Smashwords Succumbs to Censorship

[MrsJoseph]

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.

So you're saying that no one else is allowed to do things that you don't like?

[ucfgrad93]

Originally Posted by rhadin

I think you miss the point, at least as far as Americans are concerned. First, when it comes to sex, sexuality, and anything related to sex (e.g., discussions about contraception), the American preference is to bury the head in the sand and hope it goes away. If it fails to go away, the next best thing is to ban under the belief that out of sight is out of mind. American attitudes toward sex and sex-related topics are more puritanical than were the Puritans' own attitudes.

Second, Americans, especially evangelical Christian Americans, firmly believe that their moral guidance is needed because no American can possibly be moral who doesn't adhere to the evangelical belief of the day. They are like horses with blinders when it comes to morals and morality.

Third, Americans tend to be gullible to the 30-second negative TV ad. If it is said in less than 30 seconds on TV and in a negative manner, then it must be true and it becomes the gospel of the masses. No matter how much evidence may accumulate to demonstrate the falsity of that ad, Americans are loathe to accept that they may have been wrong and so continue to perpetuate the false as the truth. Consequently, the mere fact that someone sometime declared writing about rape is disgusting and people should be banned from buying it is sufficient for that belief to continue and to grow. After all, if it weren't true it wouldn't have been said in America.

Fourth, a significant number of Americans believe that a woman's place is in the home, barefoot and pregnant, and in servitude to the male members of the household. They believe women are incapable of taking care of themselves and incapable of doing anything absent male guidance. In other words, they have a very byzantine attitude toward women, one that would readily be recognized in places like Afghanistan. As part of this belief, they believe that women need to be morally protected from such outrages as being able to read "racy" romance fiction that includes any type of titillation. Women simply do not have the moral stamina to not be led astray by these types of books and it is the male's duty to protect women from their weaknesses.

And the list goes on. American is not a leader in equal rights at the level of the citizen because of these attitudes, and because of the prevalence of these attitudes, censorship is considered a positive thing by much of the citizenry.

What a load of crap. All you have done here is a bunch of stereotyping. Pathetic.

[djulian]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

So you're saying that no one else is allowed to do things that you don't like?

Did I say that?

[Redcard]

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.

Good. Don't buy it. Don't read it. Don't let your kids read it.

As for everyone else you mentioned, mind your own business. If they commit a crime, then punish them for that crime.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by djulian

Did I say that?

Yes.

You said

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... SNIP

[djulian]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

Yes.

You said

So, the answer is actually, "No, I didn't say that." All I said was that I was opposed to certain behaviors. Did I say that those people weren't allowed to do what I opposed? I certainly did not say that.

[DiapDealer]

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

I have none. I'm not writing a thesis.

[djulian]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I have none. I'm not writing a thesis.

Ah, simply tossing out ad hominem attacks then. Please don't.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by djulian

So, the answer is actually, "No, I didn't say that." All I said was that I was opposed to certain behaviors. Did I say that those people weren't allowed to do what I opposed? I certainly did not say that.

Nope, I feel that the word is... Yes.

You started a list of people (adults) who shouldn't be allowed to read materials you don't agree with. I'm sure the list goes on and on as you later speak about society. And how you don't want to live in this society.

What else would you call it?

I call shenanigans.

[AnemicOak]

I suppose Kobo and other retailers that use PayPal will have to pull 'A Game of Thrones' now too since it has both incest (twincest) and underage sex.

[Redcard]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

I call shenanigans.

I do too.

[DiapDealer]

Ah, simply tossing out ad hominem attacks then. Please don't.

??? Exactly who did I attack? You obviously don't fall into the group I described. Rejoice.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

If PayPal says that Lolita is erotica, then that is all that matters. They are looking over your shoulder, judging a legal transaction between the buyer and the seller.

No they aren't.
They are deciding which sellers they want to have as customers.
They are not telling Smashwords that they will process payments for most books, but not some.

[djulian]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

Nope, I feel that the word is... Yes.

You started a list of people (adults) who shouldn't be allowed to read materials you don't agree with. I'm sure the list goes on and on as you later speak about society. And how you don't want to live in this society.

What else would you call it?

I call shenanigans.

Fine. Call shenanigans. I don't mind. My actual wording was clear for anyone who cares to read it. It was:

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 said I am opposed to the existence of this fiction and it's because I don't want people reading it. I said nothing about whether or not they should be allowed to read it, only about whether I wanted them to do so or not. It is entirely possible for a person to wish a certain behavior would not happen and at the same time to recognize that it is inappropriate to force people not to practice that behavior. Like smoking--I don't want people to smoke, but it's not appropriate to forcibly proscribe smoking.

You are failing to recognize nuance.

[QuantumIguana]

I said I am opposed to the existence of this fiction and it's because I don't want people reading it. I said nothing about whether or not they should be allowed to read it, only about whether I wanted them to do so or not. It is entirely possible for a person to wish a certain behavior would not happen and at the same time to recognize that it is inappropriate to force people not to practice that behavior. Like smoking--I don't want people to smoke, but it's not appropriate to forcibly proscribe smoking.

You are failing to recognize nuance.

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.