Smashwords Succumbs to Censorship

[cfrizz]

Originally Posted by djulian

I'd be interested to see your supporting references for that claim.

I'm opposed to the existence of this type of fiction, and my motivation is that I don't want to read it, I don't want my kids (when I have kids) to read it, I don't want their teachers or scout leaders reading it, I just don't want to live in a society where depictions of this sort of behavior are readily accepted as legitimate erotic stimulants.
I'm not at all bitter that someone makes money creating representations of illegal or perverse acts. Money has nothing to do with it.

Originally Posted by djulian

Did I say that?

Yes, that is exactly what you are saying. While you are free to feel that way & follow your beliefs, you are not free to impose them on everyone else.

If you're not bitter about it, then why do you care what anyone else does? So long as they are not trying to force you to read these books, then IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!

You have basically proven Rhardin's point. Nice going.

[djulian]

Originally Posted by cfrizz

Yes, that is exactly what you are saying. While you are free to feel that way & follow your beliefs, you are not free to impose them on everyone else.

If you're not bitter about it, then why do you care what anyone else does? So long as they are not trying to force you to read these books, then IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!

You have basically proven Rhardin's point. Nice going.

I'm not going to keep repeating my arguments. You can review them above. Why does it bother you that I expressed my moral opinions? I'm not imposing them on anyone else. I'm expressing them. I'm allowed to do that.

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Oh, hey, look at that: I own a mainstream paranormal fantasy book that has a throw-away line about paranormal, consensual bestial sex.

Feel free to snub me now, all.

Nahhhh...

Smashwords better be careful about publishing a modern retelling of the Frog Prince, lest it be construed as borderline bestiality...

I find some erotica quite distasteful, but regardless of that, I despise hypocrisy more.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Oh, hey, look at that: I own a mainstream paranormal fantasy book that has a throw-away line about paranormal, consensual bestial sex.

Feel free to snub me now, all.

Hmmmm, sounds interesting. Might want to borrow it.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Redcard

Um.

Yes, it is a tacit approval of people being allowed to read whatever the hell they want to read so long as they are not hurting anyone else through force or fraud.

It's not slippery at all. Fictional events ARE NOT REAL.

Oh, and implying I'm a (or support) pedophile, beastiali..st? , or incestor.. pretty much is dirty pool, and says a lot more about you than me. It also suggests that I'm done with you. Thanks for the implication.

I think you need a basic course in reading comprehension.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by rhadin

the American preference is to bury the head in the sand . . . American attitudes toward sex and sex-related topics are more puritanical . . . Americans, especially evangelical Christian Americans, firmly believe . . .

Americans tend to be gullible . . . Americans are loathe to accept . . . said in America.

. . .Americans believe that a woman's place is in the home, barefoot and pregnant, and in servitude . . .

American is not a leader . . .

Thank God Mobileread isn't an American web site. No way we could talk like this there. Then again . . .

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Libraries aren't middlemen in a business transactions; they're curators of culture, with restrictions based on local community standards. Some libraries carry copies of Fanny Hill... sites that sell with PayPal cannot.

I think I missed the announcement that PayPal is somehow refusing to deal with sites that sell Fanny Hill. Please point me to your source.

Or is this just hyperbole and an unfounded assumption?

[Joykins]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Yeah, I'm really NOT loving the "adults shouldn't be allowed to read things I think are icky" vibe I'm getting from some of the comments on this thread.

Hi, my name is Ana. I am physically incapable of bearing children, and I don't enjoy being around other people's children. I go weeks at a time without even seeing children. Quit justifying censorship on the grounds that your hypothetical children will somehow be hurt by me reading a gorram book.

Hm. I'm a mother of young children. I sometimes read erotica, generally m/m erotic romance. I don't want my young children reading erotica only because they're too young; it's age-inappropriate for an 8 and 11-yo. When they are older they get to make their own reading decisions, and that is something I hope they'll ease into as they get older but I doubt I'd be shocked if I find out that, say, my son looks at some sort of porn or my daughter reads an erotic romance sometime in the next 5 years, and I hope to heaven they have enough discretion that we never have to talk about it).

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Heh. I have children. I get just as upset; *I* will decide what's appropriate for them to read; I don't need or want PayPal making that decision for me.

Will the "think of the chilllldrreennnn" censors allow me to ban books with biblical metaphors and references from school libraries? If not, they can stop deciding what's inappropriate for my kids to have access to; I will make those judgment calls myself.

Seriously. You know what has a lot of rape in it? The Bible. Some of it has probably titillated a reader at one time or another.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

Hmmmm, sounds interesting. Might want to borrow it.

If you haven't read Yasmine Galenorn's "Sisters of the Moon" series, I definitely recommend it. The books are kind of fluffy, but very pro-sex and pro-experimentation, though I would not label them "erotica". It's more like "Charmed" meets "Sex in the City".

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by cHex

This is a case where I believe US laws have infringed on people's constitutional rights. While it is proper for courts to enforce equal-access to public property (toilets, drinking fountains, buses and utilities where government creates monopolies, etc.) I think telling restaurants, for example, that they MUST do business with any class of people should be considered unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by xg4bx

or bars that have 'ladies night' where women drink for free.

and i've gotta support cHex, i completely stand behind freedom of association.

in todays uber sensitive climate of political correctness what business or private establishment would honestly be willing to take the PR and revenue hit by openly discriminating against a group of people anyway? not very many. but it should be perfectly legal for those who wish to.

It's certainly brave of you to stand up for the right of restaurants to exclude blacks. And it's certainly naive of you to think that some restaurants wouldn't.

But if you believe that antidiscrimination laws are unconstitutional, what constitutional provision do you think they violate?

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

It's certainly brave of you to stand up for the right of restaurants to exclude blacks. And it's certainly naive of you to think that some restaurants wouldn't.

But if you believe that antidiscrimination laws are unconstitutional, what constitutional provision do you think they violate?

Thank you.

I'm always really astonished at people who think that the desire to make money trumps all prejudices.

Especially when it's expressed in a thread that is about a place that is making a costly business decision in order to satisfy their prejudices.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I think I missed the announcement that PayPal is somehow refusing to deal with sites that sell Fanny Hill. Please point me to your source.

Or is this just hyperbole and an unfounded assumption?

Fanny Hill is erotica starring a 15-year-old prostitute; it also describes a lot of sex with other underage characters. It's against PayPal's new rules for ebook sales. It's possible some ebook sites that carry Fanny Hill are still taking PayPal for it, but as soon as it gets reported, they risk having their accounts frozen.

Or did I miss something and PayPal's announcement allowed that books in the public domain were exempt from its restrictions?

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Or did I miss something and PayPal's announcement allowed that books in the public domain were exempt from its restrictions?

Heh, well, obviously once it's in the public domain, it's TOTALLY safe for Teh Childrens.

/logic behind my parents giving me "The Time Machine" as a child, and scarring me for life. THE MORLOCKS!!

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Fanny Hill is erotica starring a 15-year-old prostitute; it also describes a lot of sex with other underage characters. It's against PayPal's new rules for ebook sales. It's possible some ebook sites that carry Fanny Hill are still taking PayPal for it, but as soon as it gets reported, they risk having their accounts frozen.

Or did I miss something and PayPal's announcement allowed that books in the public domain were exempt from its restrictions?

So now I know that it's just your unfounded assumption and that your're overreaching to make your point.