Smashwords Succumbs to Censorship

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Catlady

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

I am saying, "this book fits in the categories they've announced are not acceptable." PayPal hasn't handed out a list of specific titles they're forbidding; they've said "any books that meet these criteria can't be sold through our payment services."

Are you saying, "of COURSE they didn't mean THAT book?" Or suggesting that publishers who want to sell Fanny Hill should just lie about whether they carry erotica containing underage sex and rape stories?

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by djulian

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.

Well apparently you are or at least did repeat yourself over and over and over again. And in my very own opinion it makes no difference if you repeated yourself a thousand times, the way you worded your first post leaves room for interpretation. And, oh shock, not everybody is going to read and understand it the same way you try to convince us it should have been read.

"But I didn't say that I wanted to ban any books!" And you did not say you did not either. You could have said that you wished that people would not want no read those books even if they existed. They do exist, because some people want to read them. Their moral believes for acceptable literature is different than yours.

If you keep telling me how to interprete your words, then I rather go beat a dead horse now. Of course not literally, since I will not get in trouble by the Humane Society for hurting the feelings of a poor dead horse's soul.

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by djulian

I don't agree--I think private behavior does affect how society operates. What I do in the privacy of my home affects how I interact with people outside of my home.

Not necessarily. Most mature adults are a very different person at work than they are when they are alone with their spouse. It's called "adjusting your behavior to your circumstances" and is a necessary skill in modern society.

What you do in the privacy of your home affects how you see the world around you. Your actions are on you, and you alone. Not on whatever movie, book, or video game that inspired you.

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

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.

But that's different, because it's the Bible.

Your sarcasm-o-meter should have flown off the scale from that sentence.

[cHex]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

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

The US Supreme Court has held that freedom of association is an essential part of freedom of speech. Of course, they occasionally place limits on freedom of association, as in anti-discrimination laws.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by ScalyFreak

But that's different, because it's the Bible.

Your sarcasm-o-meter should have flown off the scale from that sentence.

All sarcasm aside, the Bible also has bestiality and incest in it. Many people believe the Bible to be the greatest non-fiction book ever. I tend to disagree, since I think it is the greatest fiction book ever. You can read it any way you want to. I even respect what you think about the Bible, as long you don't force it on me.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

All sarcasm aside, the Bible also has bestiality and incest in it. Many people believe the Bible to be the greatest non-fiction book ever. I tend to disagree, since I think it is the greatest fiction book ever. You can read it any way you want to. I even respect what you think about the Bible, as long you don't force it on me.

Amen to that!

[basschick]

some random thoughts on all this -

visa and mastercard have had some weird issues working with adult. a few u.s. banks allow it, but not many, and there are always new and sometimes incomprehensible rules being made regarding processing for erotic sites and material. but it's not impossible that banks are one of paypal's concerns, not just orchestrating morality. mind, i have NO idea if it's true - i'm just saying it's possible.

paypal also has to please large numbers of large clients, many of whom are far from erotic-friendly. they may be concerned that very edgy fiction about acts that are illegal may cause some of their clients to not only stop using paypal, but to raise a lot of noise. i notice those who favor censorship do seem to be quite good at making lots of public complaints very loudly.

while smashwords could indeed find other processing, merchant accounts take time to get, can cost quite a bit to set up, won't pay your authors and a bank may have just as much objection to edgy content as paypal has. it can take far longer to get paid by your bank - long enough to put some small businesses under. and many people are very comfortable using paypal. it's fast, it's easy, it seems more secure. a lot of the people who license ebooks at smashwords are used to using it.

there are some third party billers and a few smaller companies with paypal like payment systems. but they're not as large as paypal, and the larger ones won't process for adult.

i like buying books at smashwords, and i can't imagine what a huge job it would be to move processing for every book to another system. nightmarish wouldn't even begin to cover it. then all the time spent on an alternate payment method to authors. seems like smashwords would need to pay new staff to do all this work, and that costs money.

i absolutely do not believe that anyone should decide what another other adult should say or read, but i would be surprised if smashwords has the resources to deal, easily or maybe at all, with all that would be involved in moving to a new processor, plus there's be the loss of sales from people who use paypal.

by not buying from smashwords as a result of this, we have the power to harm smashwords as a business plus all the independent authors who sell their work there. i doubt that it will hurt paypal much, however.

btw, there was a woman a couple years ago who i read about in the news. she wrote a what i've been told (i didn't read it) a bdsm story involving a baby, and pled guilty of obscenity.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08220/902556-100.stm

the written word is not always safe from legal prosecution. while people use the word "obscene" to mean sexually explicit material, obscenity is actually a crime - often quite a big one. it has a very iffy definition "patently offensive by contemporary community standards" and it's not just a crime in the u.s., btw.

wow, my rant went on for longer than i expected - even though i shortened it!

