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?"

Comments

Just wait.

[Seumas]

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*.

Re:Just wait.

[Aqualung812]

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?

Re:Just wait.

[Sonny Yatsen]

30 Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave. 31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man around here to give us children—as is the custom all over the earth. 32 Let’s get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family line through our father.”

  33 That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and slept with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

  34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, “Last night I slept with my father. Let’s get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him so we can preserve our family line through our father.” 35 So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

  36 So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father. 37 The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab[g]; he is the father of the Moabites of today. 38 The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi[h]; he is the father of the Ammonites[i] of today.

-- Genesis 19:30-36

Re:Just wait.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

It's too bad: If Lot's daughters had had access to the valuable moral contained in the Dead Kennedy's classic Too Drunk to Fuck none of this would have ever happened...

Re:Just wait.

[dogmatixpsych]

That's incorrect about King David. He was called a man after the Lord's heart when he was a young man; however, that does not mean that David remained so. It also doesn't mean that what he did was sanctioned by God (it wasn't). Because David had Uriah murdered and sinned with Bathsheba, he fell from God's favor. He tried to get back in God's favor but was unable to completely.

Anyway, yes the Bible does contain a lot of stuff in it.

Re:Just wait.

[commodore64_love]

It was pretty common in Ancient cultures for relatives to not just have sex, but also marry. Even amongst the Romans who were advanced enough to know the negative consequences.

Re:Just wait.

[Anonymous Coward]

Say it again more... sexily.

Re:Just wait.

[elrous0]

Personally, I learned all my morals from Jello Biafra. I'm listening to him on my $5000 stereo even as we speak.

Re:Just wait.

[Anonymous Coward]

"the Bible would be rated NC-17 "

Thats nothing, during the late 60's there was a show on TV that had the first interracial kiss. It was rated NCC-1701

Re:Just wait.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Have you booked your holiday yet? Cambodia is very nice this time of year...

Re:Just wait.

[PRMan]

They just escaped the destruction of Sodom. It's not surprising their morals were a little messed up. The story isn't given as a how-to, but as a warning of the perils of accepting a corrupt society.

Re:Just wait.

[Sonny Yatsen]

Maybe, but even the ancient Hebrews didn't think much of incest - remember, Leviticus 18:6 strictly prohibited the practice: "6 “‘No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD. "

Then, it goes on to list about a dozen different specific examples of incest that's prohibited.

Re:Just wait.

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you booked your holiday yet? Cambodia is very nice this time of year...

Naw, I'm staying in California. Governor Brown's back!

Re:Just wait.

[Javajunk]

"the Bible would be rated NC-17 "

Thats nothing, during the late 60's there was a show on TV that had the first interracial kiss. It was rated NCC-1701

This post just made my day. Thank you, AC.

Re:Just wait.

[nanospook]

Haha! Mod up!

Re:Just wait.

[Empiric]

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.

Re:Just wait.

[slim]

33 That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and slept with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

  34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, “Last night I slept with my father. Let’s get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him so we can preserve our family line through our father.” 35 So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

See, that was two short verses. The problematic books in question would have stretched each one out to 50 pages of fine detail.

Re:Just wait.

[eyrieowl]

I don't think that's the point. Unless you have info that all the titles Amazon has censored are how-to manuals for incest, I'm pretty sure gp's point is that the book contains a depiction of it, as do the censored books.

Re:Just wait.

[Rob the Bold]

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.

You forgot the coprophagia.

Re:Just wait.

[BobMcD]

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.

Re:Just wait.

[BobMcD]

Not quite. If the author is to be believed, the 'rape' titled books are being censored on the basis of a single word in their title.

Re:Just wait.

[Aqualung812]

That's incorrect about King David. He was called a man after the Lord's heart when he was a young man; however, that does not mean that David remained so. It also doesn't mean that what he did was sanctioned by God (it wasn't).

Never said God sanctioned it, I was actually pointing out that everyone sins, even those that seem Holy.

Re:Just wait.

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Naw, I'm staying in California. Governor Brown's back!
Just watch out for the rednecks at night.

Re:Just wait.

[guybrush3pwood]

Lot, that lucky bastard. He exchanged the old salty witch for two young models, and got it on with them in the privacy of his own cave. That's a stud, if you ask me!!

Re:Just wait.

[smartr]

It occurred to me that any US government bill purchasing services from Amazon should be unconstitutional, be it these censorship actions are the result of government funding (law). The government shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Their actions as of late have been pretty blatant. If the government started purchasing large quantities of "cookies" from the New York Times, and the New York Times mysteriously decided they needed to fire all of their investigative reporters because they weren't making as much money as the "cookies"...

Re:Just wait.

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

When the Uhura-Kirk kiss came on, CBS waited for a firestorm of protest calls. They received just one. A redneck-ish man who called and said something like "I don't approve of white folks and black folks kissing, but if it's Kirk, then it's OK."

Re:Just wait.

[TarPitt]

Which is why the famed underground comic R. Crumb ("Fritz the Cat") chose to create an illustrated Book of Genesis:

http://www.amazon.com/Book-Genesis-Illustrated-R-Crumb/dp/0393061027

Still available on Amazon. For now at least

Re:Just wait.

[Chowderbags]

What about Noah, the man who was saved from flooding because only he and his family were worthy, then not long after he gets off the boat he ends up getting drunk, passes out, then curses one of his sons for seeing him naked.

Or Elisha who called down some bears to kill kids who made fun of him for being bald?

Biblical Israel committed mass genocide and forced conquered women to be wives (today we'd call that rape).

Hell, can we even really call Abraham good for being willing to kill his son? If someone tells me to kill someone else in cold blood, I wouldn't do it. Period. I don't care if they can squash me like a bug. I damn sure hope that most other people wouldn't kill in cold blood either. If someone today said that god wanted them to kill, we'd lock them up. Someone in a couple thousand year old book does it and it becomes the foundation point for a group of religions followed by half the planet.

The "heroes" of the Bible are almost never sane, decent human beings looking for civility. They're certainly not who you'd expect to represent some omniscient and omnibenevolent deity.

Re:Just wait.

[Bigjeff5]

The story of Lot is a cautionary tale from start to finish. He parted from Abraham for the lure of the big city, and everything went to hell after that.

The illegitimate children (whether they raped him or the three of them had regular incestuous relations, it doesn't matter all that much) were a final insult on top of decades of hardship.

The Moabites and the Ammonites, of course, were enemies of the Hebrews. Many Bible scholars believe the last 8 verses of Genesis 19 were simply propaganda against the Moabites and Ammonites. It still works as a final twisting of the knife at the end of the story of Lot, whether it is literal or figurative.

Re:Just wait.

[Stregano]

See, we need Kirk to promote these books. He is so amazing he could kill a man on Live TV, and we would all brush it off saying, "Well it is Kirk, so I am ok with it"

Re:Just wait.

[LWATCDR]

Actually there where many interracial kisses and even a very popular interracial marriage on TV long before that kiss on Star Trek.
Ever heard of a show called "I Love Lucy"?

Re:Just wait.

[ultranova]

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.

That's a very serious accusation. In fact, it might be serious enough to count as libel. Do you have some evidence to back your claim?

Re:Just wait.

[geekoid]

Funniest post ever. Not jsut on /., but anywhere.

Re:Just wait.

[ultranova]

If someone tells me to kill someone else in cold blood, I wouldn't do it. Period. I don't care if they can squash me like a bug. I damn sure hope that most other people wouldn't kill in cold blood either.

Based on how well conscription armies seem to work, I'd say that your hope is in vain. All you have to do is frame the argument so killing becomes your moral obligation, and most people will not only do it but also consider themselves valorous heroes for it. Just like Abraham did. That's human nature for you.

Re:Just wait.

