point is, and has been, that Amazon removing a certain type of yaoi is insignificant

And my point remains that you're wrong. Just because a certain type of discrimination doesn't affect you or me doesn't make it a non-issue.

As far as being an Amazon basher, you've brought that up several times, aside from the fact that I'm a big Amazon defender, it's really irrelevant to this discussion.