Slashdot Mirror


Amazon Censorship Expands

Nom du Keyboard writes "Recently word leaked out about Amazon removing titles containing fictional incest. Surprisingly that ban didn't extend to the 10 titles of Science Fiction Grand Master Robert A. Heinlein that incorporate various themes of incest and pedophilia. Now, it seems that the censorship is expanding to m/m gay fiction if it contains the magic word 'rape' in the title. Just how far is this going to be allowed to proceed in relative silence, and who is pushing these sudden decisions on Amazon's part?"

36 of 764 comments (clear)

  1. Just wait. by Seumas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If they think books with any one of these things in them are "bad", just wait until they find out about that "bible" thing that contains pretty much *everything*.

    1. Re:Just wait. by Aqualung812 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Great point. I remember the congregation's reaction when our pastor pointed out that the Bible would be rated NC-17 if accurately portrayed in a movie, and no movie studio would dare produce it not on religious grounds, but because the content would be so explicit.

      Incest, rape, murder, mutilation of corpses, etc...it is all there. Even King David, a man after God's heart, had a man murdered so he could add that man's wife to his harem.

      So, I'm curious if the same people calling for these books to be banned will support a Bible ban?

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    2. Re:Just wait. by Empiric · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because, describing any event means you fully advocate that event happening. No need for any actual advocacy of the event to appear anywhere at all in the text, even--just like how we know all World War 2 historians are Nazis whenever they describe the 1940's.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    3. Re:Just wait. by BobMcD · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So you have gay erotica, and the title has rape in it. Magic word? Please calm down. It's a keyword. If you're trying to keep a clean selection, you aren't going to want to promote rape. And if your book is entitled something about rape and is in the erotica section, chances are that it's promoting rape even if fictionally.

      It seems you empathize with Amazon because you have something in common - neither of you can be bothered to actually read things before making judgement calls. Observe:

      "How To Rape A Straight Guy" has a very provocative title, yes, and its narrator, Curt, is a very in-your-face sort of guy who thinks he can get even with the world by assaulting men. But it winds up hurting innocent people and destroying him. I even have a moment of foreshadowing in it, where Curt as a 6-year-old boy watches a cousin of his torture a dog until it bites him, then the boy's father kills the dog and goes off to buy another one. The moral of the whole book being, if you treat a man like a dog his whole life, you shouldn't be surprised if he bites you. And the sad reality is, when he finally does bite back, he's the one who's punished. Does that sound like porn?

      "Rape In Holding Cell 6", both volumes, is about corruption in the judicial system, and its main character, Antony, is investigating the brutal rape and murder of his lover in the county jail. He finds a legal and political system that thinks it can get away with anything and nearly drives himself insane in his quest for revenge, a quest that threatens to harm the innocent as well as the guilty as he becomes exactly what he hates. Does that sound like porn?

      So the first case is a cautionary/morality tale and the second case is the investigation of a rape.

      Ignorance is powerful. Moreso than knowledge. That being the case, 'chances are' you, and Amazon, are in the wrong here.

    4. Re:Just wait. by multisync · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Amazon is not censoring anything or anybody. They are not the press

      Of course it's censorship. You don't have to be the press, or government, to engage in censorship.

      Here's the definition from Wikipedia:

      Censorship is suppression of speech or other communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body.

      Don't trust Wikipedia? Here's Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary's definition of the word censor:

      To examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable

      All the word censorship means is to suppress speech on the assumption someone might object to it. Telling your kids to not swear in front of Grandma is also a very low level form of censorship.

      they are not the only place to purchase literature

      Irrelevant. Would you be okay with your local grocery store not serving blacks, or Jews, since they're not the only place to purchase groceries?

      The government purchased a service from Amazon, that doesn't mean Amazon has to sell every book in the world that wants to be sold there thats insanity.

      Nobody is suggesting they have to sell every book in the world that wants to be sold. But if they decide to not sell any book that contains a particular subject matter, they are engaging in censorship.

      I bet Amazon would fire an employee for saying "Jeff Bezo's wife has some juicy knockers, I want to rape her." in the middle of a meeting, does that count as "censorship" and mean the government can't do business with them?