[Daniel Dvorkin]

This is actually an interesting example of how fluid our conception of "race" is: in the 1950s, the Cuban Desi Arnaz was considered "white," and "Hispanic" as a racial category didn't exist. We were without doubt more racist half a century ago than we are now, but today's prejudices aren't just a milder version of yesterday's.

Re:Just wait.

[DamnStupidElf]

I think having him kiss lots of green folks first might have helped.

Re:Just wait.

[multisync]

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.

Re:Just wait.

[DragonWriter]

This is actually an interesting example of how fluid our conception of "race" is:

Except that its not.

in the 1950s, the Cuban Desi Arnaz was considered "white," and "Hispanic" as a racial category didn't exist.

It still doesn't. In the spectrum of artificially contrived social categories with no objective basis, "Hispanic" is an ethnic category that is orthogonal to "racial" categories; a person can be "Hispanic" and be of any "racial" category or combination of "racial" categories.

Re:Just wait.

[Nursie]

38 The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi[h]; he is the father of the Ammonites[i] of today.

See, incest does lead to deformity.

I did not know that's where ammonites came from.

Re:Just wait.

[CAIMLAS]

I don't believe there's anyone here on Slashdot calling for the support of the ban.

They're supporting Amazon's choice to ban them, which is distinctly different.

(As for a movie based on the "undesirable" parts of the Bible, I think that would be awesome. HBO or Showtime should produce it as a series - trying to be as true to the literal and symbolic meaning in the stories as possible. I think it would be great, receiving much public acclaim, and win many awards.)

Re:Just wait.

[geekoid]

"a man after God's heart,"

and

" He tried to get back in God's favor "

is the same damn thing.

Re:Just wait.

[Daniel Dvorkin]

It's all arbitrary. In common American parlance, "Hispanic" (or in large parts of the US, "Mexican," regardless of actual country of origin) is a "race" just as much as "white" or "black" or, God help us all, "Asian," which last category of course includes almost 2/3 of the population of the Earth. None of it means anything real.

But it means a great deal to individual societies at particular moments -- which is why Ricky and Lucy's marriage wasn't considered interracial in the 1950s, while Kirk and Uhura's kiss was considered interracial in the 1960s; and as LWATCDR's post shows, the perception is quite different in 2010.

Re:Just wait.

[Nocuous]

It's much worse than you think - Amazon's notice to the publisher said that this action may trigger a general review of ALL the publisher's works on Amazon. "Jack-booted thugs" now applies to Amazon's tactics.

Okay, fuck it. I'm jail-breaking the DRM'd books I bought at Amazon so I can read them in the future, and I'm moving on.

I'll either use my two (wonderful, fuzzy, awesome) Kindles with content from other sources, or I'll get a new e-reader. Maybe one of iPad killers (or, if I can hold my breath in the smugzone that is every Apple store, an actual iPad.)

Time to find out if I can get content from BN on my Kindles.

Re:Just wait.

[Nocuous]

I had to choose whether to reply or rate this post as Informative, rather than Funny. I decided to reply to say this was awesome. And Funny is fuck-all more powerful than Informative, because it's usually BOTH.

Disclaimer; I have met and hugged most of the TOS cast at conventions in the 70's. Except Shatner. I love him to death, but like with cops, I wouldn't like to get that close.

Re:Just wait.

[Nocuous]

Um, this is not extraordinary. It just sounds like a normal Saturday night in West Virginia.

Re:Just wait.

[elrous0]

And the police truck.

Re:Just wait.

[HeronBlademaster]

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

If Amazon were refusing to sell to certain customers, then that analogy would be appropriate, but since they're not, the analogy is irrelevant.

I don't see why this is a big deal. It looks like Amazon does not want to sell books with the word "rape" in the title. I fail to see how this is "censorship" any more than it would be censorship for Barnes & Noble to decide it does not want to carry magazines with photos of naked people on the cover. They have a store image to maintain, and if they don't want naked people as part of that image, there's nothing wrong with that.

Amazon also has a store image to maintain (albeit a digital one), and they don't want the word "rape" in their store listings. Suddenly they're the big bad censorship machine?

The word "censorship" is loaded with meaning beyond what is found in Wikipedia or Webster's, and you know it. It implies malicious intent and a desire to suppress the freedom of speech. Clearly that is not Amazon's intent; it seems quite obvious that they are merely trying to clean the list of titles found in their store so that they can maintain their desired appearance. Amazon is not trying to suppress publication of these books, they have merely decided that they do not want to carry those particular books in their store.

A single company choosing to not sell or stop selling a product in their own store is not censorship in any meaningful way.

Re:Just wait.

[LWATCDR]

Actually that is not true.
Lucy and Desi had to fight long and hard to get that TV show made because they where considered and interracial couple. The network wanted Lucy but not Desi. It was not noted at the time because the last thing Lucy, Desi, network and sponsors wanted was to bring attention as to the fact that it was an interracial marriage.
I suggest you ask anybody that spoke with a Spanish accent and lived in the US in the 1950s if they where considered the same as "white people".

Let's give Lucy and Desi the credit they deserve. Remeber that Star Trek was produced by Desilu studios was founded by guess who?

Another show and personality that really should get more credit for pushing the equality was the Gene Audrey show.
He had one show where a woman mayor adopted a black child. The black child was smart, and help Gene defeat the bad guys which where white.
He also had a show where defends a Hispanic boy that was being picked on and explains how he as the same rights as they do.
His cowboy code also had a line about tolerance in it.
Frankly as far as race goes he was pushing the limits.

Re:Just wait.

[blind monkey 3]

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.
The word rape can connote more than just non consensual sexual intercourse, context is important, censoring because "chances are" is, in my opinion, a dangerous path.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_nr_n_13?rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Arape%2Cn%3A!1000%2Cn%3A301889&bbn=1000&keywords=rape&ie=UTF8&qid=1293740087&rnid=1000
Virgin Army Boy Deflowered
Male Rape: Breaking the Silence on the Last Taboo
Jolly Rogering (Sequel to Four on the Floor)
This seach on Amazon seems to indicate it is not censoring. Maybe they didn't like his books.... - I'm in Australia, maybe the censoring is location specific.

"Censorship for the public good" always remind me of Joes Garage by Frank Zappa.

Re:Just wait.

[multisync]

If Amazon were refusing to sell to certain customers, then that analogy would be appropriate, but since they're not, the analogy is irrelevant.

It wasn't a great analogy, but the point was that the existence of other retailers is irrelevant in determining whether or not Amazon is engaging in censorship.

I don't see why this is a big deal. It looks like Amazon does not want to sell books with the word "rape" in the title. I fail to see how this is "censorship" any more than it would be censorship for Barnes & Noble to decide it does not want to carry magazines with photos of naked people on the cover

If their motivation for not carrying the magazines with naked people on the cover is to exclude materials they feel people might object to, that is most certainly censorship. I don't understand why that word is a big deal. It's just a word. It means to suppress material that might be considered objectionable.

The word "censorship" is loaded with meaning beyond what is found in Wikipedia or Webster's, and you know it. It implies malicious intent and a desire to suppress the freedom of speech. Clearly that is not Amazon's intent; it seems quite obvious that they are merely trying to clean the list of titles found in their store so that they can maintain their desired appearance.

I'm not so sure Amazon's intent is as clear as you seem to believe. What happens when Amazon or Google or Apple or whomever decides certain political ideas are objectionable and not in keeping with their desired appearance. I'm not necessarily saying they shouldn't be allowed to do it, but you seem to be suggesting we shouldn't call it what it is, and help others to understand the ramifications of them doing it.

A single company choosing to not sell or stop selling a product in their own store is not censorship in any meaningful way.

When that single company controls as much of the market as Amazon or Google or Apple, it is censorship in a *very* meaningful way.

Re:Just wait.

[karlandtanya]

I found that one to be a weak example. The kiss was coerced.
ST's most acclaimed stories have historically pulled their punches. The sparse attention to the problem of drug addiction that eventually made it to the screen in "City on the Edge of Forever" is the canonical example of this.

