PayPal reverses itself, allows legal fiction.

[J. Strnad]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

So freedom in America isn't quite dead yet.

Right-wing propaganda aside, we're still incredibly free in America. Just look at the people who are allowed to drive, for example.

As long as you aren't "indefinitely detained" without charges, that is.

But yeah...this is good news.

[jocampo]

Originally Posted by RainingLemur

It's on life-support.

Actually, kind of ... ... but lets not talk about politics ...

[crich70]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

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

Don't all publisher's have a set of guidelines on what they will and won't publish though? If I write a Murder Mystery and submit it to a publisher that only publishes Science Fiction that publisher will refuse to accept my manuscript for publication. And in the case of Erotic fiction there are sub-genre's and some publishers will publish one sub-genre of Erotic fiction and not another. I think it's one thing for a company like Paypal to make a decision for a publisher as to what they will and won't allow said publisher to publish and for the publisher themselves to make that decision.

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by crich70

Don't all publisher's have a set of guidelines on what they will and won't publish though? If I write a Murder Mystery and submit it to a publisher that only publishes Science Fiction that publisher will refuse to accept my manuscript for publication. And in the case of Erotic fiction there are sub-genre's and some publishers will publish one sub-genre of Erotic fiction and not another. I think it's one thing for a company like Paypal to make a decision for a publisher as to what they will and won't allow said publisher to publish and for the publisher themselves to make that decision.

I don't think it matters at all whether its the publisher doing the censoring or the transaction merchant in this case. It's one thing for a publisher to screen their applications based on literary merit, but quite another to do so based on a moral code.

It would certainly be an outrage if the transaction merchant started functioning as a second gatekeeper as far as literary merit is concerned.

However, it's obvious that Smashwords bases their censoring of certain genres based on a moral code, not on literary merit. One cannot state that this is purely the realm of the publisher. There's no distinction between a publisher doing it, and the transaction merchant doing it. One can either be comfortable with them both doing it, or opposed to them both doing it.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by crich70

Don't all publisher's have a set of guidelines on what they will and won't publish though? If I write a Murder Mystery and submit it to a publisher that only publishes Science Fiction that publisher will refuse to accept my manuscript for publication. And in the case of Erotic fiction there are sub-genre's and some publishers will publish one sub-genre of Erotic fiction and not another.

It's very reasonable for a publisher to only accept manuscripts within a certain range of both main and subtopics. What bothers some of us is the language often used to describe those limits--not just "we don't publish this content" but "this type of content is offensive and gross and OF COURSE we don't publish it because DECENT people wouldn't want to read it." (Nobody says that directly, but some do put rather strong implications of that sort in their submissions guidelines.)

They're also prone to broad, vague terms like "no rape-for-titillation," without defining why some rapes (those that lead to the hero & heroine falling in love, usually) are acceptable, but others aren't. And terms like "no pedophilia," which apparently usually means "nobody under the age of 18 should have a sex drive, and certainly nobody should display sexual interest in anyone under 18 years of age." (Apparently, for some publishers, "pedophilia" includes "two 16-year-olds in love.")

I don't mind publishers saying, "we publish what we like to read... here's some guidelines so you don't waste your time sending us content outside of that scope." That's different from "NO necrophilia. The dead definitely don't do it for us - of course, we don't count the bloodsucking undead variety!" (So, are brain-eating undead okay for sex? How about ghosts?Is the problem with death, or inanimate status?)

I think it's one thing for a company like Paypal to make a decision for a publisher as to what they will and won't allow said publisher to publish and for the publisher themselves to make that decision.

Entirely agreed. The issue of publishers participating in mass censorship of some topics is a matter of raising awareness that there is a market for them, and it's not just "perverts." And while some publishers will never care to explore those markets, others would be happy to do so if they were aware that the topics themselves are legal subjects for books, and if there were no major stigma attached to publishing them.

