Should e-Books be Rated (like movies and video games)?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by tompe

This is better but I think even this is too simple. If it then can be shown that children or YA books containing "death" will sell less then authors will take this into consideration. Also for example "death" can be handled in many ways so it is unclear what a simple description like "depicts death" will give.

Sure... but the point is, if you know it's there, you can review it (or ask someone who has) and make an intelligent decision. Authors will have to decide for themselves whether or not they want to rewrite their material to avoid upsetting potential readers.

Originally Posted by tompe

But if you describe the content you should also have things like "contains peudo-science", "contains atheism", "contains description positive to religion", and so on.

Originally Posted by Jellby

"This books contains religious fanaticism", "this book considers evolution as a fact", "this book includes black characters", "this book quotes lyrics by the Beatles"... Where to stop?

It's one thing to read something you don't necessarily agree with... we don't need content descriptions for that. It's another thing to read something that deeply offends you, or that you would not want your children to read... you do need descriptors for that.

For most people, such descriptors will do the job as they are intended. If you are so far outside the norm that such descriptors mean nothing to you ("I see that this depicts adult language, but what about carnivorism?"), you have no choice but to review it for yourself. Either way, descriptors don't hurt. They simply provide a research-free way of determining what's in the book.

[Redcard]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

It's one thing to read something you don't necessarily agree with... we don't need content descriptions for that. It's another thing to read something that deeply offends you, or that you would not want your children to read... you do need descriptors for that.

For most people, such descriptors will do the job as they are intended. If you are so far outside the norm that such descriptors mean nothing to you ("I see that this depicts adult language, but what about carnivorism?"), you have no choice but to review it for yourself. Either way, descriptors don't hurt. They simply provide a research-free way of determining what's in the book.

That's where Farenheit 451 started. Content descriptors/warnings. Then people took the next step. Why not just outlaw it? Save the step of doing the "warning."

That's my fear. It's one thing to say "let's add descriptors so that parents can make smart decisions." But that's not a far step from that to "Let's outlaw anything anyone finds offensive."

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Redcard

That's where Farenheit 451 started. Content descriptors/warnings. Then people took the next step. Why not just outlaw it? Save the step of doing the "warning."

That's my fear. It's one thing to say "let's add descriptors so that parents can make smart decisions." But that's not a far step from that to "Let's outlaw anything anyone finds offensive."

By that logic, we might as well just nuke everything now, to make sure no one gets upset later...

A descriptor is not a close step ahead of outlawing. In fact, a descriptor's value is that it prevents outlawing by providing enough information to make decisions. Those afraid to make decisions resort to outlawing... the lazy way out.

As the music industry has demonstrated, adding descriptors to their product is not that hard.

[Redcard]

Yes, but look at Nabokov's Lolita.

A classic. Just.. classic. The lead is hated , yet is smooth and articulate.

If we put on the outside of that book "Caution: This book contains child rape, and focuses on the lead character as a very charasmatic man" , how long do you think before we'd have the radical right trying to ban it? Oh, wait, we already HAVE that.

Now, we'd have them claiming "SEE! Even THEY admit it's pornography for pedophiles. Even THEY admit it's got no literary value!"

We're talking a culture over here that has the highest divorce rates in the world who voted to ban something that wasn't even an option in the name of "saving marriage." If content descriptors were mandatory in books, I can speak for my state in saying outright that a constitutional amendment to the State Constitution banning certain books with certain descriptors would be on the next possible ballot, and it will pass.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Redcard

If content descriptors were mandatory in books, I can speak for my state in saying outright that a constitutional amendment to the State Constitution banning certain books with certain descriptors would be on the next possible ballot, and it will pass.

So... your state is already banning music with such descriptors, yes? And this is why you are so sure books would be banned? What state is it that's banning music?

[Redcard]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

So... your state is already banning music with such descriptors, yes? And this is why you are so sure books would be banned? What state is it that's banning music?

Yes.

Tennessee does have laws banning the sale of certain music to certain ages, based on descriptors. They have laws at various levels regarding rap music, when and where it can be played, and other such things.

A few times, we've had laws introduced and attempted at the state legislature regarding these things, and they're getting closer and closer.

I remember a few municipalities outlawing the showing of "Brokeback Mountain" when it was in theatres before 9PM. (There are already laws on the books banning children outright from R rated movies in many areas, and banning them from attending movies without their parents in the entire state.)

This is a red state. A very red state.

And I'd rather not give them more things to do and more ways to outlaw things here.

Plus, Steve, you're an author. Pretend for a moment that your books were banned here based on content descriptors. Would you pay a fine from this state for distribution of your books here against the law?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

It's one thing to read something you don't necessarily agree with... we don't need content descriptions for that. It's another thing to read something that deeply offends you, or that you would not want your children to read... you do need descriptors for that.

What offends people varies a lot. And why should the things that offends parents be the same thing that will offend children? And why should you protect people from being offended?

Bad reasoning for example offend me. And books that promote bad reasoning are bad mutatis mutandis.

[mtravellerh]

Censoring: No!
Rating:No!
Even thinking about rating or censoring creative works gives me the creeps.

[Danny Fekete]

Originally Posted by tompe

What offends people varies a lot. And why should the things that offends parents be the same thing that will offend children? And why should you protect people from being offended?

Bad reasoning for example offend me. And books that promote bad reasoning are bad mutatis mutandis.