In a science fiction / fantasy setting, ST had much more opportunity to explore social issues openly in the plot, without wishy-washy excuses to the easily offended.
"Well, Kirk was forced into it. He wasn't really into black chicks. Every other object in the universe with a hole at the bottom of it is in his gunsights. Including other crewmembers who directly reported to him. But not Uhura."

What they did was great, but they could have done so much better. Then and now.

Oh, and the last movie sucked. Genocide --without so much as a tear shed. Oops--no more Vulcans. Well, better get on with business. Got a lot of rebuilding to do. Or, maybe (again) they're trying to tell us something about what we're doing right now...

Re:Just wait.

[HeronBlademaster]

Sorry, but Amazon does not control the market for what anybody reads. There are a large number of competing e-book stores, and let's not forget all the stores selling ink-laden dead trees.

Amazon is not demanding that those books not be published. They are simply not selling them in their own store.

My point was that while Amazon's definition meets the technical definition of "censorship", it doesn't meet the OMG EVIL CENSORSHIP meaning that most people have in mind when they say it. Using the former without clarifying is practically a deliberate attempt to rile people up about the latter.

Re:Just wait.

[HeronBlademaster]

Ugh. I meant, "while Amazon's action meets..."

Re:Just wait.

[russotto]

"Well, Kirk was forced into it. He wasn't really into black chicks. Every other object in the universe with a hole at the bottom of it is in his gunsights. Including other crewmembers who directly reported to him.

I don't think Kirk ever went after a crewmember directly reporting to him without some sort of special circumstance. The only other case I recall is when he was split into wimp and wolf, the wolf went after Yeoman Rand.

Alien babes and officers from other ships were fair game, of course.

Re:Just wait.

[shutdown -p now]

On a bunch of government forms I had to fill during and shortly after entering US, there was an entry for "race", and "Hispanic" was one of the options. So, at least officially, it is a "racial category".

Of course, they also have "Caucasian" as another option, which to me doesn't make sense at all - Caucasians are people who live in Caucasus, like Ingush or Georgians. Me, I'm just white, though why should the U.S. government (or anyone else) care about that is beyond my comprehension.

Re:Just wait.

[arth1]

Is it automated, or is there a human doing it?
I.e. would "Rape seed oil as a lubricant" and "The rape of Paris" be banned too?

Re:Just wait.

[BobMcD]

It seems like a human is doing it. The results are somewhat sporadic, according to the authors' accounts on the various forums.

Re:Just wait.

[tverbeek]

You're being deliberately apologetic and dismissive if you think that the existence of marginal "competition" in the e-book market makes censorship by industry-leading behemoth Amazon non-evil and non-harmful.

Re:Just wait.

[FatdogHaiku]

Sodom, Sodom, Sodom... It's always "Sodom", not a bit of love for old Gomorrah!
Really, they were nasty enough to get vaporized, but end up as a footnote. You never hear about anyone getting "Gomorrahized" or anything, it's just not fair...

Re:Just wait.

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

I think having him kiss lots of green folks first might have helped.

He kissed Spock?

Re:Just wait.

[Empiric]

Okay, what about it?

Are you saying that their behavior lowered the likelihood of their DNA propagation, and so is objectionable in that sense? We'd have to collect the data to determine the degree of genetic "success" that resulted, to evaluate it from that standpoint. Whether it worked for DNA survivability being all that would be relevant and all we need to know--and by that standard, it probably did work.

Of course, I'm making assumptions here. I don't know the ethical axioms you're using, or your demonstrable objective justification for mandating them in the context of your worldview, because you haven't made any such argument. You've just called out cases and made vibrations of disapproval, with nothing at all demonstrated for me to be able to make a normative evaluation according to your worldview.

To continue, I'd need to know what ethical axioms you are working with, as they aren't mine, and I know you aren't saying "religion is ethically in error, which we know by evaluating their correspondence to the correct ethical axioms religion espouses".

That'd be self-contradictory on your part. If you do have some particular axioms you are using for the purposes of discussion, at least name them, before I naturally then ask you to demonstrate a) they are directly derivable from the natural facts of your worldview, and b) are non-subjective. Otherwise, well, they're useless and I'll ignore them, as I should.

Re:Just wait.

[SteveFoerster]

No, in fact they tend to dislike aliens.

Re:Just wait.

[scribblej]

Read a bit later, lot gives the same daughters up to the men of his town to be raped, because he'd rather let the townspeople rape his daughters than what they wanted to do -- which is to rape some angels God had sent to have a chat with him.

Oh yeah, and Lot was God's man, the only one righteous and pure enough to be saved by God when he destroyed the town. So... yeah.

Re:Just wait.

[scribblej]

OK, the Bible never specifically says that's a good thing Lot did. But it DOES say repeatedtly he was the only righteous and good man in the towns of Soddom and Gomorrah, and the famous events that make those cities household names include Lot willingly offering his daughters up to mob to be raped. Then, just a few moments later, God turns his wife into a pillar of salt for LOOKING THE WRONG DIRECTION! Check it again. Offering your daughters up for a giant gangbang = ONLY HOLY MAN IN TOWN. Looking the wrong direction = SUFFER THE WRATH OF GOD.

So it would take someone who's never read the Bible to say God disapproved of Lot's actions.

Re:Just wait.

[HeronBlademaster]

First, the ebook market is only a tiny portion of the *book* market. This "censorship" will not have any noticeable impact on what people read and whether they can read it. These books are still available, people will just have to buy them from someone other than Amazon, even if they have to resort to buying paper books. Oh no, people might have to give their money to someone other than Amazon if they want a specific book! The world is ending!

Second, while Amazon currently holds most of the ebook market, analysts expect Amazon's share of this market to drop drastically - for example, one analyst thinks it will drop to 35% over the next five years. This will be true regardless of whether they sell gay rape fantasy books, but the market share drop will not come because a dozen customers are mad that they can't buy gay rape fantasy ebooks for their Kindle. No, the drop will come because of competition, one one of the things they will compete on is what books are available.

I don't think there's any evidence to support the notion that Amazon has enough control over the ebook market that their decision to stop selling gay rape fantasy books will have any impact on the freedom people have to read gay rape fantasy.

Re:Just wait.

[Hutz]

But who cares if they refuse to sell something? We're talking about the internet - publishing isn't hard.
Are we talking about making money? That's not really Amazon's job to guarantee a market for all sellers. I would assume they feel that this is economically in their interest.

Re:Just wait.

[Frequency Domain]

When the Uhura-Kirk kiss came on, CBS waited for a firestorm of protest calls. They received just one.

And no wonder—Star Trek was an NBC program.

Re:Just wait.

[Iman Azol]

Sodom, Sodom, Sodom... It's always "Sodom", not a bit of love for old Gomorrah! Really, they were nasty enough to get vaporized, but end up as a footnote. You never hear about anyone getting "Gomorrahized" or anything, it's just not fair...

http://www.gomorrahy.com/sin-of-gomorrah.htm

Re:Just wait.

[bill_mcgonigle]

wasn't considered interracial ... the perception is quite different in 2010.

Jake and Neyteri?

Re:Just wait.

[bill_mcgonigle]

For a while now they listed, "Native American", which I chose, but now that one has changed to something more specific.

Re:Just wait.

