Smashwords Succumbs to Censorship

[speakingtohe]

I am obviously in a minority here. I read the description of books that PayPal proscribed as those works that described the offending behaviors as desirable on some level. Titillating or arousing and/or morally condonable.

I feel that Smashwords caved to Paypals demands at least in part because they were not comfortable with this content themselves.

If this is not the case, Smashwords has all of the time in the world to set up an alternative payment system and put the content in question back online. They might lose a few months of sales but I doubt they will be severely impacted.

Paypal has on the otherhand made a stand, rightly or wrongly, that could cost them millions and no doubt will.

Can we honestly believe they have done this for no reason other than to be pushing their customers around?

Helen

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Paypal has on the otherhand made a stand, rightly or wrongly, that could cost them millions and no doubt will.

I doubt it. Most of their customers probably won't even be aware of it, and of those who are, there are some who will applaud them, some who won't care and others who don't like it but aren't planning to go elsewhere because they have more things to consider than this particular issue.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by JJArgus

As a virtual monopoly, it gets to impose its hard-right Christian beliefs on everyone else everywhere.

This is guilt by association, and implausible as well because they haven't the slightest reluctance to facilitate purchases of directly pro-atheist and anti-religion books such as by Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens.

If PayPal is so far right, why was Smashwords using it, to the exclusion of MasterCard and VISA, in the first place?

If you check out the selection of books in the public libraries of towns with other-than-conservative reputations, such as Berkeley California and Ann Arbor Michigan, you are are going to find that everything they have can be paid for through PayPal. Does that mean that the acquisitions librarians in these towns are all hard right Christian as well?

It is perfectly fair to criticize PayPal for giving in to the standards of MasterCard and VISA. But I don't think you are doing your POV any favor by bringing religion into this.

[TheSFReader]

(not seen already) Mark Coker posted an update yesterday regarding this
http://www.smashwords.com/press/release/28

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by TheSFReader

(not seen already) Mark Coker posted an update yesterday regarding this
http://www.smashwords.com/press/release/28

That clarifies and explains things a little bit. If it did not happen elsewhere yet than that can only mean that cc-companies are going for Paypal first since they are huge, and then make PP go after the biggest indie-bookstore (Smashwords) next to have the biggest impact before going after all the smaller fish.

It still does not justify the censorship imposed upon us - even in this less drastic version. That Paypal is willing to compromise, discuss, even extending the deadline shows it might not have been their idea in the first place.

Now let's put the evil face on cc-companies.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

That clarifies and explains things a little bit. If it did not happen elsewhere yet than that can only mean that cc-companies are going for Paypal first since they are huge, and then make PP go after the biggest indie-bookstore (Smashwords) next to have the biggest impact before going after all the smaller fish.

Are Smashwords really the biggest independent bookstore? I'm surprised to hear that. Or are they the largest who use PayPal, perhaps?

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Are Smashwords really the biggest independent bookstore? I'm surprised to hear that. Or are they the largest who use PayPal, perhaps?

I believe they are the largest indie-only Paypal exclusive.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Whether Paypal is imposing its owners' "hard-right Christian beliefs" or not, some of the arguments made against that charge seem breathtakingly far-fetched.

It's a fallacy to suggest that, because Paypal hasn't enforced every kind of far right agenda, they can't be enforcing any.

It's also a fallacy to suggest that, because Paypal is advocating an agenda of conservative censorship now, Smashwords wouldn't have signed on with them before this agenda became clear.

It's also a fallacy to suggest that, if Paypal owners' politics are to the far right, then the library systems that use them must be run by members of the far right, too. By that logic, everyone on this thread who uses Paypal is on the far right.

I enjoy debating the niceties of corporate and government censorship, banks versus money transferring services, fictional versus literal illegal acts and the rest of it. But when people ask "who is being being harmed" in a work of fiction and conclude not that no one is (because the characters in the book don't actually exist) but rather that a character may legally be "harmed" as long as it is illegal to "harm" them in real life, and that aliens and werewolves don't count because they're not real, then I despair of having an intelligent conversation.

And when Mr. Eisenberg creates as many -- they're too flimsy even to be called straw men -- dust eunuchs as enter the playpen of his mind and posts them here as if they were legitimate, then I wonder why we're bothering to have this discussion.

And then I remember:

Because actions like Paypal's have to be countered, and to be countered, they have to be talked about first by people looking for the most effective way to respond.

And if we could return to at least attempting to make valid points, then people on both sides of the debate can actually hone their arguments in the process.

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

This is guilt by association, and implausible as well because they haven't the slightest reluctance to facilitate purchases of directly pro-atheist and anti-religion books such as by Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens.

If PayPal is so far right, why was Smashwords using it, to the exclusion of MasterCard and VISA, in the first place?

If you check out the selection of books in the public libraries of towns with other-than-conservative reputations, such as Berkeley California and Ann Arbor Michigan, you are are going to find that everything they have can be paid for through PayPal. Does that mean that the acquisitions librarians in these towns are all hard right Christian as well?

It is perfectly fair to criticize PayPal for giving in to the standards of MasterCard and VISA. But I don't think you are doing your POV any favor by bringing religion into this.

Originally Posted by Yapyap

I think it's the "titillation" part that is being used as justification against allowing such "depraved" kinds of erotica.

And on the one hand, I can see the reasoning behind it: while incest, for example (never mind pseudo-incest), would probably involve adult characters, who are free to consent, other and "more gross" sexual fantasy material - rape, bestiality, paedophilia - involves at least one non-consenting party.

And in reality, involving real people (or animals), that would be illegal.

