Amazon censorship

[jbcohen]

Where I went to graduate school I took a few classes in retoric or the art of argument. One of the things that we learned is to base arguments around definitions and Miriam and Webster Dictionary is generally the arbiter of defintions, in other words what ever Miriam and Webster says a word means thats what it means.

Now for this word sensorship, its the removal of materiel of any sort becuase of the fact that it is objectionable to that person.

Please note that the definion makes no reference to government in any way so removal of a ebook can be sensorship if its done by amazon as described here. The point that needs to be argued is did amazon remove the ebook becuase it was objectionable to the company.

One thing is never argued at all, facts. Facts are verifiable and can not be argued. In this case the facts are: 1) the definition of the word sensor; 2) Amazon removed the ebook from the catalog. What remains is where the arguments are, why did amazon remove the ebook?

If they removed it becuase they found it objectionable then yes that is sensorship, but supose the book was dropped becuase there was not enough space on the server and the book was to be moved to a new server then no that is not sensorship.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by haiyeekayakee

At what point do they decide to stop, where will they eventually draw the lines ?

When enough people vote with their wallets. Until then, minority dissent will just be ignored.

[Logseman]

When some of my readers began checking their Kindle archives for books of mine they’d purchased on Amazon, they found them missing from their archives. When one reader called to get a refund for the book she no longer had access to, she was chastised by the Amazon customer service representative about the “severity” of the book she’d chosen to purchase.

In my book, what Amazon's doing here is pissing on people's heads and forcing them to say that it rains. Amazon's stealing here. Fortunately they take with humor.

As fellow author, Will Belegon, noted, if Amazon is going to start pulling books with incest in them: "I just re-read Genesis 19: 30-38 and realized that Lot's daughters got him drunk, had sex with him and bore sons. I demand you follow your clear precedent and remove The Bible from Kindle."

[tubemonkey]

As fellow author, Will Belegon, noted, if Amazon is going to start pulling books with incest in them: "I just re-read Genesis 19: 30-38 and realized that Lot's daughters got him drunk, had sex with him and bore sons. I demand you follow your clear precedent and remove The Bible from Kindle."

A "smut" laden book to be sure.

[elcreative]

If I own a business then I have the right to decide what I sell... unless you advocate compelling me to sell things I don't want to... or do you wish to decide what I'm allowed to do... censorship is a relevant term and action when government originated... the author is free to sell their books in any other place or even to start their own website to sell from...

Censorship is also crying freedom whilst ignoring dictatorships etc. all round the world... wikileaks credentials, regarding freedom of information, are suspect as long as the US is their primary target... where's similar material from China, Russia, North Korea etc... let's just agree to differ on WLs activities but crying censorship, whenever a business chooses to exercise its democratic freedoms, simply aids those who would introduce compulsions...

As for closing your Amazon account, that is your right but I don't actually hear them shaking with terror in the corner, again their right... and you've chosen the wrong subject material to get on a high horse about.. incest fiction is hardly the moral high ground however you personally feel concerning its content...

Originally Posted by haiyeekayakee

To me it is censorship. For me a bookshop is but a conduit, a pipe through which information flows. They should have no say in what I want to read, nor should they be able to make any judgements in what I can or cannot read, I do that for myself.

So, legally they appear to be perfectly entitled to decide what content they will hold, it is their store after all.

Morally, they're going down completely the wrong path if they are to hold themselves arbitars of what I can or cannot read. At what point do they decide to stop, where will they eventually draw the lines ? If they are indeed doing this then to me it is the very essence of censorship.

I've already closed down my Amazon account over their handling of Wikileaks, but if this were true I'd have left them anyway.

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by dacattt

one phone rep, at least, has been critical about their choice of reading material.

Amazon is a big company. They probably employ a lot of people to man the phones. I don't think it's significant that one of those people said a particular thing.

Originally Posted by haiyeekayakee

For me a bookshop is but a conduit, a pipe through which information flows.

A bookshop is a business. It's a business through which information flows, but it's still a business, and businesses exist to make money.

Originally Posted by haiyeekayakee

Morally, they're going down completely the wrong path if they are to hold themselves arbitars of what I can or cannot read. At what point do they decide to stop, where will they eventually draw the lines ? If they are indeed doing this then to me it is the very essence of censorship.

They're arbiters of what they will sell, not what you can or cannot read. They make judgements on what to sell, and in that sense, they make a judgement on what they will facilitate you reading. Not selling something you want to read isn't the same as stopping you reading it - they're just stopping you buying it from them.

Equally, you can choose whether or not to buy from them. You've decided not to buy from them, and that's your choice.

[Logseman]

Mmmmm... if we're talking of moral grounds, let's compare the actions of the parties involved.