[TIMED]

As I recall, the initial Amazon removal was of a title which instructed 'how to' and 'in support of' pedophilia, a criminal act in the US. Contrastingly, the nasty stories of ancient writings in the Bible, referenced in your post, were listed as the things *not* to do, things which will get you, even as a king, excluded by God. Given the polar opposition in contexts on common ground subject matter, it would appear that it is the motivation and relative attitude which is being banned, not the subject matter itself. And as long as Amazon remains a retailer and not a government or religious entity, I'm not sure 'censorship' is the correct term. If we were discussing a grocery chain's unwillingness to carry organic produce, I don’t think we would say that they 'censored' chemical-free veggies; rather, that they chose not to offer them to their customers for reasons of market share and profitabilty over 'prohet ability'. As a retailer, such choices are made to allow a brand to have the greatest appeal to the greatest number of paying customers; not to set altruistic standards for the community as much as to recognize that such standards exist and that to honor those standards would be the best business model assuring a profitable future. And King David might have been better advised had he, too, followed those retailing guidelines of 'popular appeal' over 'I do it because I can'. As for your pastor’s recommended rating for the Bible, he might be onto something. I seem to recall that ‘The Passion of The Christ’ was not rated G either, though the evil of ‘murdering the innocent’ portrayed in the film was not put in an exalting light of encouragement to do the same, but rather was presented as the basis of reflection and condemnation of society’s sometimes willingness to kill that which is inherently good simply because it feels threatened by the standards that such goodness establishes in the sensibilities of that society and its necessary fabric of unity. It would appear that Amazon simply chose the path of least resistance and greater market share for reasons of profit; a good business model for a company that has corporate growth, not social reinvention at its core.

Re:Just wait.

[Aqualung812]

If you had RTFA, you would have seen that this isn't about the books that said "how to do Bad Thing", this was about books who had Bad Thing in their title. The content of the books was similar to the Bible in that they both talk about Bad Things, and show how doing them leads to even worse things.

Re:Just wait.

[cavebison]

He tried to get back in God's favor but was unable to completely.

He only got visits to Heaven every second Tuesday?

Re:Just wait.

[Transaction7]

Anyone who posts "Anyone who disagrees with me . . . is just a part of the problem." would appear to be a very insecure fool. There is a very real, relevant, and significant distinction between nonfiction, and fiction fairly dealing with the problem, of incest, rape, suh crimes against children, etc., and writings glofifying this and inviting perverts to wallow in it. As for the Bible references, David and his immediate and extended family, etc., the next poster after you deals with that properly, showing that you have misinterpreted or misquoted, and misapplied, the Biblical accounts of such crimes and the lasting damage they cause.

Re:Just wait.

[aamoncler]

chanel new bag online www.mychanelmall.com.ou1yang1hong1ping1

Their choice

[dreamchaser]

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.

Re:Their choice

[MrLint]

I'm going to ask you to look up the word censorship again. While they may choose to sell what they want. They can in fact censor things from their channel. Just because its not a government doing it does not make its not censorship.

Re:Their choice

[Anonymous Coward]

It's amazing how often this gets fucked up on Slashdot in both directions. It is censorship, it's not a First Amendment issue. For a site that's most popular section is called Your Rights Online, no one on it seems to know their rights.

Re:Their choice

[msauve]

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?

Re:Their choice

[drinkypoo]

Is Borders guilty of censorship because they don't carry the "Big Busted Shemales" magazine holiday edition?

It's censorship, but they're not guilty. HTH.

Re:Their choice

[Qzukk]

Is it censorship if your local grocery store doesn't carry the Oxford English Dictionary?

to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <censor the news>; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable <censor out indecent passages>

-- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor (verb)

Only if they looked at the dictionary and thought it was objectionable, which apparently you do.

Re:Their choice

[psmears]

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.

I'm not going to argue about whether it's censorship or not—but the main reason behind people's outrage here is not the fact that Amazon choose to carry or not to carry particular titles, but rather the fact that they sold some titles (and, arguably, the Kindles themselves based on the availability of these titles), then later removed them both from sale and from the Kindles of people who had already purchased them. That may or may not be censorship, but it's certainly creepy!

Re:Their choice

[betterunixthanunix]

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.

Re:Their choice

[computational super]

Sigh... for the millionth time, yes, it is censorship, it's just not government censorship and therefore not illegal censorship (in the US). It's still censorship. That's what the fucking word means, for Christ's sake.

Re:Their choice

[tverbeek]

Why do people cling to this archaic only-governments-can-do-it definition of "censorship"?

Re:Their choice

[LordNacho]

So if Amazon is the only plausible outlet for a bunch of niche interests, are they morally obliged to sell those lines? Isn't it up to them?

Having said that, I don't see how they benefit from from cutting out anything, and the whole exercise seems a bit pointless to me.

Re:Their choice

[hedwards]

I'd recommend reading up on Walmart and the effect that their music buying preferences have had on popular music. They're a huge retailer of music and refuse to carry music which has a warning label on it. It gets bizarre at times like when they refused to carry Nirvana until they changed the names of some of the songs. Didn't actually change the songs, just the names, dropped the warning and were able to be carried. Most artists aren't that lucky and have to compromise their artistic integrity in order to live up to Walmart's rules or release an alternate version.

Check out the second paragraph http://www.pbs.org/itvs/storewars/stores3_2.html

Re:Their choice

[Shadow Wrought]

Why do people cling to this archaic only-governments-can-do-it definition of "censorship"?

Because that's the word's connotation.

Re:Their choice

[Delwin]

Censorship has a lot to do with 'why' as much as 'what'. If a library doesn't carry a book because they've never ordered it and no other reason then that's not censorship. If they then refuse to order it because of content then that is. If a book was carried and is then removed for content then that's censorship but if it's no longer carried because no one bought it then that's not. It's all about why.

Re:Their choice

[Daniel Kirksey]

I'm going to ask you to look up the word censorship again. While they may choose to sell what they want. They can in fact censor things from their channel. Just because its not a government doing it does not make its not censorship.

MrLint, I think the point your making just goes to show that there is nothing inherently wrong with "censorship". The question is whether or not it is appropriate in a given venue. Most would agree censorship in language, visual stimulation, and a number of other categories is appropriate in a child-care center, so it isn't "censorship" itself that is the problem. Private companies should have the right to censor whatever they want -- it is someone's institution to run how he/she pleases. If I have a bookstore, and I don't want to sell The Bible, that's my right. If it were the government telling me I couldn't sell The Bible, well then, we have a whole other issue. And, dreamchaser is right when he says it opens up an opportunity in the free market for another to make a dime or two -- consider it a luck break from what can be an ugly face in Capitalism when a company like Amazon censors. Companies like Amazon will indeed control way too much for anyone's comfort someday -- some diminishing shred of moral decency is the only thing that has kept it from happening already.

Re:Their choice

[Duradin]

As Anonymous has taught us, for the internet generation, once a business starts doing something online they aren't allowed to stop doing it, for any reason.

Re:Their choice

[Algorithmnast]

Is Amazon a publisher now?

I'd be interested in possible criminal charges for removing purchased titles from a Kindle, but refraining to continue to sell a published work doesn't fit your definition of censorship either.

They're a for-profit company, everyone - remember? Their bottom line is most certainly profit. They don't follow the same Prime Directive that geeks do - they just sell us books cheaper.

Most other large book sellers also sell books online. Vote with your dollars.

Re:Their choice

[GreatBunzinni]

I don't get that sort of specious reasoning. This is frequently repeated, that it is only censorship if it is done by the government, that private companies have all the rights to censor everything that they see fit and that it is always possible to purchase stuff elsewhere, which would mean that somehow these censorship accusations lack any merit.

Frankly, I don't get it. This is censorship in it's purest form. We have an organization which is actively denying the distribution of information, which they have been distributing already, just because someone in power had an epiphany and discovered he was somehow displeased by said information. You may argue that they have the right to censor the works they distribute and you may argue that they may censor the authors by choosing to stop selling their works which are offensive to them. Yet, no one can possibly argue that they aren't actively engaged in censorship, in filtering the content they control in order to stop the distribution of information they don't approve.

Re:Their choice

[msauve]

So, according to your definition, if Sonoma Williams doesn't carry, and won't order, the latest Steven King novel because the content doesn't include food recipes (that is, it has content they're not interested in promoting), they're censoring.

Re:Their choice

[GreatBunzinni]

Let's look at the definition of censor :

censor /snsr/ Show Spelled[sen-ser] Show IPA
–noun
1.
an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.
2.
any person who supervises the manners or morality of others.

