Smashwords Succumbs to Censorship

[plib]

Originally Posted by Xanthe

+1

This is just another example of those with power misusing it to try to shape the world in their image.

And isn't it amazing just how many of those are "conservative", religious Yanks?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Laridae

Surely people accept that some subjects, like kiddie porn, for example, are obviously so objectionable and reprehensible that they are not acceptable under any conditions?

Obviously? Why is fictionalised kiddie porn any more objectionable than fictionalised murder? Both are totally unacceptable acts in our society, and yet fictionalised murder is big business. Nobody says that a person must be "sick" to want to read or write murder mysteries.

[cHex]

Originally Posted by vxf

As a very generic point... for those saying that any company has - or should have - the right to choose whom to do business with... do you even remember all the establishments not accepting non-whites? The hotels refusing homosexual couples? Or, further back in time, unmarried couples?

Businesses are NOT unrestricted in choosing whom to do business with, nor should they be.

This is a case where I believe US laws have infringed on people's constitutional rights. While it is proper for courts to enforce equal-access to public property (toilets, drinking fountains, buses and utilities where government creates monopolies, etc.) I think telling restaurants, for example, that they MUST do business with any class of people should be considered unconstitutional.

In my mind, any restriction to freedom is detrimental - to me, to society.

Except restrictions on one's freedom to determine with whom to do business?

I might accept arguments about being forced to supply a particular service - as above, contraceptives, tobacco, alcohol, etc. But here we are talking about something completely different - HINDERING someone else's ability to engage in a LEGAL transaction.

I don't know where the legality of the issue lays. But Paypal is certainly on my black list.

Saying that PayPal is hindering Smashwords from engaging in a legal transaction by not doing business with them is like saying I am hindering a grocery store from engaging in legal transactions by buying my groceries elsewhere.

Our freedom to do business does not mean others are forced to do business with us.

Smashwords should be free to set whatever criteria they wish on which works to publish and sell. They should be free to enter into any contracts they find acceptable with potential business partners. They should be free from compulsion to do business with potential business partners.

PayPal should be free to set whatever criteria they wish for which people or companies they will handle financial transactions. They should be free from compulsion to do handle financial transactions for anybody.

We should be free to purchase any legal items, including eBooks, that someone may offer for sale. We should be free to use any financial processors available to us. We should not be compelled to purchase items we do not desire. We should not be compelled to use any financial processor.

Put it all together, and you get workable freedom.

If some privately-owned item is not available to us, whether because we can't afford it, it's too far away, we don't know about it, we can't pay in the manner the seller desires, we won't agree to the terms of sale, etc. may be inconvenient, but it is hardly "censorship," "hypocrisy," or "illegal."

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by cHex

I think telling restaurants, for example, that they MUST do business with any class of people should be considered unconstitutional.

Wow, really? You mean like restaurants for white rich men (not women)? You are entitled to your opinion, except it is not going to happen.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Wow, really? You mean like restaurants for white rich men (not women)? You are entitled to your opinion, except it is not going to happen.

Businesses are, it seems, allowed to quite openly discriminate. Do you not have any "women only" gyms where you live? They're pretty common in most cities. Discrimination doesn't get much more blatant than that.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Businesses are, it seems, allowed to quite openly discriminate. Do you not have any "women only" gyms where you live? They're pretty common in most cities. Discrimination doesn't get much more blatant than that.

Actually, no I do not. The only gym in my town is a Y, and the only discrimination is in the locker rooms, which are devided into men's, women's, men's family, and woman's family lockers. The other thing is age limiting access to sauna, hot tub, and weight lifting room.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by Smashwords

Hi all, I thought I'd add a couple comments...

PayPal tells us their policy is necessary to remain in compliance with the banks and credit card companies that power their services. This means that even if we were to switch to another provider, there's nothing stopping other providers from unplugging us when they take heat from the credit card companies.

Just as I expected, this isn't a moral decision from Paypal but a legal one from the financial institutions that provide Paypal's backbone operations.

And they are probably the same institutions that support Amazon's and Google's payment services.

[sabredog]

That statement originating from Paypal does not quite ring true to me.

Are the credit card companies and banks crawling through Paypal to check on other transactions that are "suspect" as well?

