Amazon Censorship Expands

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

I read somewhere that porn books have had a big surge in popularity since ebook readers became more common. I don't know if that is true or not, but it would make sense if it was. Ebook readers give people the same false sense of priavacy that the internet gives them.

That is certainly true of Romance novels -- they used to have physical book covers to put on the paperbacks, but ebook readers makes it more discrete for those who desire more privacy.

Oops, I now see Kali said that already. At least we agree.

[elcreative]

Careful kennyc, you're going to ruin your reputation with this agreeing...

Originally Posted by kennyc

Oops, I now see Kali said that already. At least we agree.

[jamthecat]

Originally Posted by HarryT

This is a very silly discussion. Amazon are a private corporation; they are perfectly at liberty to choose to sell or not to sell any product they want, and certainly don't have to justify their decisions to anybody. Nobody has a "right" to have their book sold by Amazon.

Nor does Amazon have the right to violate a contract they've entered into. They agreed to sell my books without problem for years; suddenly there's a problem and they dump them, suggesting I'm nothing but a pornographer? Or that I'm somehow also promoting child molesatation (something I despise no matter what the sexual orientation of the molester)? My books do NOT have underaged sex in them.

Also -- they're still carrying two other titles of mine, both of which also have some very graphic sex in them. And other works they carry have titles that are just as provocative. The hypocrisy is too obvious for words.

Amazon has the right to do what they want, sure; but I also have the right to scream about them trashing my work without even talking to me, first.

[AGB]

Thank you for joining in, Jamthecat!

[jamthecat]

Be warned -- I'm a typical cat when it comes to my opinions -- "It's all about me, me, me -- and who cares about you?"

[carld]

Originally Posted by jamthecat

Be warned -- I'm a typical cat when it comes to my opinions -- "It's all about me, me, me -- and who cares about you?"

That attitude will fit right in with some posters around here. Good luck to you.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Careful kennyc, you're going to ruin your reputation with this agreeing...

I know, it's actually quite some of the agreement I've had with certain members recently.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by AGB

Thank you for joining in, Jamthecat!

[eppythacher]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Incorrect.

You are making an explicit statement that certain historical trends and revisions of ethical systems are essentially inevitable. I am not twisting your positions into ones you don't hold and ascribing them to you, which is how the "straw man" fallacy functions.

Nor am I saying that "all predictions are impossible," rather that it is obvious that extenuating circumstances routinely disrupt what seems to be a "historic inevitability." Who predicted the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, and the world war that resulted? Who predicted the fall of the Berlin Wall? The rise of China as a quasi-capitalist powerhouse? The appearance of Al-Qaeda and international Islamist terrorism? The fall of Rome, the rise of Christianity, the appearance and spread of Islam?

On the flip side: In the 70s, Japan was regarded as a mortal threat to American industrial pre-eminence. The US economy subsequently boomed while Japan suffered from an extended deflationary cycle that still afflicts their economy. Or in ancient times, the divided Greek city-states seemed doomed in the face of Darius' overwhelming military might, yet the Persians were driven out of Greece in the end. And surely, many empires presumed they would "inevitably" persist far longer than they actually did.

Trust me, we could sit here all day and rattle off failed predictions and massive surprises throughout recorded history.

History is usually only "predictable" in hindsight.



True. However, my examples are nowhere near as extreme or outlandish, and numerous examples are drawn from history.



See, that is a straw man argument.

I am not stating that the US is going to turn into a totalitarian state. My point is that because you cannot predict the future, it is impossible to establish ethical guidelines based upon presumptions about the moral guidelines that will be established by a future society.

The evidence is abundant that history is not predictable, nor are social attitudes.

More importantly, if you index your ethical premises to an unknown future date, what are the ethical premises that the Future People will bring to bear? Won't they in turn be obligated to guess what morals the Future Future People will hold? How long in the future should we look -- 50 years, 100 years, 200 years? The very idea either turns into an infinite regress or a series of moving targets, each less predictable than the last.

Last but not least, why should I care about a future judgment? I'll be dead and buried by the time such an era rolls around. Do I really need to concern myself with being judged by people who don't yet exist, and whose moral principles are a huge question mark?

I recommend you stick with contemporary ethical principles, rather than grasp at an illusory future.

All very good arguments. I will concede that future morals, in democracies, in 100 years will be hard to predict. However, what about the morals of banning books in the last 3000 years by governments or companies? I believe no one on this board cares about what fascists states thinks about banning books. My point being that no government democracy in human history thinks banning books is a good idea. I guess it would be easy to prove me wrong, since I don't know history very well. I could be wrong, but in regards to the history of morals of book banning in democracies, IF it's true that no democracy in the last 3000 years thought it was a good idea then in the next 100 years you might be able to predict a continuing moral trend.

[eppythacher]

Originally Posted by jamthecat

Nor does Amazon have the right to violate a contract they've entered into. They agreed to sell my books without problem for years; suddenly there's a problem and they dump them, suggesting I'm nothing but a pornographer? Or that I'm somehow also promoting child molesatation (something I despise no matter what the sexual orientation of the molester)? My books do NOT have underaged sex in them.

Also -- they're still carrying two other titles of mine, both of which also have some very graphic sex in them. And other works they carry have titles that are just as provocative. The hypocrisy is too obvious for words.