According to the definition, if someone is actively engaged in suppressing information "deemded objectionable on moral, political, military or other grounds" then that person is engaged in censorship. Knowing that, it becomes pretty obvious that if Amazon is actively engaged in suppressing information that they deemed objectionable on those grounds then they are guilty of engaging in censorship. There is no room for doubt.

Re:Their choice

[cdrguru]

What you are implying is there is no difference between censorship and any other sort of discrimination or selection.

You see, discrimination isn't necessarily a bad word. Calling the action censorship certainly makes it into one. A person discriminates when they choose between McDonalds and a deli for lunch. A company discriminates when they remove something from being sold when it doesn't sell well.

Calling either action censorship is an offensive notion.

Re:Their choice

[msauve]

So, Amazon has some kind of "official" status? Where and when did that come about? And, a decision by a retailer to not carry a product is "actively engaged suppression," according to you, even if they make no attempt to control or influence others in any way?

Help, I'm being supressed/censored, because Walmart doesn't stock the short story I wrote in 5th grade.

Re:Their choice

[SpinyNorman]

The word becomes meaningless if you use it like that.

Amazon has no authority over whether you publish or sell a book, so they're not in a position to censor you.

The fact that Amazon themselves won't sell your book (or your favorite brand of processed cheese) isn't infringing on your rights in any way whatsoever.

Re:Their choice

[Spad]

That would depend entirely on why they did it.

If they choose not to carry something (or stop carrying it) because they don't think it'll sell, that's fine, but if they choose not to carry something because they don't think that the content is "appropriate" then it's censorship.

If you want to do a "The following book contains all kinds of nasty stuff, are you sure you want to view it?" and/or parental control settings for accounts then that's fine, but if I want to buy (legal) filthy literature, I should be able to.

Re:Their choice

[Spad]

Which, rather obviously, is not the same as its definition.

Re:Their choice

[meerling]

It's censorship because they are REMOVING something that people already have legally obtained, not because they refuse to carry it in the first place. These people have bought and downloaded these legal and available books that they wanted, and then remotely deleting it from peoples libraries. (Kindle libraries, but so what, it belongs to the owners, not Amazon.)

And yes, removing it from the store (in addition but without regards to the Kindle) for reasons other than economic (product not selling would be an economic reason) or legal (court orders, or a valid worry about liability of carrying a do it yourself demolitions kit with free blasting caps) is, when applied to literature, the basic definition of censorship. (The part about doing it for legal reasons is also censorship, but is usually not addressed unless it's being done for political reasons or by decree of the government. For more examples of that, see Nazi Germany, North Korea, China, Iran and so many many other places.)

It's very unlikely they are removing these due to economic or legal reasons. There appear to be no lawsuits pending with regards to these books. Also, they are apparently selling since there are enough people complaining about them being deleted, while the costs to keep them available in the electronic inventory of the store is minuscule.

Re:Their choice

[igaborf]

A ban need not be universal, or even effective, to qualify as censorship. It is their store and their choice, but it is still censorship.

Re:Their choice

[ArsonSmith]

I love this!! Is amazon trying to censor 2x4s? They don't seem to sell them they must be against lumber.

*disclaimer: I didn't check Amazon actually probably does sell 2x4s don't they.

Re:Their choice

[ArsonSmith]

Exactly, I make and sell an item that has a world wide market of maybe a few thousand. I make them by hand individually pretty much to order. I can't make a few thousand and even if I could it wouldn't be worth it due to the die and processing driving the price up and demand down. Am I morally obligated to provide these items? What if i decided I don't want to make them any more?

(if interested you can see what it is here Ghostbusters Proton Pack Shell shameless self promotion)

Re:Their choice

[GreatBunzinni]

An "official" is nothing more than a member of an organization which has been granted power and responsibility over a specific subject. Therefore, it is quite clear that this also applies to Amazon and it's organization.

Referring to the decision to carry products, if someone in power within the organization of a specific retailer decides that a book that they have been selling conveys information which they personally see as objectionable and, as a consequence, they decide to boycott the product and suppress the information due to it's content then they are clearly engaged in censorship.

Re:Their choice

[Mr. Slippery]

It's their choice as to what they sell. It is also not censorship.

Yes, it is censorship. I know apologists for corporatism like to pretend that only the government can censor, but that's not what the word means: when a business says "this is objectionable" rather than "people won't buy this", that's censorship. (And in a self-publishing marketplace, "people won't buy this" doesn't matter.)

And that's not just my opinion, and not just a dictionary definition of the word -- Amazon's own statement describes their current actions as censorship: "Amazon believes it is censorship not to sell certain books simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable."

Re:Their choice

[Oligonicella]

No. Amazon does not have power and responsibility over a specific subject. They just sell stuff. The person flagging an item is a worker, not some 'official'. If the did have the P&R, then they could prevent Barnes & Noble from selling the same book.

Re:Their choice

[Fwipp]

Stephen King did always say that he wanted to write a cookbook.

Re:Their choice

[Lawrence_Bird]

No, its not. They are not preventing you from getting any of these titles directly from the publisher or from another source. Were they to do so, then *that* would be censorship.

Re:Their choice

[Bigjeff5]

No they aren't morally obliged, but it doesn't change the fact that they are censoring what is sold in their stores.

This is the primary reason I won't buy a Kindle or an iPhone/iPad (the secondary reason is that I don't want to part with that much money, but the Kindle has been cheap for a while now).

I know you can get books on the Kindle without the Amazon store, but you loose all the convenient features of the Kindle by doing so. It's not the same product any more. If I'm going to have to go through the hassle of adding non-Amazon books, I might as well get a reader designed to add non-Amazon books.

Re:Their choice

[budgenator]

I think Amazon is large enough that they should have very well defined policies on what they consider acceptable and unacceptable if for no other reason than to protect themselves from FTC unfair business practices charges or restraint of trade investigations.

Re:Their choice

[Shadow Wrought]

Which, rather obviously, is not the same as its definition.

Yup.

Re:Their choice

[Bigjeff5]

Censorship isn't necessarily a bad word either. It's simply a moral judgment not to distribute to others that which is in your power to distribute for the specific reason that you find it objectionable.

It is, quite literally, discrimination on the basis of objectionableness. Discrimination is not a bad word, yet it carries a very bad connotation. Censorship is not really a bad word, but it carries a very bad connotation.

The fact is, people don't like that Amazon is imposing its morals on its customers. And yes, Amazon can and does impose its morals on its customers. The only way to get around this imposition is to not be a customer (i.e. buy somewhere else).

Re:Their choice

[geekoid]

You are correct, but you are missing a key item:

They also delete the books from peoples backups. So people who already bought the title had it removed front heir backup. That is my problem with this, and it highlights a reason the people need protection of their rights with data on the cloud.

They want to stop selling something, fine. I have exactly zero problem with that, but for items sold they need to be left alone.

I also want to know why. Because if ti's being done because a minority of people wrote letters to Amazon, I want to let Amazon know those people are the minority of their customers.

Re:Their choice

[GreatBunzinni]

You fail at reading comprehension. If an Amazon employee is given the authority within the Amazon organization to act on the company's name on a given area then that person is an official. Therefore, if one of Amazon's employees as been granted the authority to filter through Amazon's book catalogue and remove all the books that may offend his morals or political views then it is quite obvious that the company is engaged in censorship.

The act of being engaged in censorship does not depend on the range of that person's power, the nature of the organization that person belongs or other far-fetched loop holes that may be conceived to avoid being labelled as censors. If someone intentionally tries to suppress a piece of information just because he personally finds it to be offensive then that person is engaged in censorship. If that person is given that authority by an organization to act on it's behalf then that organization is engaged in censorship.