I gratefully agree that the offences of people, taken in aggregate, are numerous. I think that to take offence at something is a sign of disagreement, which requires criticism, which denotes thought rather than reflex if that offence is allowed to be borne and contested. I may be wrong, but I think that the fear expressed by Redcard is that, where offence is something that we are protected from by obstructing those ideas that clash with our own, the danger is that the rest is also lost. Conservatism of the sort that bans or resists books and ideas bypasses criticism and thrives in converting offended sensibilities into obstinacy. Allowing offences to be systematically categorised and pointed to by parties interested in obstructing ideas could, thereby, provide a tool to make the process of censorship that much easier.

What I see in this discussion is that adding informational tags to ideas for prospective consumption threatens to limit that consumption; is this qualitatively different than including a synopsis with the product, or a matter of scale?

[Redcard]

I go far further than Danny's assessment of me, but in its face, it's dead accurate.

I am afraid that instead of opening to new ideas and new discussions, we will be forced into a theocracy.

Consider, for example, recent events here in Tennessee. There's a factory that employs nearly 80% muslims. The muslism as 80% of the factory, elected to have Eid off instead of Thanksgiving.

This is a private company, voting to have a private day off. It's a democratic process.

The outcry from the local churches here, and the threats of legislature here to DEMAND Thanksgiving off and Eid ON, was frightening.

There were literally threats from the legislature to outlaw Eid as a holiday, for a private company. In the end, the company chose to not fight this fight, and required it's mostly Muslim staff, who had come over here and become citizens and learned about democracy.. to take their own vacation days to get their religious holiday off.

So I see the same issue here. If we put content disclaimars on books, those content disclaimars _WILL_ be used. I'm not against authors choosing to do so of their own volition.. but if we REQUIRE content disclaimars.. this state will re-enter the dark ages. Make no bones about it.

Again, I recommend watching "This Film Is Not Yet Rated." You'll see how films content ratings are already used to push an agenda. I don't want that in books or written media, because written media is still one of few places where a single person can make their ideas seen. It should not be corruptible so easily.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Redcard

Plus, Steve, you're an author. Pretend for a moment that your books were banned here based on content descriptors. Would you pay a fine from this state for distribution of your books here against the law?

No.

I sell my novels from the state of Maryland, USA, which has no such laws banning my content. They are available all over the world, through the internet. I provide descriptors for my books, so no one has the excuse of not knowing in advance what they are buying. According to American law, if someone purchases one of my books (and presumably reads it) in an area where my books were banned, the fault would be theirs, not mine.

Obviously, a resident of Tennessee should be aware of their state laws concerning controlled materials. If my books (or any others) were banned, it would be the responsibility of the resident of TN not to buy said material. It is not legally my responsibility to restrict literature sold over the internet, whether it be to Tennessee or China. And if the resident disagrees with the state law, it is their responsibility either to obey the law, to attempt to legally have it changed, or to relocate to another state (admittedly, not everyone has the same options there).

Keep in mind, though: A descriptor only highlights the material that is already there... in other words, with or without the descriptor, if the words are illegal, they are illegal. If you are hoping your government just won't find the illegal material without a descriptor, you're probably in for an unwelcome surprise.

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by Over

I've voted the 3rd option, but I'm wondering why people here say it's okay to rate movies and videogames, but not books. Dual criteria?

In my opinion, by the time a kid gets some interest in books, he will be old enough to take care of himself.

Or if he's too young and his interest in books was cultivated by his parents, I guess the parents also gave him some education in that area as well.

Personally, I don't think video games should be rated for 'content' but rather on how difficult they are to learn how to play. My mom bought us an XBox 360 for Christmas and this is the first 'video game system' we've ever owned - or used. I'm 50, she's 70 and it's been a *BEAR* to figure out how to play Kung Fu Panda - arguably the easiest game we've got out of the two that came bundled and the two she purchased at the same time. AAARRRGGGHHH!!!

Derek

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by tompe

What offends people varies a lot. And why should the things that offends parents be the same thing that will offend children? And why should you protect people from being offended?

Generally, I think people can protect themselves from being offended. Descriptors are good information for people who seek to avoid being offended.

As to children, it's not actually a matter of "offending" them. Parents (their guardians) have a right to dictate what their children are exposed to, supposedly under the theory that the children are not yet mature enough to properly understand or appreciate some content. Descriptors allow parents to identify those concepts they seek to keep their children away from until they are ready to handle it later in life.

Again, this is a far cry from a "rating," in that it lets the parent choose, as opposed to letting the state choose for them.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by lilac_jive

I think it might get readership up

Like, "I know I'm not supposed to read this because it is bad, but I will anyway! Ha ha!"

I recall the many happy hours I spent trawling the library shelfs as a hormonal adolescent, looking for the naughty bits.
I must have read dozens of books in my quest, only occasionally striking pay dirt (George MacBeth 'Cadbury' thrillers anyone? I always meant to suggest they were taken off the shelves once I'd read them. )

[Danny Fekete]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

As to children, it's not actually a matter of "offending" them. Parents (their guardians) have a right to dictate what their children are exposed to, supposedly under the theory that the children are not yet mature enough to properly understand or appreciate some content.

Are we cool with this? You say "supposedly," Steve, so I figure you've got some reservations about the universal applicability of parents and guardians acting as censors on their children until the point they're "no longer children." This "right" has usually seemed problematic to me: the state often invests directly in the individuals which comprise it, so does that investment entitle the state or its representatives any control over what the children are exposed to?