      Yes, it would mean they are engaging in censorship. That doesn't mean the employee is right, or that he shouldn't be fired. It simply means the employer is setting standards as to what type of speech is acceptable in the workplace, and censuring anyone who does not comply with that policy.

      I'm not sure why you think that would mean the government could not do business with them. The article seems to be making the point that Amazon engages in censorship because they want the government to do business with them, not the other way around.

      --
      I don't care why you're posting AC
  2. Their choice by dreamchaser · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's their choice as to what they sell. It is also not censorship. They are a private company and are free to sell whatever legal products they wish, or not sell them as the case may be. The summary makes it sound like Amazon is the only place one can buy a book.

    All they'll do is open the door for alternative online book sale sites catering to specific tastes.

    1. Re:Their choice by msauve · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So, is it only censorship if they carried a title, then dropped it? Or is it also censorship if they never carried the title at all? Is Borders guilty of censorship because they don't carry the "Big Busted Shemales" magazine holiday edition? How about your local library? Is it censorship if your local grocery store doesn't carry the Oxford English Dictionary?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    2. Re:Their choice by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is also not censorship.

      Why do corporate apologists keep saying this crap? Censorship does not mean "action by the government," it just means that materials deemed inappropriate are not allowed to be published.

      All they'll do is open the door for alternative online book sale sites catering to specific tastes.

      You are assuming that such a website would make economic sense; this is not necessarily true. Part of what makes Amazon so successful is that they can cater to a lot of unusual interests -- the economics of catering to a single interest are entirely different. It may very well be the case that there are just not enough people interested in these books for a store that caters to their interests to remain in business; it may take a business that can compete with Amazon, but does not censor its store, to cater to those interests.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
  3. fahrenheit ??? by uncanny · · Score: 4, Insightful

    At what temperature does a kindle burn?

  4. Go Amazon! by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    First off, it's their store, and it should be their decision to sell or not sell any particular book.

    Secondly, if they are indeed pulling titles off people's Kindles like last time, I say: "Go Amazon, and by all means extend the scope of your ban". All the sooner, people will wake up to the fact that they don't really "own" that DRM-ridden content after all.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    1. Re:Go Amazon! by eltonito · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm just baffled that Slashdot users would still have such a difficult time distinguishing censorship from private business action. It cheapens the very seriousness of the term "censorship" to use it in such an improper, and frivolous way.

      There is absolutely nothing worthy of the term "censorship" anywhere in this story. Amazon does not control what I can see/read/say any more than my local small engine repair shop does. It's a private entity with every right to choose what they sell. If one is unhappy with their selection or practices they can simply buy elsehwere. Shocking concept, isn't it?

  5. Meanwhile, on amazon: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    1. Re:Meanwhile, on amazon: by BigSes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh, and thanks for NSFW heads-up. Very helpful.

  6. In control of religious extremists? by Z00L00K · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Religious extremists aren't limited to the muslim world, it just takes other forms and actions and a lot of the effects seen in the US of that is that anything related to sex is banned but it's OK to sell weapons, show how to abuse someone (as long as it isn't sexually) and glorify war.

    So I'm just waiting for the Heinlein books to disappear too along with any books critical of religions - especially the books critical of christianity and the scientology movement.

    In the final stages even books related to science will disappear and only creationism books will be permitted to remain.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  7. Don't buy from them? by Mark19960 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Seriously.. if they don't want to sell something they don't have to sell it.
    We don't 'make' stores carry product do we?
    If they don't sell the product you want then buy it from someone that does!

  8. Bible by antifoidulus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Will they be removing the Christian Bible as well for ITS fictional incest? I mean, if you want to talk about books that harm kids minds, the bible is right up there with the Koran and Torah as the most harmful books out there.

    1. Re:Bible by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why do you assume the incest in The Bible is fictional? Most modern scholars who do not seem bugshit crazy seem to regard the bible as a mixture of history, parable, propaganda, and back-edited, politically motivated bullshit.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  9. Let's not forget the Bible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Which contains stories of rape and incest.

  10. Amazon: Remember to remove the Bible too! by toriver · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or is that not considered fictional?

