PayPal reverses itself, allows legal fiction.

[Elfwreck]

UPDATE: PayPal's acceptable use policy:

First and foremost, we are going to focus this policy only on e-books that contain potentially illegal images, not e-books that are limited to just text. The policy will prohibit use of PayPal for the sale of e-books that contain child pornography, or e-books with text and obscene images of rape, bestiality or incest (as defined by the U.S. legal standard for obscenity: material that appeals to the prurient interest, depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value).

In addition, the policy will be focused on individual books, not on entire “classes” of books. Instead of demanding that e-book publishers remove all books in a category, we will provide notice to the seller of the specific e-books, if any, that we believe violate our policy.

Emphasis added. Woohoo!

[QuantumIguana]

A great victory for freedom. We get to spend our money on legal products when there is a willing seller, without needing the approval of Big Brother. I may not want to buy these books, but this was the camel's nose under the tent.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

A great victory for freedom. We get to spend our money on legal products when there is a willing seller, without needing the approval of Big Brother. I may not want to buy these books, but this was the camel's nose under the tent.

So freedom in America isn't quite dead yet.

[fjtorres]

How generous of them, to *allow* legal products to be sold through their system.
Now, pray tell, was Smashwords selling any illegal titles?

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

How generous of them, to *allow* legal products to be sold through their system.
Now, pray tell, was Smashwords selling any illegal titles?

If it truly means, "we allow all legal texts to be sold with our system," it's more generous than most payment providers. Most don't allow "pornographic or sexual content," and don't bother defining "pornographic."

Smashwords was almost certainly not selling any illegal titles. It's possible a few are in other places, because some of the manga out there gets pretty explicit, and the exact lines for "obscenity" are hard to parse. The lines for "child pornography" are easy in the US: it has to involve a real human child. (Even one who's used as a model for pen-and-ink art would count.) If the pictures are all of entirely fictional characters, with no underage human models used in production, it's not child porn no matter what it looks like. (In the US. Other countries have different laws.)

I doubt any manga that qualified as "obscenity" today would be getting any sales. Having *any* artistic or literary value is a pretty low bar to reach.

[Redcard]

The definition is not "any artistic or literary value."

It's "SERIOUS artistic or literary value."

Porn is likely still going to be considered obscenity, and porn involving the touched on subjects is likely going to be banned.

But, on a case by case basis instead of an overarching denial.

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

How generous of them, to *allow* legal products to be sold through their system.
Now, pray tell, was Smashwords selling any illegal titles?

Smashwords still chooses to censor authors by deciding what they will or will not accept. Smashwords has still not learnt a lesson.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

The lines for "child pornography" are easy in the US: it has to involve a real human child. (Even one who's used as a model for pen-and-ink art would count.) If the pictures are all of entirely fictional characters, with no underage human models used in production, it's not child porn no matter what it looks like. (In the US. Other countries have different laws.)

I've seen in American comics, something like "all characters are over the age of 21". Is that because of foreign markets? I know in England drawings of fictional children have the same rights not to be molested as real children.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

I've seen in American comics, something like "all characters are over the age of 21". Is that because of foreign markets? I know in England drawings of fictional children have the same rights not to be molested as real children.

Yep. And because some US markets won't carry erotic art of people under 21 regardless of how legal it is; the idea that 17-year-olds (or even 19-year-olds) can enjoy sex bothers them.

Australia also has strict no-minors-having-sex rules for art & text, regardless of whether the minors are fictional constructs.

[carpetmojo]

Ha ha - if you think this is trouble, wait 'till Mr. Santorum gets his hands on the straightforward topic of censorship !

Should he get lucky , of course.......

[tjr]

Paypal
'material that appeals to the prurient interest, depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value'

Reminds me of famous quote from a censor, "I can't tell you what pornography is but I know it when I see it!" Well that's nice for them making those decisions for the rest of the world.

And prurient, what is wrong with that? Titillation is what drives most of the media outlets and advertising since Hollywood and Madison Ave were created.

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by tjr

Reminds me of famous quote from a censor, "I can't tell you what pornography is but I know it when I see it!" Well that's nice for them making those decisions for the rest of the world.

Beating a dead [enough] horse from the other thread: They're not making the decisions for the rest of the world. If any don't like it, they can use another method of payment. The 'rest' of the world can do as they please.

[Dulin's Books]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

Smashwords still chooses to censor authors by deciding what they will or will not accept. .

that is a complete misunderstanding of what censorship means.

[Dulin's Books]

Originally Posted by carpetmojo

Ha ha - if you think this is trouble, wait 'till Mr. Santorum gets his hands on the straightforward topic of censorship !

this completely misconstrues the power of the President. As a Senator, Rick Santorum had far more power to enact censorship then he ever would as President.

[RainingLemur]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

So freedom in America isn't quite dead yet.

It's on life-support.