Re:Their choice

[Fujisawa Sensei]

I'd recommend reading up on Walmart and the effect that their music buying preferences have had on popular music. They're a huge retailer of music and refuse to carry music which has a warning label on it. It gets bizarre at times like when they refused to carry Nirvana until they changed the names of some of the songs. Didn't actually change the songs, just the names, dropped the warning and were able to be carried. Most artists aren't that lucky and have to compromise their artistic integrity in order to live up to Walmart's rules or release an alternate version. Check out the second paragraph http://www.pbs.org/itvs/storewars/stores3_2.html

Musicians should should flaunt that "We aren't Walmart's brand of music."

Re:Their choice

[Bigjeff5]

The fact that Amazon themselves won't sell your book (or your favorite brand of processed cheese) isn't infringing on your rights in any way whatsoever.

Nobody ever said it was. They simply gave the opinion that it was wrong for Amazon to do this.

It doesn't change the fact that this is, in fact, censorship. It's legal censorship, and frankly I'd be pretty pissed if someone tried to pass a law that made this kind of censorship illegal, as a company aught to have the right not to sell anything they want for whatever reason they want.

However, it does mean I'm never buying a Kindle, even though it looks like the highest quality device for the lowest price around, because Amazon censors its books (I don't buy physical books any more).

Re:Their choice

[geekoid]

Yeah, but in this case Amazon was removing titles people bought from their customers online backup.

Re:Their choice

[CAIMLAS]

Yeah, those poor artists, having to compromise their artistic integrity to make money in the world's largest retail store instead of nickel and dimeing it like street-side rappers. Those poor sods can't scream and rap about popping caps, raping, murdering, and fucking bitches anymore or anything...

Re:Their choice

[CAIMLAS]

So I'm censoring the TV when I walk from the room during commercials?

Am I censoring people's choice when I decide to sell one product over another?

Look it up, you are wrong:

–noun
1.
strong or vehement expression of disapproval: The newspapers were unanimous in their censure of the tax proposal.
2.
an official reprimand, as by a legislative body of one of its members.
–verb (used with object)
3.
to criticize or reproach in a harsh or vehement manner: She is more to be pitied than censured.
–verb (used without object)
4.
to give censure, adverse criticism, disapproval, or blame.

I think you're over-applying the definition of the word. There is nothing chastising as to the quality of said items; they're just not selling them. I do believe others are still selling said degenerate works. This is called 'free will'. It's just somewhat more difficult (or I should say, not as trivially easy and universal) to find/acquire things found by most societies of the world to be offensive.

Re:Their choice

[Stiletto]

Don't be ridiculous. Williams-Sonoma is not a bookstore. There's no expectation that they'd carry a Stephen King novel. If they carry lots of cook books however, but refuse to carry other cook books because of their content, they are certainly censoring. They might have a good business reason to censor (like the cook books in question offer recipes for shit sandwiches) but it's still censorship.

Amazon is not a specialty bookstore. When they decide to drop a product (or refuse to stock it) purely because of its content, it's censorship. Again, there may be a good business reason for performing censorship, but it's still censorship.

What if tomorrow, Amazon announced that it would no longer sell any books that portrayed Christianity in a good light or promoted "Christian themes". Would you call that censorship? I would.

Re:Their choice

[Stiletto]

A director of Marketing could be considered a company "Official". If he's "examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds" and he uses the store to carry out such suppression, he's censoring.

The fact that there are alternative bookstores out there, out of his control, does not magically make what he's doing not censorship.

Re:Their choice

[computational super]

Oh, for God's sake. Mention "censorship" and bring out the etymology nazis...

If what Amazon is doing - refusing to sell something because they object to it on a moral basis - what is it? What word defines that act? "Amazon Private-company-selling-whatever-legal-products-they-wish Expands" isn't a very snappy title, after all. Neither is "Amazon Doing-something-that-is-unworthy-of-discussion-because-amazon-is-not-the-government-and-their-actions-are-not-covered-by-the-first-amendment Expands". "Censorship" is the best word we've got to describe that act, so until we can agree on a better word, we'll continue using it. Now can you please stop jamming up the entire fscking comments section with 500 repeats of "They're a private company!" every time we talk try to bring corporate censorship to the attention of people who do care?

Re:Their choice

[Stiletto]

If Amazon came out tomorrow and said, "We will no longer carry books that promote Christianity, have 'Christian themes' or portray Christianity in a good light, because we determined these books are not profitable" would you call it censorship? Come on--say it with a straight face...

Re:Their choice

[Algorithmnast]

I've never characterized Amazon's actions in this matter as "not censorship".

Can we get a "mod +1 - sticking to the facts" and a "mod -1 - responding to alternate reality"??

Re:Their choice

[Stiletto]

I should have responded to the GP post.. my mistake!

Re:Their choice

[MaskedSlacker]

What if you have two competing governments in a country? Is it censorship if only one of them bans the book? I mean, you can always just go support Kodos then...

Re:Their choice

[Omestes]

"censure" != "censor"

Re:Their choice

[msauve]

Don't be ridiculous. Amazon isn't a bookstore, they're a general merchant (though they may have started out as a book seller). They're not censoring, since they're not attempting to restrict anyone's free speech, nor to limit anyone's access to that speech. They're making a business decision on what products they wish to sell and to be associated with.

Re:Their choice

[Algorithmnast]

Yep - there are times I wish I could just yank my responses when I do that.

"What? Arrrrrgghhhh, it was his mother I was talking about, not yours!"

"Sorry Dad...."

Yep....

Re:Their choice

[noidentity]

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.

Who other than the government (or other entity who can use force) can prevent something from getting published? Oh, you didn't mean that it couldn't be published at all, just by a particular publisher. That waters it down quite a bit, doesn't it?

Re:Their choice

[frank_adrian314159]

Because that's the word's connotation.

Only in the wacky Libertarian mind.

Re:Their choice

[sjames]

That's a load of [CENSORED]

What I did there is censorship. It may be harmless, and even humorous (for sufficiently small values of humor) and it was applied by an individual to his own words, but it is still censorship.

The summary makes it sound like Amazon is the only place one can buy a book.

I'm sure that's one of their long term goals, they're just not there yet.

Re:Their choice

[snowwrestler]

Walmart also serves to illustrate the GP's point--they're not the #1 music retailer anymore, in part because they did not carry the products their customers wanted to buy.

Re:Their choice

[shaitand]

"Is Borders guilty of censorship because they don't carry the "Big Busted Shemales" magazine holiday edition?"

It isn't censorship simply not to carry it. It becomes censorship when they decide not to carry it because they don't want the message contained in it spread.

Re:Their choice

[shaitand]

"They're not censoring, since they're not attempting to restrict anyone's free speech, nor to limit anyone's access to that speech."

They are attempting to restrict the free speech of the books' authors and limit 90% of the book markets (that is amazon's marketshare) access to that speech.

They are examining the message and refusing to spread that message based on its content. That they are performing censorship because they thinking censoring material will make them more money is irrelevant.

To restate the GP's example.

"What if tomorrow, Amazon announced that it would no longer sell any books that portrayed Christianity in a good light or promoted "Christian themes". Would you call that censorship? I would."

If they thought this would increase sales it wouldn't magically stop it from being censorship. Censorship can be a business decision, one does not preclude the other. For example, Google choose to censor search results in China. This was purely a business decision but that doesn't absolve Google of engaging in censorship.

Re:Their choice

[shaitand]

Amazon is an entity and official is a person. The official would be the person at Amazon who had the authority to order this censorship.

That official 'actively engaged (in) suppression' because they chose something they didn't like people saying and removed it to the best of their ability. It would be censorship if it was a small local bookshop selling a book a year, ineffective, but censorship. In this case it is very effective, by removing the material from Amazon the official has prevented 90% of the market from being able to purchase the material he tried to suppress.