Amazon has the right to do what they want, sure; but I also have the right to scream about them trashing my work without even talking to me, first.

Thank you very much for joining the board to share your point of view. I hope that every Author that gets their books banned will join mobileread to give their take on the situation. I believe Kali says we should not care what future societies think about our morals, but I disagree. When future students do their reports on book banning, honestly how do you want to look to them? Also, with the way things are going if every banned Author joins mobileread the admins will have to buy a new server, lol. Maybe they can use Amazons cloud service, if Amazon doesn't kick them out like wikileaks.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by jamthecat

Nor does Amazon have the right to violate a contract they've entered into. They agreed to sell my books without problem for years; suddenly there's a problem and they dump them, suggesting I'm nothing but a pornographer? Or that I'm somehow also promoting child molesatation (something I despise no matter what the sexual orientation of the molester)? My books do NOT have underaged sex in them.

Also -- they're still carrying two other titles of mine, both of which also have some very graphic sex in them. And other works they carry have titles that are just as provocative. The hypocrisy is too obvious for words.

Amazon has the right to do what they want, sure; but I also have the right to scream about them trashing my work without even talking to me, first.

Amazon didn't violate their contract; they did not promise to carry your book.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by eppythacher

All very good arguments. I will concede that future morals, in democracies, in 100 years will be hard to predict. However, what about the morals of banning books in the last 3000 years by governments or companies? I believe no one on this board cares about what fascists states thinks about banning books. My point being that no government democracy in human history thinks banning books is a good idea. I guess it would be easy to prove me wrong, since I don't know history very well. I could be wrong, but in regards to the history of morals of book banning in democracies, IF it's true that no democracy in the last 3000 years thought it was a good idea then in the next 100 years you might be able to predict a continuing moral trend.

1. You are conflating governments banning books with companies not carrying books. In terms of morals, even if no governments ban books in 100 years, I suspect that no one will look askance at *companies* not carrying particular titles.

2. In terms of sexuality, the ancient Greeks (and even Romans) were much more open about this than 19th C England (compare "The Art of Love" with "Pride and Prejudice") or even the present day US. I.e., our parades may have marching bands, but they tend not to feature people carrying giant red leather stuffed phalluses overhead. Even though I think that this would totally up the intimidation factor at HS football games!

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by jamthecat

Nor does Amazon have the right to violate a contract they've entered into.

I suggest you re-read the contract / terms of service. Amazon can pull your books at any time, for pretty much any reason.

However any publisher can do the exact same thing at any time, including terminate a contract. In fact, it would be worse if a publisher pulled your book, since you would be barred from taking the title to another publisher, or face a stiff price to release your book. In your case, you have numerous other outlets for your work.

I'm also not sure you'd be happy if they applied what could be construed as a more consistent policy, e.g. pulling all your titles and permanently banning you from the service.

You have my sympathies, but ultimately Amazon is within its legal, ethical and contractual rights, nor is "censorship" the correct term to describe this event.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by eppythacher

.....No government democracy in human history thinks banning books is a good idea.

Numerous current democracies do in fact place limitations on speech, of varying kinds.

- Germany, and iirc France, both ban Holocaust deniers
- Israel has a series of censorship laws
- India has censorship laws that target religious issues; Hindus also often set up organized protests for what they view as illicit behavior (including a man and a woman kissing on the lips, as Richard Gere found out the hard way)
- The current Italian prime minister owns most of the TV media in Italy, and often uses his ownership to keep his various scandals out of the news
- In Thailand, it is illegal to insult the King
- In the US, as in most nations, child pornography is illegal to produce, disseminate and possess.

And in the US, it's not like all speech was suddenly acceptable in 1776. For example, laws against obscenity were in effect until quite recently.

Nor has this been a one-way and smooth process towards the liberalization of speech. For example, Edwin Meese and Tipper Gore were notorious for their attempts to impose additional restrictions on content they considered pornographic and/or harmful to children.

It really does not require a great deal of imagination to say that the US could reinstate restrictions on obscenity and certain other forms of speech.

[eppythacher]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Numerous current democracies do in fact place limitations on speech, of varying kinds.

- Germany, and iirc France, both ban Holocaust deniers
- Israel has a series of censorship laws
- India has censorship laws that target religious issues; Hindus also often set up organized protests for what they view as illicit behavior (including a man and a woman kissing on the lips, as Richard Gere found out the hard way)
- The current Italian prime minister owns most of the TV media in Italy, and often uses his ownership to keep his various scandals out of the news
- In Thailand, it is illegal to insult the King
- In the US, as in most nations, child pornography is illegal to produce, disseminate and possess.

And in the US, it's not like all speech was suddenly acceptable in 1776. For example, laws against obscenity were in effect until quite recently.

Nor has this been a one-way and smooth process towards the liberalization of speech. For example, Edwin Meese and Tipper Gore were notorious for their attempts to impose additional restrictions on content they considered pornographic and/or harmful to children.

It really does not require a great deal of imagination to say that the US could reinstate restrictions on obscenity and certain other forms of speech.

All great points, but unless I don't see it, I don't think you answered the original question?

No government democracy in human history thinks banning books is a good idea.

Are we both too lazy to check to see if I'm wrong