Amazon Censorship Expands

[boxcorner]

In the absence of any facts, isn't it a guess in either case, discrimination or whatever other reason? Nevertheless, Amazon is entitled to make business decisions and is not obliged to justify them to the general public.

[carld]

Originally Posted by DMSmillie

There's a hell of a lot of discrimination out there, still, on the basis of sexual orientation, and it's right that people should stand up against it and speak out against it.

In this case, though, as far as I know we simply don't have anywhere near enough information to know or be able to state that that is why these two books were dropped. If one could show a systematic pattern of books containing same-gender sex being dropped, while similar books containing opposite-gender sex are not, then it would be different. Simply being able to point to books with opposite-gender sex that haven't been dropped isn't sufficient on its own, though, since one can equally well point to other books with same-gender sex that haven't been dropped. There needs to be a perceivable pattern with significant differences in the sexual orientations portrayed in books dropped by Amazon in order to demonstrate that it's the result of prejudice and discrimination, and not just, for example, ad hoc responses to complaints or adverse publicity about specific books.

You're right that it's impossible to prove a pattern of discrimination based on two data points. That doesn't change my opinion though, that that is exactly what's going on.

[carld]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

at the time it was.

Well, then I guess there's no point in discussion this subject with you any further.

Edit: And by that I mean, we are obviously never going to come to agreement over this, so there's no point in going around and around the same points with the discussion getting more acrimonious at every turn.

[carld]

Originally Posted by boxcorner

In the absence of any facts, isn't it a guess in either case, discrimination or whatever reason? Nevertheless, Amazon is entitled to make business decisions and is not obliged to justify them to the general public.

And I (and whoever else, author included) are entitled to complain and object, and charge Amazon with discrimination and censorship, without justifying it to anyone on this forum, or anywhere else.

And yes, in absence of facts about the inner workings of Amazon in this particular case, all we have to work with is conjecture. That doesn't change anything for me though. To me the unfairness of this situation is clearly evident.

[boxcorner]

Originally Posted by carld

And I (and whoever else, author included) are entitled to complain and object without justifying it to anyone on this forum, or anywhere else.

Of course, you are entitled to complain and object, but I'm not sure how you think it'll help, unless you feel that your complaint is likely to be read by Amazon, or you feel that your objection will influence others to boycott Amazon.

[carld]

Originally Posted by boxcorner

Of course, you entitled to complain and object, but I'm not sure how you think it'll help, unless you feel that your complaint is likely to be read by Amazon, or you feel that your objection will influence others to boycott Amazon.

My complaints will likely end up meaning nothing at all, of course. Amazon is a huge corporation, and not likely to listen to a small group of people objecting to their decisions. I suppose I could go through all the 11,251 items that come up at Amazon in a "Rape" search and object to each and every one. But, that'd be small minded and petty and would make me no better than the FOX reporter who started this whole mess.

[boxcorner]

Originally Posted by carld

My complaints will likely end up meaning nothing at all, of course. Amazon is a huge corporation, and not likely to listen to a small group of people objecting to their decisions. I suppose I could go through all the 11,251 items that come up at Amazon in a "Rape" search and object to each and every one. But, that'd be small minded and petty and would make me no better than the FOX reporter who started this whole mess.

By the same measure, this whole furore is probably nothing more than a pin-prick in a rhino's hide, so far as Amazon is concerned. I doubt their businesses is suffering significantly as a result. On the contrary, all the publicity may well be generating more business for them. So, all the ballyhoo may well be counter-productive, depending of course upon your point of view.

[carld]

Originally Posted by boxcorner

By the same measure, this whole furore is probably nothing more than a pin-prick in a rhino's hide, so far as Amazon is concerned. I doubt their businesses is suffering significantly as a result. On the contrary, all the publicity may well be generating more business for them. So, all the ballyhoo may well be counter-productive, depending of course upon your point of view.

I believe it's generated a small uptick in sales from other channels for the author. That's the only good to come of it that I can see, which is unfortunate.

[david_e]

First he stated that Amazon had no right to remove the book. When over and over again it was pointed out how they were well within their legal rights to remove the book he finally concedes this position only to take up a more ludicrous one, that Amazon had a MORAL obligation (post #390) to sell his books.

The moral road leads him nowhere so he then explains how he has been maligned,

Originally Posted by jamthecat

Oh, there was fanfare. A reporter for KCPQ, the Fox affiliate in Seattle, did a report using my book as an example of pronography "still available through Amazon, despite their T&Cs."

He goes on about how he and his work have been damaged by this smear. The only problem is that if you listen to exactly what the reporter said, and I did, she referred to the authors book, and the two other books that were offered as examples, as 'racy content'. "...but there's still plenty of racy content for sale despite the company's clear policy of prohibiting pornography. We found such titles as (insert title here)..." Not once was the book referred to as pornography.

So much for those damages you were counting on...

I find it quite understandable that his publisher wishes he would not participate in public discussions about this issue. The idea of someone who earns some, or any part, of their livelihood from writing, from the use of words, to be so ignorant as to not understand the definition of censorship is appalling. For this same person to misquote a reporter in the hopes of swaying public opinion in his favor, to enable him to further his pretense and continue to play the tragic victim, is pathetic.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by boxcorner

Of course, you are entitled to complain and object, but I'm not sure how you think it'll help, unless you feel that your complaint is likely to be read by Amazon, or you feel that your objection will influence others to boycott Amazon.

Spreading awareness of wrongdoing is always worthwhile. It doesn't really matter whether you tell one person or a million. It might not be very effective, but it is certainly more effective than just ignoring it and hoping it won't go any further.