"Help, I'm being supressed/censored, because Walmart doesn't stock the short story I wrote in 5th grade"

Walmart can't do anything. Officials at Walmart can censor a story. That requires them to examine the story and not merely exclude it, but exclude it because they find it objectionable. It is doubtful anyone at walmart has examined your story but since walmart is well known for censorship of material its officials find morally objectionable it is quite possible they WOULD censor it if they did examine it. Then again, they might not censor it at all they might decide it wouldn't sell.

See, choosing to exclude a product because it won't sell isn't examining it and finding it objectionable and engaging in censorship because you think it will make you money is still censorship.

Re:Their choice

[shaitand]

First Amazon isn't a person. People at Amazon chose to remove these books and would be doing so in your example. It is important to put the blame and credit on the people involved and remember we aren't angry at Amazon we are angry at a person or group of people who are responsible (if not accountable) for these acts.

If the statement were true, no, it wouldn't be censorship. Whether someone would believe that was the real reason is another issue.

There is a distinction there though. Whether the decision is impacting their bottom or they think it will has nothing to do with censorship. Google officers censored search results in China thinking it would improve their bottom line, it was still censorship.

If Amazon officials removed Christian titles because they don't sell they wouldn't be doing it because they find the material objectionable (or want Amazon to appear to, which amounts to the same thing). If the world were filled with atheists and they remove Christian titles because they believe openly suppressing that message and appearing to find it objectionable will increase Amazon sales that is censorship.

Re:Their choice

[shaitand]

You are trying to equate going out of their way to suppress certain goods with not going out of their way to carry goods. They are not the same thing.

Amazon officials aren't simply choosing not to carry books that don't sell. They are picking a message and publicly acting to suppress it. Are they doing it because they personally find the material objectionable? Probably. Are they doing it because they think Amazon being seen as an organization that is opposed to gay rape will increase profits and make them look good? Definitely. It doesn't really matter it is still censorship.

Are they morally obligated not to censor those products? Those of us who are opposed to censorship would say yes. Those who support the message they are censoring might also say yes. Those who oppose the message they are censoring but don't favor censorship might see it as a shade of gray, lesser of two evils.

Those who believe a business can do anything they please... aren't they the guys who usually say vote with your dollars? I see people who are outraged by the choices made by Amazon officials and trying to encourage people to vote against those choices with their dollars. Isn't that how it is supposed to work?

You might say that a business owner has every right not to hire blacks if he believes them to be lazy thieves. I actually tend to agree. But I also have the right to be outraged by it.

Re:Their choice

[shaitand]

If Amazon officials choose not to carry a product for any reason other than finding it objectionable or wanting to appear to they are not engaged in censorship or doing anything morally wrong.

Additionally, the product would need to be a form of speech or expression. Like a book for instance.

If the thing you made isn't an expression but a widget of some sort it can't be censorship to stop providing it. Its actually tough to censor yourself... even if you are it is probably in response to an external pressure that is the real censor.

Re:Their choice

[shaitand]

Censorship is not always bad either depending on your view. Censorship is an official using discrimination to exclude expression he finds objectionable (for a number of reasons, primarily moral, political, or military) from what he controls.

Discrimination is being selective about anything. Censorship is being selective about what expression or speech to spread. Discrimination doesn't actually require you to have authority, you can discriminate in your thoughts, Censorship requires authority over something external even if it is only your home. Discrimination can be selectivity for any reason, censorship requires your find (or want to appear to find) the material objectionable.

A companies official discriminates when they remove something being sold when it doesn't sell well. A companies official censors when they remove a book because they find the content objectionable or want to appear to.

Re:Their choice

[shaitand]

Actually, per the definition it isn't censorship. It isn't enough to suppress the expression. You have to be suppressing it because you find it objectionable.

Besides, if you don't express it in the first place you can't censor it. If you do express it, then that is the opposite of objecting to expressing it.

Re:Their choice

[sjames]

There is also self censorship where you suppress something you believe will offend others. In the case of self-censorship, it may happen at the point that you are considering expressing it rather than after the fact.

Amazon is not the Library

[decipher_saint]

This is exactly why libraries shouldn't die right here. A company is not beholden to freedom of speech issues the same way an institution like a library is.

I really wish the library had a online book store like Amazon.

Re:Amazon is not the Library

[Aerynvala]

Some libraries do have online options. My local library has online search of their physical and digital offerings. I can also borrow digital items (movies, audio books, ebooks) online with my valid library card. The Sony Reader store actually links you to a national website that helps you find your local library.

Re:Amazon is not the Library

[slyrat]

This is exactly why libraries shouldn't die right here. A company is not beholden to freedom of speech issues the same way an institution like a library is.

I really wish the library had a online book store like Amazon.

A lot do have ways to check books out digitally. Here is the site my library uses for getting e-books:moldi.org Part of the problem is that there are a lot of e-books that can only be found on Amazon. Hopefully this will change in the future so that one can read their e-books on any device one wishes.

Re:Amazon is not the Library

[flaming error]

> I really wish the library had a online book store

Why wish, when you can make it happen?

Re:Amazon is not the Library

[Stormy Dragon]

Oh yeah, public libraries NEVER ban books because of political pressure.

Re:Amazon is not the Library

[geekoid]

I would like to introduce to my friend bittorrent. He has an extensive collection of material~

fahrenheit ???

[uncanny]

At what temperature does a kindle burn?

Re:fahrenheit ???

[Wowsers]

Well, assuming you left the Kindle in it's cardboard box it came in, it would burn at 451 degreesF http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451 :)

Are we to also assume that all self-help books that help rape victims * will be pulled because it has the word "rape" in the title?

* Just an example not an endorsement.

Re:fahrenheit ???

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Are we to also assume that all self-help books that help rape victims * will be pulled because it has the word "rape" in the title?

Maybe the title scoring script assigns -1 for "rape" and +1 for "help" and for "victim", making the title's score positive, and thus okay.

I wonder if the title "help rape- rape- rape- rape victims stop stammering" would be pulled out...

Re:fahrenheit ???

[GofG]

actually the combustion temperature of paper is no-where near 451F. It is closer to 840F (source), which is 450C. It was gonna be "Celcius 450" but "Fahrenheit 451" sounds cooler.

Re:fahrenheit ???

[History's Coming To]

451 volts will do the job nicely...

Re:fahrenheit ???

[pipatron]

It was gonna be "Celcius 450" but "Fahrenheit 451" sounds cooler

I see what you did there.

Re:fahrenheit ???

[Insightfill]

At what temperature does a kindle burn?

There's an XKCD in there, but why bother?

Re:fahrenheit ???

[WillAdams]

Already done:

http://xkcd.com/750/

William

Re:fahrenheit ???

[flaming error]

0x 52 61 70 65 == 1,382,117,477 degrees ASCII

Re:fahrenheit ???

[budgenator]

Apparently at a room temperature mouse-click from Amazon.com.

Re:fahrenheit ???

[Bigjeff5]

Sorry, but you're both wrong, and so is the F 451 Wikipedia article, to a point - it was what he was told at first, and it was only after he changed to Fahrenheit that a fireman confirmed that book paper will burn at 451F.

Book paper can ignite at much lower temperatures if allowed to heat long enough. It will ignite as low 218deg Celsius - or 424deg Fahrenheit under the proper conditions.

See here.

Re:fahrenheit ???

[Bigjeff5]

Also note that the flash point of paper (ignition of gasses given off by heated paper) is much lower than the paper's ignition point itself as well.

Go Amazon!

[JaredOfEuropa]

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.

Re:Go Amazon!

[Zumbs]

So, what you are saying is: The more you tighten your censorship, Amazon, the more customers will slip through your fingers? I hope you are correct!

Re:Go Amazon!

[Anonymous Coward]

BS. They are a monopoly now, or very near it, and as such they lose all arguments related to "free-markets". Free markets only exist where competition is healthy, and there is certainly no healthy competition to Amazon. As a monopoly, they are more akin to governments than they are private businesses.

Even Adam Smith recognized that monopolies are the greatest enemies of free markets. I don't understand why Rand and Hayek's clergy doesn't get that.

