Smashwords Succumbs to Censorship

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by djulian

I imagine I'm the person to whom you are referring. You can see what I've said. There was nothing dishonest or insincere about it. I won't apologize for it. I don't like the idea of others reading books of this type; I am opposed to the existence of these types of books. I'm more opposed to banning free speech. Another poster called this a non sequitur, but I think they meant a veridical paradox. It seems like a contradiction, but both statements can be true at the same time. This is not an incorrect use of language.

Thank you.

Now that I can live with. No need to apologize. If anyone still wants to say that you used the wrong words, then they are just nit-picking. I agree with others that in the context of this thread your original post was not as clear as you may have intented it to be. This version here leaves little to argue about.

I myself am guilty of beeing misinterpreted in this thread. Check out page 12, posts 170, 171, and 172. For the point I was trying to make I needed Smashwords to be a book store that carries a wide selection of independent authors/publishers and high dependency upon PayPal. So I clarified, and it seems to have been sufficient.

[crich70]

Being misinterpreted is a danger of posting anything to any forum I think. I may say I hate x with a passion and mean it in a joking manner but that doesn't mean that x will understand it in that way. With face to face conversation we can take cues from body language, tone, volume, etc. to tell how a person means a statement, but with a forum post words are all there is all too often.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

...P.S. Just to be clear, I understand WT Sharpe to be pro-Japan. My last sentence was an allusion to other contributions in this thread.

Well, I'm certainly not anti-Japan. I wish the best for all countries.

[5thWiggle]

Originally Posted by ScalyFreak

Something that's depraved. And yes, I know that's vague.

As a self-proclaimed Sith Wannabe, I would imagine your notion of depravity would include Ewoks, JarJar Binks, and a naked Yoda whispering "Come to bed, you must".

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Belfaborac

de Sade would be my choice. That would ensure there'd be relatively little for the zealots to burn.

Unlike you, my choice would be the Vatican, which has demonstrated throughout its history a love of or a penchant for what is today called obscene. de Sade practiced what he preached; the Vatican changes its tune based on the wind -- one day sanctioning murder, rape, incest, homosexuality, another day decrying the same until the wind again changes.

It's hard to not like a history flip-flopper.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

My objection is that these sorts of things MAGICALLY! only ever get applied to books with Naughty Bits in them. There's a LOT of fiction that I find depraved; very little of it is erotica.

I agree. I find the books and movies with graphically depicted violence depraved (think the Nightmare on Elm Street types). Consequently, I neither read the books nor view the movies. But I do not think they should be banned.

I also think the National Rifle Association's literature is morally depraved, so I neither support the NRA nor read its literature, but neither do I seek to ban it.

However, a greater case, I think, can be made to ban the graphically violent types of books and movies because of the copycat possibilities and the potential harm to third parties than to ban erotica (unless, of course, one believes like Rick Santorum that sexual pleasure is the definition of depravity, or believes like the NRA that shooting high school classmates is just a sign of migrating from adolescence to adulthood).

In neither case do I believe a ban is a good idea. Education is a much better response.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by rhadin

However, a greater case, I think, can be made to ban the graphically violent types of books and movies because of the copycat possibilities and the potential harm to third parties

The children who grew up after the great horror film purge of the mid-80s UK were one of the most violent generations we ever had. While they weren't the first generation to carry knives and stab each other, it was never anywhere near as widespread as it was with them.

[Sil_liS]

It took me a while to read through this thread.

At the beginning this seemed to be something just between PayPal (PP) and Smashwords (SW), but it was pointed out that the instigators were the Credit Card Companies (CCC). So the situation looks like this:
CCC------>PP
^..............l
.l...............l
.l..............v
readers<--SW

The Credit Card Companies impose restrictions on PayPal who can't fight it so it has to impose the restrictions on Smashwords who can't fight it so it has to impose the restrictions on the readers urging them to try to communicate with the Credit Card Companies to make them stop. Even if PayPal is replaced by someone else, the problem would still be there.

There was in the beginning of the thread the rhetoric that we've heard before about how it isn't censorship if it's not done by the government. At some point we should either make a word for "action that would be called censorship if it was done by a government", or agree that we can use the word censorship for it.

Then there is the use of the word "to ban". It offends people because they read in it the implication that "banning"="reenacting part of the Spanish Inquisition and/or witch trials". This is usually followed by explaining how the person wants the effect of banning without actually banning anything because banning is bad.