    The best known example from there is the story of Lot, his stupid wife who turned into salt by looking back on the devastation, and his daughters who got him drunk and had sex with him to bring him male heirs.

    1. Re:Amazon: Remember to remove the Bible too! by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm always amazed that people worship the loving God who would send his Angel of Death to slaughter innocent babies in their cribs, just because their leader was a jerk to Moses. That's supposed to be the *good* guy?

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  11. Well I'm all for eliminating degerate art by Elbowgeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And after expunging all un-Germ^H^H^H^HAmerican art from society we can move on to getting rid of those people who we find to be untermensch.

    Thank you Amazon for getting the ball rolling :-)

    --
    Who is this delectable creature with an insatiable love of the dead?
  12. Will the Bible be next? by jDeepbeep · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Will the Bible be next? It contains stories of incest.

    --
    Reply to That ||
  13. Capitalism To the Rescue! by Haedrian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you don't like it, you are free to open your own multi-billion dollar company on the internet.

    Just make sure you don't hit any of their patents.

  14. It's the new censorship by Toe,+The · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is an interesting (if not really new) phenomenon that seems to be on the rise.

    The threat of censorship in liberal democracies isn't as much from governments as it is from corporations which have a monopoly on their market. In addition to Amazon, look to Apple, Google, Walmart, Comcast, Facebook and... I'm sure y'all can think of some others. These companies have a kind of power we haven't seen since the days when there were only three TV networks. Probably even more.

    The one really, really bright star in all of this? I'd say: Wikipedia. It can be manipulated by these megacorps to some extent, but such manipulations usually can be rectified by singular individuals.

    Well, that is until net neutrality goes away and then perhaps opens the door for traffic shaping... Then perhaps Comcast, bizarrely, will bring on the new totalitarianism.

    1. Re:It's the new censorship by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >>>The threat of censorship in liberal democracies isn't as much from governments as it is from corporations which have a monopoly on their market.

      What cave have you been living in? Almost every day slashdot posts a new story about the Australian or French or British or US or EU trying to censor the internet. And they have the power to enforce that censorship by throwing your body into jail, or sucking money out of your wallet (fines). Neither amazon nor any other corporation has that kind of power.

      Also to claim amazon or google or whoever has some kind of monopoly is ridiculous. There are tons of other bookstores where I can shop, and during this last month I gradually excised google from my browsers to use other search engines (like bing, yahoo, hotbot, lycos, etc). Even the mighty Microsoft which was sued for its monopolistic practices has seen its share of the webbrowser dwindle from ~90% downto ~50% as other competitors steal away market share.

      Bottom Line: Corporations have power but it must be shared with other competitors. Consumers hold the power of choice to make a corporation succeed or go bankrupt (Circuit city, wards, GM). In contrast the government holds the monopoly on the power to jail, take, or kill. That is far, far, far more dangerous than pissant little amazon.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    2. Re:It's the new censorship by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You forgot a few key questions:

      - Can amazon suck money out of my wallet? Nope.
      - Can amazon send cops to raid my house or give me a Rodney King-style beating? Nope.
      - Can amazon arrest me and put me in jail? Nope.
      - Can amazon do fuck-all to me? Nope. Amazon is a powerless entity and I give my middle finger to them. If we ALL did that then amazon would soon be like Wards (dead) or Commodore (dead) or Tucker Motors (dead). They are a "90% eBook monopoly" only because we made them that way, and we can destroy them just as easily.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  15. Re:It will continue in silence until by PontifexPrimus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." - H. L. Mencken

    --
    -- Language is a virus from outer space.
  16. Re:What are we supposed to discuss? by XnavxeMiyyep · · Score: 4, Insightful

    who cares? If you don't like it, don't shop there.

    It is, however, useful to be informed in the first place.

    --
    I put the 't' in electrical engineering.
  17. Re:What are we supposed to discuss? by mcgrew · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The free market is the ultimate form of democracy where dollars are your votes

    If one person can cast more votes than another person, it isn't democracy.