The writers: they wrote a book and published it through Amazon.
Amazon: it withdrew the books with no explanation and deprives buyers of the right to a reimbursement, although the service which has been paid is not being rendered any longer.

Originally Posted by Someone in behalf of Jesus

Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness.

[jasonkchapman]

Originally Posted by jbcohen

Now for this word sensorship, its the removal of materiel of any sort becuase of the fact that it is objectionable to that person.

By that definition, not only is censorship a good thing, it's unavoidable. Virtually everyone is guilty of it to some extent. Hell, just fast-forwarding through a commercial qualifies.

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by jasonkchapman

Ah, but you are being libertarian. People should also be allowed not to sell what they don't want to.

But I agree, wholeheartedly, as the rest of my quote goes to show:

... if Amazon decides not to carry these books ... they have every right not to.

[abookreader]

I can't claim I'm happy with the way they are handling it and I've been waiting a couple of days now for Amazon to step up to the plate and make an official announcement of what is going on.

This expecting customers to notice books have gone missing from their archives and then having to call and ask for their refunds is simply anti-customer no two ways about it and frankly I expect far better than that from Amazon.

As for censorship, people can argue about that until the cows come up but their have been books pulled that have nothing to do with under-aged sexual relations at all.

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by haiyeekayakee

For me a bookshop is but a conduit, a pipe through which information flows. They should have no say in what I want to read, nor should they be able to make any judgements in what I can or cannot read, I do that for myself.

That's all good and well, but at the same time you can't force them to sell books to you that they don't want to carry. It works both ways. This is not an issue of morality.

[Lemurion]

It's clear from the ToS that Amazon had every right to pull the book, and probably also clear that they had the right to go into peoples' archives and delete it there. (Probably from their Kindles, too; but I think they're justifiably scared of doing that.)

Having said that, I do think they should take the time to explain why they have removed the books (especially to customers who have lost said books from their archives). A simple statement of "this is what we've done, this is why we've done it, we apologize for the inconvenience," would be fine.

Amazon has every right to do what they want regarding what books they carry and don't carry - and readers have every right to support or not support Amazon with their wallets.

However, Amazon is approaching Apple-like levels of opacity when it comes to explaining what they're doing and why, and in the long run that's a bad thing.

[Fastolfe]

Does Amazon have the right to not sell certain books? Certainly. They are a private entity, and as such, they can choose what they want to sell.

Does Amazon have the right to sell you something, then take it back from you? Well let's see: if I go to my local bookstore and they sell me a pornographic book by mistake, do they have the right to break into my house and take the book away from me later? Even if they reimburse me? I think not.

That sort of corporate behavior (or rather, the potential for that sort of corporate behavior) is why I never trust any company for anything. My books are in my hard disks, and so is my music, my photos and my movies, in ubiquitous open formats. It's also why I vote with my wallet and choose not to give them any of my business whenever possible.

[haiyeekayakee]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

That's all good and well, but at the same time you can't force them to sell books to you that they don't want to carry. It works both ways. This is not an issue of morality.

Yes it most obviously is about morality, else why have they withdrawn a book?

Once again, I'm not trying to force them to do anything, they can do whatever they like with their business. As you said it works both ways, I'm making a judgement on their conduct, the very fact that they are apparently deigning not to sell books merely based on content.

They are a bookstore, a business that sells books, the content should be irrelevant to them. Are they going to stop selling Stephen King novels next, are they going to stop selling the Bible because of the rape, incest and mass murder in that ?

They're after taking the first step onto a very slippery slope and while they're perfectly entitled to do that, I'm perfectly entitled to criticise them and argue that it's a step in the wrong direction.

[abookreader]

I'm making a judgement on their conduct, the very fact that they are apparently deigning not to sell books merely based on content.

Me too. And frankly there "judgement" at this point is so erratic that it is hard to even begin to understand what sort of value system they are trying to apply.

At first they seemed to be targeting erotica that touched upon incest fantasies.

Okay, except for the fact that plenty of these types of books remain with no explanation of why one book is pulled and others remain.

Then books that do not contain incest started disappearing. For instance Babysitting the Bumgaurtners by Selena Kitt has been pulled. It involves a situation where a 19 year old woman visits the couple she babysat for as a younger teen and let's just say "happiness ensues."

So .. no incest. no under aged sex. no explanation and unless the customers call Amazon and risk the lecture on their reading habits .. no refund.

I am a long-time customer of Amazon and I have on many occasions defended their actions and their rights to do things that have upset others. Even now, if they would simply get whatever it is they are trying to do organized and act themselves in a moral and customer friendly manner, I'd support them. But as it stand - no. I am not happy to see them taking this course of action.