I'm not entirely sure who exactly is harmed in werewolf erotica, or erotic science fiction (aliens would be out too, yes? even humanoid aliens aren't humans, after all?), etc. And as said above, rape fantasy - and other fantasies - exist, and are probably more common than many people realise. Fiction, in writing, is often even considered a safe way for people to engage in those fantasies, I believe.

Re: underage sex in fiction... one thing I wonder about - what exactly is illegal or immoral about erotica featuring, say, 17-year-old characters having consensual sex (especially if the work has been written by someone in a country where 17-year-olds can legally have sex, featuring fictional characters of that nationality - teenagers doing what's legal for them)? That's hardly paedophilia or illegal, surely?

(Disclaimer: I neither read nor write erotica of any sort. I don't even read romance. It's not my cup of tea. I do, however, read murder mysteries - and I believe that some of them end up showing the killer in a positive, sympathetic light. We can and do end up feeling for the killer. So it's a bit puzzling to me why that is somehow far more acceptable than erotica featuring consenting shapeshifters or werewolves (even if they consent first and turn into animal shape later), consenting step-siblings or consenting 17-year-olds in a country where real 17-year-olds are free to have sex with whomever they want.)

[Yapyap]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

But when people ask "who is being being harmed" in a work of fiction and conclude not that no one is (because the characters in the book don't actually exist) but rather that a character may legally be "harmed" as long as it is illegal to "harm" them in real life, and that aliens and werewolves don't count because they're not real, then I despair of having an intelligent conversation.

I know that no one is being harmed because the characters don't exist. It just seemed that for some people, "it's gross" is such a strong argument that "fictional characters are fictional; they don't exist; no one is being harmed" isn't enough.

Hence me trying to take it to even more ridiculous levels - in order to get through the "but it's gross! and illegal! ban it!" arguments.

It seemed like the logical next level in trying that - not only can no one be harmed by such fiction existing, because it's fiction and the characters don't exist in reality, but that it cannot even be argued that such fiction existing could drive some readers to start considering those actions okay in reality.

I've seen people argue (elsewhere) that paedophilia or rape fantasy fiction is bad, because it may blur the lines between what's acceptable and what not in some people's minds and drive them to act out their fantasies in reality. I am not a psychologist and won't get into whether this may be true or not - but I do think that even those arguments cannot possibly be valid for banning werewolf porn (or for that matter erotica depicting consensual sex by characters under 18 but above the age of consent in their country).

It's ridiculous, and a hyperbole, and what not, and obviously the answer is that "it's fiction, no one is being harmed", but sometimes non-ridiculous arguments just don't seem to be enough. *shrugs*

[anamardoll]

So under this new system, Smashwords would refuse to publish "Lolita", is that correct? *

* Were it written by a new indie author and not an established classic.

[Redcard]

Lolita was NOT written for titilation. Anyone who gets off reading Lolita has a warped sense of sexuality. Everything that happens to Humbert Humbert is horrible, all because he has a twisted fascination with a young girl. I would argue that's NOT erotica in the slightest, unless by erotica you mean "a book where people's negative actions come back and haunt them psychologically, and thus, the reader too."

Now, to something else that I think bears repeating. Paypal was NOT FOUNDED BY A CHRISTIAN HARD RIGHTER. It was founded by five different people at two different companies and a variety of venture capitalists. Even IF one of them (and one of them was) a christian conservative, he is NO LONGER INVOLVED WITH THE COMPANY. Ebay bought them all out and basically fired them all.

It is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Ebay. Has been for YEARS. The original principals at Paypal are LONG GONE.

[teh603]

Originally Posted by Yapyap

I've seen people argue (elsewhere) that paedophilia or rape fantasy fiction is bad, because it may blur the lines between what's acceptable and what not in some people's minds and drive them to act out their fantasies in reality. I am not a psychologist and won't get into whether this may be true or not - but I do think that even those arguments cannot possibly be valid for banning werewolf porn (or for that matter erotica depicting consensual sex by characters under 18 but above the age of consent in their country).

It's ridiculous, and a hyperbole, and what not, and obviously the answer is that "it's fiction, no one is being harmed", but sometimes non-ridiculous arguments just don't seem to be enough. *shrugs*

It may be ridiculous, but who wants to be the guy that gets lynched by a mob of angry parents because a pedo tried to use, "Well I read it in this book and thought I'd try it..." as a defense in court?

[Yapyap]

Originally Posted by teh603

It may be ridiculous, but who wants to be the guy that gets lynched by a mob of angry parents because a pedo tried to use, "Well I read it in this book and thought I'd try it..." as a defense in court?

Doesn't that lead us back to "but why are crime / murder novels okay in that case"? Especially as, again, there are plenty of those around where the killer isn't painted in a completely horrific light, and the reasons for the murder come off as justified and understandable?

Not to mention that there are books describing in loving detail how the killer plans and executes the deed.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by teh603

It may be ridiculous, but who wants to be the guy that gets lynched by a mob of angry parents because a pedo tried to use, "Well I read it in this book and thought I'd try it..." as a defense in court?

People of the criminal persuasion latch onto these sort of witch hunts and use them as an excuse in their defence. "I done it after watching horror films" was a common defence during the hysteria over horror films in the UK in the mid-80s, as was "I done it after reading comics" in the 50s. America probably had a fair few people saying "I done it after talking to a Communist" too.

[DiapDealer]

America probably had a fair few people saying "I done it after talking to a Communist" too.

Close, but we have things like the "Twinkie Defense" instead. I mean, no court in the land would dare indict if there were proof that you actually "talked to a Communist" beforehand.