  18. They should call Amazon a special interest store by scotts13 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Amazon certainly has the right to sell whatever they want; but if they're going to target their inventory that way, they shouldn't hold themselves out as a general-interest bookstore. In fact, they enjoy the benefits of being considered the DEFINITION of a book store, when that's apparently becoming less true. Where I live, there are two local Christian bookstores, one new and one used. The latter just removed all science fiction titles from their shelves, presumably because management disagrees with the content. That's fine; I knew their bent when I went in there, and now know not to return. The danger with such a definitive seller as Amazon dropping an entire class of titles is it implies those titles do not exist. THAT I consider a form of censorship.

  19. Ah, the eternal excuse of the true right winger by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, it isn't banned. We the state don't ban anything. You just won't be doing business in this town.

    I much rather have state censorship. The state can be voted out. Amazon can not.

    So, you are free to publish a book that upsets the powers that be, you just won't be finding a publisher or bookstore to sell it. But freedom is ensured as long as you don't try to exercise it.

    This guy would also defend "No jews allowed" or "Whites only" on private businesses. The dream he chases? I want none of it.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  20. Re:Warning: libertardian prattle above by mikechant · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...corporations don't have the power to suck money from my wallet against my will, throw me in jail for years, send out goons to give me a Rodney King-style beating, or execute me on the electric chair. Only the government holds the monopoly to do that.

    When the corporations write the laws and fund the politicians to get them enacted, this distinction is meaningless.
    If you need examples, just look at some of the 'IP' laws enacted across the globe in the last 20 years or so. In many cases, parts of the legal text are exactly as written by the 'IP owners' lawyers.

    Corporations have the power to get governments to do on their behalf all the things they can't do themselves.

  21. Re:Warning: libertardian prattle above by thedbp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    >>corporations don't have the power to suck money from my wallet against my will,

    Compulsory tax on blank media, passed by the gov't at the behest of corporations

    >>throw me in jail for years,

    RIAA/MPAA exploiting the laws they paid politicians to write to fine/jail people "guilty" of downloading copyrighted material.

    >>send out goons to give me a Rodney King-style beating,

    Foreclosure procedures often include using police to do the dirty work of corrupt banking establishments.

    >>or execute me on the electric chair

    Not yet, but they can certainly have you "silenced" or "suicided" as it were.

    So, while the force is directly applied by government entities, if the government is just another branch of the corporations (it's a shared resource they like to use/abuse), then the corporations are the ones actually exercising that force, even if there's a badge or a robe that indicates government affiliation.

  22. Re:What are we supposed to discuss? by zeroshade · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wow, you should probably read the comments in a thread before just replying to one. Here's a summary:

    It was postulated that the free market is the ultimate form of democracy where dollars are your votes. Against that argument was that if one person can cast more votes than another person, it isn't democracy. The rebuttal was that as long as everyone has a voice it is a democracy, just not necessarily a fair one. Thus, my comment that poor and homeless people do not have a voice is within the spectrum of the idea that the free market is a democracy where dollars are votes. Obviously if you have no dollars, you have no votes and therefore no voice.

    Thanks for playing though!

    By the way, if you don't understand how the current political landscape is run by money and corporations rather than actual "votes" then I feel sorry for you.

  23. Re:Warning: libertardian prattle above by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All you are doing is giving reasons why the US Government should only exercise the powers *specifically* enumerated by its Constitutional Law. If the constitution was enforced the US Congress would not have the power to bailout AIG. Or power to give handouts to "stimulate" General Motors. Or give special favors to Microsoft by taxing all non-windows PCs/laptops/pads.
    .

    >>>they can certainly have you "silenced" or "suicided" as it were.

    Okay. Please cite an example of this where a corporation committed murder & was not punished by the law. ----- I can guarantee you the government has done it FAR more often. Over 150 million people were murdered by their OWN governments during this past century. Have corporations ever mass-exterminated that many people? ----- Even the US Congress deprived approximately 10 million of their property, homes, money, and freedom simply because they had grandparents that were born in Japan. Name one corporation that has ever committed that level of atrocity as done by that ONE building of 535 men in Washington D.C.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  24. Re:Warning: libertardian prattle above by jaypifer · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The relevant examples to respond to his comment would be criminal cases, not civil. Excellent straw man and subsequent generalization, however.

    --
    Never go to sea with two chronometers; take one or three.