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by basschick

the written word is not always safe from legal prosecution. while people use the word "obscene" to mean sexually explicit material, obscenity is actually a crime - often quite a big one. it has a very iffy definition "patently offensive by contemporary community standards" and it's not just a crime in the u.s., btw.

It doesn't just mean "offensive by community standards"--it also means "lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value." (A.k.a. "the SLAPS test.") A work can be horribly offensive to a lot of people and still have serious value in one or more of those categories.

[basschick]

while that's true, i've only seen the first one brought to trial for years.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

It doesn't just mean "offensive by community standards"--it also means "lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value." (A.k.a. "the SLAPS test.") A work can be horribly offensive to a lot of people and still have serious value in one or more of those categories.

[Joykins]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

It doesn't just mean "offensive by community standards"--it also means "lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value." (A.k.a. "the SLAPS test.") A work can be horribly offensive to a lot of people and still have serious value in one or more of those categories.

Or as Tom Lehrer put it:

As the judge remarked the day that he
acquitted my Aunt Hortense,
"To be smut
It must be ut-
Terly without redeeming social importance."

[crich70]

I don't know if anyone else has mentioned this point yet as I haven't read through all 18 pages (so far) on this topic but Mr. Coker needs to brush up on his book knowledge. The proper title for the book he uses as an example is "Animal Farm" not '1984." A small point perhaps but if someone can get that wrong how can you be sure that other things won't be done incorrectly? I also have to wonder, why now? I mean Smashwords has been online as a business since February of 2008, and Pay Pal just now has a problem with books sold on the site?

From an imagination perspective, erotica is little different from a literary novel that puts us inside the mind of farm animals (1984)

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by crich70

I don't know if anyone else has mentioned this point yet as I haven't read through all 18 pages (so far) on this topic but Mr. Coker needs to brush up on his book knowledge. The proper title for the book he uses as an example is "Animal Farm" not '1984." A small point perhaps but if someone can get that wrong how can you be sure that other things won't be done incorrectly?

That's not a small point. That's a glaring "I haven't bothered to check my sources since we all know I'm right anyway, so I shouldn't have to provide sources" arrogance-based fallacy.

Also known as the "I have no idea what the eff I'm talking about"-approach.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by crich70

I don't know if anyone else has mentioned this point yet as I haven't read through all 18 pages (so far) on this topic but Mr. Coker needs to brush up on his book knowledge. The proper title for the book he uses as an example is "Animal Farm" not '1984." A small point perhaps but if someone can get that wrong how can you be sure that other things won't be done incorrectly?

Those 18 pages, well by the time you got through them probably more, are all worth reading. Very interesting discussion. But no the mix-up in Orwell's book has not been mentioned. When I read it the first time, I thought, oh no don't say "Animal Farm" and then he said "1984", and I thought it was a mistake. And maybe it wasn't - the people in 1984 are not treated much better than farm animals. "Big Brother" and censoring of reading material fits with the context. I have to admit that I haven't read Animal Farm, I did read 1984 though. Is Animal Farm also about problems with society as in 1984? If so, I might have to put that on my reading list.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

That's not nuance. If you say you are opposed to the existence of something, any reasonable person would think that you wanted it banned.

I disagree. I am opposed to the existence of structured religion but would not even think of banning it. I recognize that there are some people who need or want that structure and there is no reason, other than my dislike for it, to ban it.

I oppose the Republican party and its ultraright conservatives, but I don't want to ban the party; I just want to defeat its candidates at the polls.

A reasonable person would simply conclude that I was opposed to it; an unreasonable person would go that additional step and assume I would ban it because I oppose it.