Amazon removing gay ebooks from their catalog again

[Xanthe]

Update 5/9/11: Animate U.S.A., a Japanese publisher that publishers yaoi manga exclusively to the Kindle, stated in an e-mail that "some titles are already removed by Amazon without any specific reasons. We just know that the titles contain content that is in violation of their content guidelines.

Well, duh!

Sounds like a non-issue to me.

[crich70]

Obviously they felt their content guidelines were violated, but what are their content guidelines? I've seen other postings about this or that being removed and from some of the posts it sounds like their content guidelines are rather vague as far as details which leaves the author in potential limbo since they have no way of knowing if their work will be pulled from the shelves without warning. And that smells of blanket censorship, meaning they can say after the fact that such and such violated their content guidelines without explaining why one book does violate the aforementioned guidelines and another similar book doesn't. And that is far from being a non-issue. If you and I both write similar books in the same genre and both submit them to Amazon and then later mine is pulled but yours isn't I'm going to want to know why mine was pulled and yours is still there. Likewise if it was your book that was pulled and mine wasn't I'm sure you would be more than slightly curious as to why.

[anamardoll]

Chiming in to say:

I really find distasteful some of the arguments that seem to be going along the lines of "BUT THERE ARE CHILDREN ON AMAZON". I've seen this argument utilized to argue that Amazon should basically sell nothing but *maybe* The Swiss Family Robinson, and even that's iffy because their farm animals get pregnant from time to time. (God knows how when they only have one cow with them. Maybe there's a wild bull on the island.)

Speaking as an adult (who doesn't, in full disclosure, have children), I'm tired of hearing that the whole world has to be child-friendly in order to protect the little ones from ever seeing, hearing, viewing, or being aware of anything beyond puppies and unicorns and the stork.

In order to have an account with Amazon for purchasing items, you have to have a credit card number. That account (with linked credit card) has a password that parents should not share with anyone, especially with their children. I'm okay if Amazon wants to modify the site so that "protected" items (erotica, dangerous power tools, the Oxford English dictionary, etc.) require you to be logged into the site in order to view them. Fine.

But removing books, movies, video games, lawn mowers, erotica, 3 Wolf Moon T-shirts, etc. just because THE CHILDREN MIGHT BE CORRUPTED? No. Just, please, no. I'm an adult and I don't want to live in a Disney movie, please.

[carld]

Originally Posted by Xanthe

Well, duh!

Sounds like a non-issue to me.

Then why haven't they removed equivalent straight manga?

[Xanthe]

Originally Posted by carld

Then why haven't they removed equivalent straight manga?

Because that isn't in violation of their content guidelines?

They can establish whatever guidelines they want for the products they sell, and though it might irk some of us, their guidelines regarding straight and gay content can be totally contradictory.

That's why I say it is a non-issue.

[carld]

Originally Posted by Xanthe

their guidelines regarding straight and gay content can be totally contradictory.

Which makes it discrimination, which is never a non-issue.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by Xanthe

That's why I say it is a non-issue.

Even if it is a non-issue (for them to apply their guidelines in a discriminatory fashion) in the legal sense (and I really don't know if it is or not), it's not a non-issue to all buyers. You don't care, fine. Other people do, and they can choose to vote with their dollars by shopping elsewhere.

This thread is to inform people who do care about it so that they can react accordingly. I appreciate it.

[Over]

Just to get this straight (no pun intended): was all explicit yaoi manga removed? What about explicit straight manga?

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by Over

Just to get this straight (no pun intended): was all explicit yaoi manga removed? What about explicit straight manga?

OP Link

No, not all yaoi manga has been removed from Amazon. Some eBook titles were, with the (apparent) understanding that it violated the vaguely-defined and rarely-enforced content guidelines.

The disconnect is that there is plenty of straight erotica, manga, etc. available that hasn't been removed. Amazon is apparently guilty of applying a rule selectively.

This is also worthy of note because Amazon has demonstrated a history of spotty behavior with books containing GLBT material (even when it's not in violation of their content guidelines).