On the other side of the discussion I see two positions: 1) I wouldn't read this but banning it would be bad, and 2) I read this and I don't think that it's offensive; the stuff that is actually offensive being banned by Smashwords already.


Do the people who approve of what PayPal did actually buy books from Smashwords?

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by rhadin

I agree. I find the books and movies with graphically depicted violence depraved (think the Nightmare on Elm Street types). Consequently, I neither read the books nor view the movies. But I do not think they should be banned.

SNIP

However, a greater case, I think, can be made to ban the graphically violent types of books and movies because of the copycat possibilities and the potential harm to third parties than to ban erotica...

SNIP

In neither case do I believe a ban is a good idea. Education is a much better response.

I agree. Those things give me horrible nightmares and I can't be in the same room while they are on. I have been known to leave the room if someone just has to watch it. *shudder*

The books, too. I don't understand gratuitous violence but just because I don't understand it doesn't mean it doesn't have it's fans.

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

The children who grew up after the great horror film purge of the mid-80s UK were one of the most violent generations we ever had. While they weren't the first generation to carry knives and stab each other, it was never anywhere near as widespread as it was with them.

The great horror film purge?

[paulsalter]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

The great horror film purge?

In the mid 80's when video films started getting classified, and 'Video Nasties' got banned

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_nasty

[TimW]

Originally Posted by paulsalter

In the mid 80's when video films started getting classified, and 'Video Nasties' got banned

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_nasty

The first (and only) video nasty title I can recall was "Bambi Goes Crazy Ape Bonkers with his Drill and Sex." Okay, that wasn't a real title...it was from the "Young Ones."

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

I agree. Those things give me horrible nightmares and I can't be in the same room while they are on. I have been known to leave the room if someone just has to watch it. *shudder*

The books, too. I don't understand gratuitous violence but just because I don't understand it doesn't mean it doesn't have it's fans.

I agree...I generally find depictions of gratuitous violence more disturbing. I find that it still bothers me days, weeks, sometimes months later. As a matter of fact, if I even think about a historical account of Russian serial killer I read years ago, I get a feeling of uneasiness. I think it more likely that a book like that could tempt a mentally unbalanced person to commit murder than a book about bestiality might tempt someone to engage in bestiality. IMHO.

[Prestidigitweeze]

How strange. I've always found accounts of vicious serial killers -- and I say this without irony -- incredibly relaxing at bedtime. No matter how stressful or unrewarding my life might be at some given moment, I at least know I possess a fully functioning conscience. I might occasionally blast Venetian Snares or Brighter Death Now at work, but at least I've never had the irresistable urge to deflesh someone's skeleton and bake the remains on a cookie tray or keep a collection of severed heads in my fridge.

[anamardoll]

Everyone in my family knows that when I'm having an anxiety attack, the best thing to do is put in Aliens so I can see the Space Marines being slaughtered. I find that calming: my life may be falling apart, but I'm not being eaten by aliens. Woohoo!

[Belfaborac]

Those aren't Space Marines, just marines in space. Believe me, those aliens would be but a moment's distraction to a proper Space Marine.

(sorry, I'm reading Warhammer 40.000 again...)

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by 5thWiggle

As a self-proclaimed Sith Wannabe, I would imagine your notion of depravity would include Ewoks, JarJar Binks, and a naked Yoda whispering "Come to bed, you must".

...

You are a sick, sick individual.

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

The children who grew up after the great horror film purge of the mid-80s UK were one of the most violent generations we ever had. While they weren't the first generation to carry knives and stab each other, it was never anywhere near as widespread as it was with them.

Yet another reason not to ban these movies and books. Venting by proxy is good for our mental health.

From another point of view, being exposed to violence helps us understand it and why it's bad. Studies in Sweden a couple of decades ago (tried to find the links but wasn't able to, sorry) showed that if the staff at daycare centers for very young children broke up "fights" between the kids after a couple of blows, rather than immediately, the long-term outcome was that there were a lot fewer physical altercations than in a day care center where the staff stepped in and defused the situation immediately at the first sign of aggression. Apparently, the kids in the first daycare center quickly learned that if you get into a fight you get hurt, and that's unpleasant, so they became less aggressive towards each other. When they did get into fights, they didn't hurt each other nearly as bad either, as opposed to the ones who had never learned how strong they were, and how to pull a punch.

And on another note, movies featuring mindless violence are my favorite way of unwinding when I am so stressed out that I can't think straight. I can imagine that what is happening to the soldiers in Predator is happening to the people causing all my stress, and then I feel better.