I would be very surprised if Amazon doesn't use a company that monitors public perceptions of them anyway. They will almost certainly see the news reports that it has generated.

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by david_e

"...but there's still plenty of racy content for sale despite the company's clear policy of prohibiting pornography. We found such titles as (insert title here)..." Not once was the book referred to as pornography.

I've read that statement several times and every way I look at it, it still says

these books = pornography

She mentions racy content, associates that phrase with pornography, then names the books that are "racy". She doesn't have to say "This book is pornography" to be saying it. The intent is clear without any twisting necessary. There's no great leap required to get from "racy content" to "pornography". He may have paraphrased, but his "misquote" didn't change the meaning.

[caleb72]

What I find interesting in this discussion is that so many people are talking about rights and law in the first place.

I would have thought this forum in particular would be more concerned about reading content and potential impact to it more than any other factor.

For the sake of discussion, let me quote this from Wikipedia:

Self-censorship is the act of censoring or classifying one's own work (blog, book(s), film(s), or other means of expression), out of fear of, or deference to, the sensibilities of others, without overt pressure from any specific party or institution of authority. Self-censorship is often practiced by film producers, film directors, publishers, news anchors, journalists, musicians, and other kinds of authors.
In authoritarian countries, creators of artworks may remove material that their government might find controversial for fear of sanction by their governments. In pluralistic capitalist countries, self-censorship can also occur, particularly in order to conform to the expectations of the market. For example, the editor of a periodical may consciously or unconsciously avoid topics that will anger advertisers or a parent company in order to protect her or his livelihood. This phenomenon is referred to as soft censorship.

Could we entertain the idea based on the quote above that although Amazon itself is not censoring content, that the use of the word is still applicable in an ongoing discussion - even if it's in a different context?

Is Amazon's place in the some market verticals such that refusing that pulling titles such as these could lead to the kind of censorship described above?

If there is some merit in the argument that Amazon's decisions could cause the kind of censorship described above, should we as readers be concerned about the potential of this on our future reading material?

I would have thought ideas like this were worthy of discussion in a forum like this.

When I see sentiments such as, "Amazon is a private business, it can sell what it wants to - case closed", I have to admit feeling a bit confused. I tend to agree that no laws are broken by Amazon pulling books from the shelves - although I'm by no means a law expert. But that doesn't mean there's nothing to discuss.

When I see sentiments such as, "This is clearly not censorship as it does not stem from a government body", I'm equally as confused. I believe we should be able to step back a little and look at the word "censorship" in more than one context. I'm not saying Wikipedia is the "be all and end all" for facts, but it still seems to be a reasonable input to a discussion.

When I see sentiments such as, "If we give any time to complaints of censorship based on these incidents we'll be blind to real censorship when it comes", I feel a bit concerned. Because if we really have that idea then I feel we are potentially already blind to other less obvious forms of censorship that can manifest themselves.

I offer these ideas as points of interest in the ongoing discussion. I can't claim superior knowledge in this subject and it seems to me that there have been many people posting here who know a great deal more than I do on these kinds of topics.

However I am a reader - and these are the kinds of things that have disturbed me personally about some of Amazon's recent decisions relating to its content guidelines and some of the things that have interested me when reading this thread.

Regards
Caleb

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by caleb72

Is Amazon's place in the some market verticals such that refusing that pulling titles such as these could lead to the kind of censorship described above?

If there is some merit in the argument that Amazon's decisions could cause the kind of censorship described above, should we as readers be concerned about the potential of this on our future reading material?

That is the real danger, especially if Amazon's ebook burning spreads to other genres. I know that when I write now I always have in the back of my mind what if this generates too many complaints. It must be a lot worse for people who depend on writing for their income.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by caleb72

What I find interesting in this discussion is that so many people are talking about rights and law in the first place. ...

Some interesting thoughts Caleb. I suggest that self-censorship is happening automatically anyway - even on this forum, despite some fairly emphatic posts. I would argue that some self-censorship is good and appropriate. If we expect to live harmoniously within society we must learn to respect the sensitivities of others and modulate our behaviour accordingly. Not that we can't say what we mean, but that we can find ways to say things without being so abrasive or confrontational. Good authors find ways to say things without discouraging readers from participating, yes this is a form of self-censorship, but it is also part of living in a mixed society.

As I suggested earlier, I think the title of one of the dropped books "How To Rape ..." actually singles it out for exactly the attention it received - I also believe this was intentional on the part of the author. Such a title automatically excludes some readers, possibly some readers who may otherwise have picked up the book and found it to be of value once they read the actual text, but if the author is more interested in getting attention, bad as much as good, then encouraging people to read the book is a secondary issue.

[jamthecat]

Originally Posted by david_e

Perhaps it is time for this thread to be moved to the Self Promotion category, as that is all it has ever really been.

It was clearly evident to everyone taking the time to read this never-ending commercial that you were not the victim of censorship but of your own poor business decision, whether entered into yourself or by representative, to accept an agreement you have now deemed to be too vague. If it wasn’t too vague when they were selling your books it cannot now be too vague when they decide, within their rights, to stop selling your books. And as you have made no indication that you plan to remove your entire catalogue of work from Amazon, we can only conclude that you do find the terms, as vague as you feel they are, acceptable enough to continue to do business with them.

Censorship is a very serious issue and should be treated as such. If we are continually presented with these cases of author histrionics falsely labeled as censorship we are going to become so leery and so weary as to be numb when the real thing appears. Who, then, will jump to the fight? Certainly not the self-serving, self-labeled victims such as this jamthecat person. They will be too busy lining up for interviews and hoping to get their pictures taken, all the while wearing a t-shirt with their ISBN numbers listed on the front.

Subtle.