Perhaps, but probably not as it appears it is business as usual.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by ScalyFreak

Setting your own moral standards is always fine. Forcing others to live by them without giving them a choice, is not.

Now if you could only convince politicians of the truth of that sentiment.

[xg4bx]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Businesses are, it seems, allowed to quite openly discriminate. Do you not have any "women only" gyms where you live? They're pretty common in most cities. Discrimination doesn't get much more blatant than that.

or bars that have 'ladies night' where women drink for free.

and i've gotta support cHex, i completely stand behind freedom of association.

in todays uber sensitive climate of political correctness what business or private establishment would honestly be willing to take the PR and revenue hit by openly discriminating against a group of people anyway? not very many. but it should be perfectly legal for those who wish to.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by sabredog

I hate hypocrisy in any form.... To me, that sums up Paypal at current.

This is not hypocrisy. PayPal is not simultaneously demanding its business partners refrain from selling content including bestiality &c, while promoting that content. There is no double standard here.

[Soldim]

Originally Posted by cHex

PayPal should be free to set whatever criteria they wish for which people or companies they will handle financial transactions. They should be free from compulsion to do handle financial transactions for anybody.

Banking licences don't quite work like that, they come both with rights and obligations. It seems rather certain to me that PayPal Europe wouldn't be able to get away with such a move.

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

This is not hypocrisy. PayPal is not simultaneously demanding its business partners refrain from selling content including bestiality &c, while promoting that content. There is no double standard here.

I never mentioned they were actively promoting that stuff. You need to read my posts again. So you fail to understand. It is hypocrisy, because hundreds of dodgy, dirty transactions run through their accounts per day.

They can blather on about how ethically correct they are and demand that from their clients, but all the while not clean up their own house.

Hypocrisy.

[teh603]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

or bars that have 'ladies night' where women drink for free.

and i've gotta support cHex, i completely stand behind freedom of association.

I've got a whole folder of night clubs and other groups that charge single men two to three times what they do single women, and impose restrictive dress codes on men while allowing women to wear practically nothing. Freedom of Association? Don't make me laugh. Freedom doesn't allow you to abuse up to half the bloody population by telling them that just because they had the unfortunate accident of being born with boy parts, that they're second- class citizens.

in todays uber sensitive climate of political correctness what business or private establishment would honestly be willing to take the PR and revenue hit by openly discriminating against a group of people anyway? not very many. but it should be perfectly legal for those who wish to.

Its perfectly ok to discriminate against men. We're hairy and stinky, and only valued if we can bribe people to put up with us. And if we try to change that, our stupid puritan culture tells everyone that we've somehow become gay, even if we still prefer women.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

If paypal wanted to be the moral police of the internet...they should have started the way they planned to continue.

They aren't acting as the "moral police." They're saying they don't want to work with people who are selling content that involves "bestiality, rape-for-titillation, incest and underage erotica."

That is PayPal's choice, in exactly the same way that it is your choice to decide to do business with PayPal and/or Smashwords.

It's also the same pressure tactic used by many political activists via boycotts or stock divestiture or... canceling an account. Hmmm.

Anyway, if Smashwords does in fact support your rights to access that content, then they ought to stop doing business with PayPal. So far they aren't taking that route. Instead, PayPal's demand has become a trigger, and Smashwords says (and I quote from the article the OP linked):

• "...underage erotica is not a problem for us. We already have some of the industry’s strictest policies prohibiting underage characters."
• "The legality of incest is murky. It creates a potential legal liability for Smashwords as our business and our books become more present in more jurisdictions around the world.... The business considerations compel me to not fall on the sword for incest. I realize this is an imperfect decision."
• "...I don’t want to be a party to anyone enjoying animals for sexual gratification, for the same reason we’ve never allowed pedophilia books. I don’t want to publish it, sell it, or distribute it. The TOS is now modified to reflect this."
• "Although our Terms of Service prohibits books that advocate violence against others, we did not specifically identify rape. This was an oversight on our part."

So there ya go, Smashwords already redlines 1 of the 4 categories, was lax in enforcing their own policies on 2 of 4 categories, and was pushed to add the fourth. Your ire ought to be directed as much at Smashwords as PayPal.