The issue of payment providers banning those topics is different--obviously, they're aware of the market; since they have no personal stake in production (they don't have to find editors who'll read pseudo-incest stories) and no direct stigma for supporting the publishers, their ban is for different reasons: either economic (claims of high chargebacks) or moral.

Ebooks don't have a high chargeback rate. Payment processors are trying to impress *someone* with how "upright and moral" they are by instituting these restrictions.

[whitearrow]

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!"

It's from Justice Stewart's concurring opinion in the landmark obscenity case Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964), which was about whether the film The Lovers was obscene under US law:

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.

[anamardoll]

And it's actually a really terrible yard-stick for anything other than personal consumption choices. See also: The Great Breast Feeding Debate on every social media site, ever.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

And it's actually a really terrible yard-stick for anything other than personal consumption choices. See also: The Great Breast Feeding Debate on every social media site, ever.

True. What one person considers art another may consider to be porn and vice versa. Though there are some 'community standards' that are held in common I think. No one is trying to publish photos of the victims of serial killers or pedophiles for example. Generally I think it comes down to common sense. If something is erotically pleasing to a group and isn't causing anyone else any harm (both serial killers and pedophiles do harm others) and there is a market for the erotic work in question then it should (I think) be a matter of personal choice whether or not to view such content. Sometimes publishers err on the side of caution out of fear of being sued should someone take the fantasy account of an act and attempt to make it reality. I think they over estimate the chances of that happening myself. You don't see publishers being sued if someone kills someone after reading Agatha Christie for example.

[Dulin's Books]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

However, it's obvious that Smashwords bases their censoring of certain genres based on a moral code, not on literary merit. One cannot state that this is purely the realm of the publisher. There's no distinction between a publisher doing it, and the transaction merchant doing it. One can either be comfortable with them both doing it, or opposed to them both doing it.

why not? why is it wrong for a publisher or seller to say " i publisher /sell this but no that"

if its okay for someone to say " we publish/sell erotic art" it also okay for someone to say "we do not publish/sell erotic art"

for the payment processor to say they will not process the payment for a transaction because they object to something in the transaction is very different. that should actually be illegal. if they want to be a payment processor they should have to process any legal payment that comes through their system.

really Im not even sure they should know what the product is to make the determination. MC /VISA/ MAstercad/My Debit CARD Bank looking at each product before they process the sale to decide if they feel like it? no and they shouldnt.

edit- i read a book years ago titled "the entity" during the book a woman is raped by a ghost. since this policy includes text of rape are they suggesting they wont allow it to be sold as an ebook using paypal? or since it actually is a part of the overall story arc and plot does it have "serious literary or artistic" value? "will it be okay with them to sell paper copies?

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

really Im not even sure they should know what the product is to make the determination. MC /VISA/ MAstercad/My Debit CARD Bank looking at each product before they process the sale to decide if they feel like it? no and they shouldnt.

MC and Visa have both made statements that this has nothing to do with their policies, which are officially "we'll process payments for any legal purchase." (They don't mention that for some legal purchases, they require a substantial annual fee and retainer against possible chargebacks.)

edit- i read a book years ago titled "the entity" during the book a woman is raped by a ghost. since this policy includes text of rape are they suggesting they wont allow it to be sold as an ebook using paypal? or since it actually is a part of the overall story arc and plot does it have "serious literary or artistic" value? "will it be okay with them to sell paper copies?

It's moot now; PayPal has said they only have an official policy about erotic *images*, not text, and the policy for those is to ban individual works that seem to them to fit the legal definition of obscenity.

[Dulin's Books]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

It's moot now; PayPal has said they only have an official policy about erotic *images*, not text, and the policy for those is to ban individual works that seem to them to fit the legal definition of obscenity.

i was asking in reagards to the update which says

e-books with text and obscene images of rape, bestiality or incest

so are they saying text is okay but text AND images are not? they are also specific about 'ebooks' , so are they saying the will allow the book in paper form to be sold using paypal but not the ebook?

[twowheels]

The subject of this thread was confusing:

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

I couldn't figure out why PayPal had any say in this whatsoever!