Link here: http://www.betanews.com/article/Amaz...ble/1239646177

But several very legitimate, non-pornographic works of fiction with gay and lesbian themes had omitted their sales rankings. And searches of author names typed into the Search field also failed to turn up listings for non-pornographic lesbian-themed material, even though that material actually does exist in the catalog. However, when that material is located in the catalog by other means, clicking on the author's name does turn up a list of all available works from that author.

The specificity of this "glitch" has caused many to suspect it was an act of homophobic censorship.

[carld]

Originally Posted by Over

Just to get this straight (no pun intended): was all explicit yaoi manga removed? What about explicit straight manga?

No, straight manga (there may be one exception) was not removed. This appears targeted only at yaoi.

[Xanthe]

Originally Posted by carld

Which makes it discrimination, which is never a non-issue.

Nope, not discrimination, a marketing decision. There is a difference in this instance. They are imposing content limits on the type of explicit yaoi they sell, not the fact of selling it.

I say it is a "non-issue" because this just seems to be another of those "big, bad Amazon" threads. It's becoming obvious that whoever was supposed to be minding the store over there regarding their content agreements with authors and publishers was slacking off on the job, and whoever has the job now is enforcing the letter of the agreements. So we are seeing things removed from sale that apparently had been overlooked, deliberately or not.

Every time Amazon enforces their content agreements, another thread pops up here causing an outcry that Amazon is "discriminating" against one thing or another, or is "stealing" ebooks from people's Kindles or what-have-you. They have guidelines and content rules that are set up between them and the authors/publishers; we are not privy to each agreement. If someone tries to slide something under that radar in order to take advantage of the global sales reach that Amazon gives them, and they get found out, well then that's just the price of doing business with Amazon. There's not need to turn it into a cause célèbre, which is what seems to be happening every time now.

[carld]

When they selectively target gay material while ignoring equally graphic straight it's discrimination, plain and simple.

[stickybuns]

But why censure explicit "gay" manga but not explicit "straight" manga? Do the powers that be at Amazon really believe that there's a qualitative difference between two cartoon penises spending time together vs. a cartoon penis hanging out with a cartoon vulva? If the issue is the exploitation of innocent, underage cartoon characters, why only come to the defense of the boy cartoons and not the girl cartoons?

[Refom1]

GA Russell, you insist pornography is illegal, huh? How do you explain Hustler, Penthouse, and all the other such mags freely available for purchase, the thriving adult film industry, etc? Porn is perfectly legal unless it's child porn or bestiality. Yes,some backwards places in the south have made it illegal for adults to buy sex toys and such, but it doesn't mean porn is illegal in the United States.

[anamardoll]

Xanthe,

The issue is not that Amazon has explicitly stated "no yaoi manga". That would be their right to do so, and it would be clearly outlined in their TOS.

The issue is that they have a vague "no objectionable stuff" TOS, and they've chosen to apply it to, say, yaoi manga and not to, say, HAWT AMERICAN GIRL ON GIRL VACATIONS or whatever. (I don't feel interested in providing an Amazon link to porn - you can find it yourself if you want.)

When someone intentionally crafts a vague rule so that they can apply it only to a certain group while another "equally guilty" (under the TOS terms) group consistently doesn't get the rule applied to them, it would be discrimination.

It would be like if Amazon had a "no religious works allowed" rule and then ignored Christian lit but pulled Muslim lit. Or a "no coming of age dramas" rule but only pulled the ones with black protagonists and left the ones with white protagonists alone.

Having a "no porn" rule, but only applying it to gay manga and not any of the other explicit works on Amazon is discrimintation. Having an explicit "no gay porn" rule would at least make it clear where Amazon stood, and would inform customers about exactly what policies they were supporting with their money.

---

It SOUNDS like, in this case, the publisher re-uploaded a new version, an Amazon employee reviewed the material before approving the upload, and Ze found the material to be objectionable. I'm not terribly surprised to hear that someone found gay porn more shocking than "straight" girl-on-girl porn (which is far more normalized in our culture - remember the "pillow fight" beer commercial a while back?), but Amazon should have checks and balances in place to make sure their rules are applied equally and fairly or not at all.