Smashwords Succumbs to Censorship

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

And there you have it. It's a mistake to dismiss censors as mentally ill. They aren't "nuts". They're careful, methodical, patient, and more than happy to undermine freedom in small steps in favor of the long term goal.

That was exactly how the Nazis took over.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Will the "think of the chilllldrreennnn" censors allow me to ban books with biblical metaphors and references from school libraries? If not, they can stop deciding what's inappropriate for my kids to have access to; I will make those judgment calls myself.

You raise an interesting point: Will the banks and PayPal refuse to process bible purchases? The bible is riddled with incest and nonconsenusla sex and violence. For that matter, any legitimate history of the church would be riddled with the same.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Is Animal Farm also about problems with society as in 1984? If so, I might have to put that on my reading list.

It is, and I LOVE it. Very good book. Very allegorical. I recommend it.

[teh603]

Originally Posted by rhadin

That was exactly how the Nazis took over.

Funny, I was under the impression that they won an election to do it. An old man named Hindenburg was the presidential candidate (or equivalent), and his running mate was a goofy looking dude with a toothbrush mustache.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

<Snip>
...it's the reason why blacks were not allowed to eat, sit or marry whites.
</Snip>

Now I'm not sure how you sit a white, but I'm fairly sure you still can't eat them.

On a more positive note it now looks like no one will be able to buy Laurell K Hamiltons work in the near future

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by Joykins

Hm. I'm a mother of young children. I sometimes read erotica, generally m/m erotic romance. I don't want my young children reading erotica only because they're too young; it's age-inappropriate for an 8 and 11-yo. When they are older they get to make their own reading decisions, and that is something I hope they'll ease into as they get older but I doubt I'd be shocked if I find out that, say, my son looks at some sort of porn or my daughter reads an erotic romance sometime in the next 5 years, and I hope to heaven they have enough discretion that we never have to talk about it).

I didn't have that discretion, lol. Not only did I force my mom to talk about it with me...I gave her some erotica. Oh my. Her face. Priceless.

Good thing she loves me.

Originally Posted by anamardoll

If you haven't read Yasmine Galenorn's "Sisters of the Moon" series, I definitely recommend it. The books are kind of fluffy, but very pro-sex and pro-experimentation, though I would not label them "erotica". It's more like "Charmed" meets "Sex in the City".

I haven't! I have to put it on my TBR Mountain.

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

Now I'm not sure how you sit a white, but I'm fairly sure you still can't eat them.

On a more positive note it now looks like no one will be able to buy Laurell K Hamiltons work in the near future

^.^ Are you sure about that? Some of them like to be eaten...

*snicker*

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by teh603

Funny, I was under the impression that they won an election to do it. An old man named Hindenburg was the presidential candidate (or equivalent), and his running mate was a goofy looking dude with a toothbrush mustache.

The Nazis were methodical and patient. Hitler was not Hindenburg's running mate. Hindenburg appointed Hitler to the chancellorship.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Those 18 pages, well by the time you got through them probably more, are all worth reading. Very interesting discussion. But no the mix-up in Orwell's book has not been mentioned. When I read it the first time, I thought, oh no don't say "Animal Farm" and then he said "1984", and I thought it was a mistake. And maybe it wasn't - the people in 1984 are not treated much better than farm animals. "Big Brother" and censoring of reading material fits with the context. I have to admit that I haven't read Animal Farm, I did read 1984 though. Is Animal Farm also about problems with society as in 1984? If so, I might have to put that on my reading list.

Yes. It's very good. The animals end up with a saying early on in the book "Four legs good, two legs bad." I read it in high school, many moons ago.

Spoiler:

Animal Farm is the story of the Russian Revolution told via the animals on a farm

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by rhadin

A reasonable person would simply conclude that I was opposed to it; an unreasonable person would go that additional step and assume I would ban it because I oppose it.

If you had merely said that you oppose it, I would agree. But to oppose something and to oppose its existence are quite different things.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

If you had merely said that you oppose it, I would agree. But to oppose something and to oppose its existence are quite different things.

Eh, no. If I oppose every single instance of X then this implies that I oppose the existence of X. So there is really no difference in what follows from the two statements.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

If you had merely said that you oppose it, I would agree. But to oppose something and to oppose its existence are quite different things.

Well, that and the fact that the comment in question came up in a thread that is about de facto censorship. So given the choice between concluding that the comment was a non-sequiter (I'd like the books to not be read by people, but I have nothing to say on the actual topic of the ban.) and a statement in favor of the ban (I'd like the books to not be read by people, so I am in favor of the ban.) it seems sort of reasonable for people to assume the comment was on topic.

BACK ON TOPIC, a big problem with this is that if something isn't on Smashwords, it basically isn't on Kobo, Sony, or Apple (if we're talking about indie authors). So this decision affects more than just the Smashwords customers. And, to be honest, I'm not okay with the announcement discussing the differences between classics and erotica. I think erotica can be subversive in ways that mainstream literature often isn't.*

* Not that I don't love Orwell, because I do. But I also think Orwell would be irked to find his name invoked as a reason to deny indie authors publication because of their chosen subject matter.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by rhadin

You raise an interesting point: Will the banks and PayPal refuse to process bible purchases? The bible is riddled with incest and nonconsenual sex and violence. For that matter, any legitimate history of the church would be riddled with the same.

Oh, but those are okay because they're not classified as erotica, and we all know that depictions of rape, torture, miscellaneous violence and random depravity are just fine as long as the book isn't supposed to be getting anyone all hot & bothered.

After all, nobody goes out and murders people or rapes children because of what they read in the Bible.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

After all, nobody goes out and murders people or rapes children because of what they read in the Bible.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

I have to admit that I haven't read Animal Farm, I did read 1984 though. Is Animal Farm also about problems with society as in 1984? If so, I might have to put that on my reading list.

It's either pro-communist or anti-communist propaganda, depending on which side your own prejudices reside, but it's definitely worth reading. Another good one, if you can find it, is Play Little Victims by Kenneth Cook.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

It's either pro-communist or anti-communist propaganda, depending on which side your own prejudices reside, but it's definitely worth reading. Another good one, if you can find it, is Play Little Victims by Kenneth Cook.

I can't imagine how one could see it as pro-communist*.

Would be interested in hearing that perspective.

* ETA: A very specific type of communist that Orwell was writing about. He was dealing with history, not ideology, imho.