Re:Go Amazon!

[eltonito]

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?

Re:Go Amazon!

[AltairDusk]

Amazon is a monopoly? Last time I checked Barnes and Noble was still in business and both Apple and Google had launched e-book stores of their own.

Re:Go Amazon!

[kesuki]

i have always stood by the freedom of information. it is the one thing i did right in my life. censorship is bad it lets bad people do bad things and then claim it never really happened. so amazon is going out of it's way to follow stupid laws that weren't really voted on in some obscure world where censorship is better than fair laws, with fair punishments. if i for example had gone out of my way to rape little girls it would only be bad if society could agree to that. and what about nudity do elephants wear clothing in your universe? i think not, have horses been banned because they have big cocks plainly visable? see it's not cut and dried. society is too focused on massive legal codes that are pointless and make life less interesting. and yes in my universe we still have horses thanks to the beer industry, and hobby farmers.

for the record i have never raped anyone of any age in any world. (and you can quote me on that!) still a never had sex person. god it's lonely being myself...

Re:Go Amazon!

[locallyunscene]

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.

Maybe you should actually read the definition of a censor before you go proclaiming everyone on /. is using the word incorrectly.

a person who supervises conduct and morals: as
a : an official who examines materials (as publications or films) for objectionable matter

Amazon is acting as a censor in this case, therefore it is censorship. You may agree with the morals of the censor but that doesn't mean it's not censorship.

Re:Go Amazon!

[couchslug]

"So, what you are saying is: The more you tighten your censorship, Amazon, the more customers will slip through your fingers? I hope you are correct!"

Screw this "customer" nonsense. Download everything from the usual sources or route around them if they are interrupted.

People who actually pay for most content are suckers. Since big business is malicious, one has no moral obligation to it and can cheerfully do whatever one can get away with to deny it money.

Re:Go Amazon!

[Sal Zeta]

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

Well, by this logic I could say that Pre WW2 Nazi-affiliated Libraries in Germany were entirely in their right to burn every book they didn't like. Their nation (their leaders were legally elected by their country) ,their rules. The same happened in Spain during Franco's regime, or with Mussolini in Italy.

You could say that there's a distinction between a Library and a bookstore, but from a social and cultural standpoint Amazon is the modern equivalent of Library of Alexandria. It could be fine from a an economic and commercial perspective (but even in this case it's doubtful, considering that the negative backslash is more perceived directly from their main customer targets), but from an ethical, cultural and social perspective it's way more obscene than anything that could be written in those books.

Excuse my "commie" point of view, but I have little to no regard to the free market "sanctity" when it directly damages culture,even if controversial. It should be a tool to improve society*, not the way around.

*Somebody could argue if such books should be considered "culture" or just morbid rape fantasies that creates more serial rapists, and amazon is doing us a favor by removing them. I'm not a psychoanalyst, and I can't comment on such arguments. But if the same could be said for consumption of videogames, Hip Hop, or "esoteric" literature, then I wonder how I've not yet raped and burned down an entire city.

Re:Go Amazon!

[AbRASiON]

Modding you up is pointless, someone else will do it for me.
People NEED to start waking the fuck up about this stuff, if we give up all our digital rights, sooner or later they will be abused.
Fast forward this situation 15 years, there might not BE another way to get content, then we're all in the shit and it's all too late.
Think carefully before buying digitally people.

Re:Go Amazon!

[hedwards]

Perhaps in the past where a book store would service a portion of a cities demand, but these days such things tend to have a cascading effect. When Walmart demands a change in order to gain access to their 10% market share of the music business labels tend to fold and make the changes. It definitely is a big deal and it's going to get worse as long as corporations are allowed to be big and make those sorts of editorial decisions.

If it's a small retailer that wants to do it, that's really not that big of a deal.

Re:Go Amazon!

[Duradin]

Since the TFA only links back to other SL articles and a blog, it doesn't say that Amazon is pulling them off of Kindles and the last round was Amazon removing the books from THEIR servers, not Kindles. If you had it on the device or backed up, you were fine. If you removed it then tried to download it again you'd be SOL.

Re:Go Amazon!

[mikechant]

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.

You're baffled because you don't appear to understand that when a private business becomes sufficiently dominant, then its actions become almost indistinguishable from that of a government. That's not to say that Amazon is at that level *yet*. but it's a continuum, not an either/or situation. Already, for a lot of people, if a book is not on Amazon, it doesn't exist. We need to be debating the issue of when private business "censorship" becomes equivalent to actual government censorship *now*, not when it's too late.

Re:Go Amazon!

[ScentCone]

Amazon is acting as a censor in this case

Using the definition you just provided, they are not. How is Amazon supervising your conduct and morals? You can go anywhere you want to purchase gay rape fiction, and Amazon has absolutely knowledge that did or influence over whether you did. Likewise, your use of the word "official" immediately removes Amazon from the discussion. Nobody at Amazon is an official. They are a store.

Re:Go Amazon!

[mapkinase]

Finally, the voice of reason. For the umpteenth time: it's not censorship. Go to Barnes and Nobles, go to specialty stores.

Re:Go Amazon!

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

All the sooner, people will wake up to the fact that they don't really "own" that DRM-ridden content after all.

Sadly most of the US wants companies to censor and punish people who make choices they disapprove of. People in the US do not value personal freedom. Freedom is just a pseudo-patriotic word with no meaning to most of our society. I try to avoid Amazon and other major companies that restrict content on my behalf instead of being impartial champions of freedom, but that is sadly almost all of them because the American people want it and it makes companies more money.

Re:Go Amazon!

[cdrguru]

They are not removing anything from Kindles. They are removing it from the store and the list of titles purchased.

Removing it from the store, OK.

Removing it from the list of titles purchased and not allowing further downloads is a bit of a problem. The number one problem is that Kindles are rather fragile and have a lifespan of maybe 12 months. So you get your nice new Kindle under warranty replacement and discover that content you backed up isn't working on your new device. And it cannot be downloaded to the new device. That is a problem.

Re:Go Amazon!

[cdrguru]

Could it possibly be that these titles aren't selling well, which accounts for the apparent discrepancies between apparently similar titles? The ones left are selling well?

Would that be considered censorship?

I suppose if the objective is to eliminate gay rape manuals from their book collection that you could consider this to be censorship of the foulest form. How are prisons supposed to operate under those conditions? Similarly, if incest fantasy books are being eliminated because they are incest fantasy books that would be censorship as well. The problem is, if their objective is to remove all such titles they are doing a piss-poor job at it.

I can certainly buy all of the incest books I want from Amazon. There are plenty of them that seem to represent the various genres of incest still available. So considering this censorship is somewhat suspect in that if that is the objective it is being done ineffectually and pathetically.

Now, if it is simply eliminating titles that aren't selling at all I don't see how that could be considered censorship - unless of course you believe it is required of Amazon to carry everything.

Re:Go Amazon!

[ToasterMonkey]

All the sooner, people will wake up to the fact that they don't really "own" that DRM-ridden content after all.

Do you ever own any more than the paper a book is printed with, or the plastic a game or music was stamped on? I don't think owning the content or not is even in question, you don't.

As far as DRM in the device that renders that content, who says they _have_ to do anything you want? Whats the difference between DRM'ed music and a proprietary format that nobody else understands? I don't see exactly why a device that _can_ technically do something _should have to_ because you paid for it and want it to. If a device implements some kind of DRM and you buy it, you bought a DRM implementation, congrats. If that isn't breaking any laws then, uh, vote with your wallet? If you can't do that, maybe it isn't so bad?

Re:Go Amazon!

[tophermeyer]

We need to be debating the issue of when private business "censorship" becomes equivalent to actual government censorship *now*, not when it's too late.

To what end? Would we ever come to a conclusion that private businesses have no right to be selective in their product offerings? Would we ever decide that Amazon is required to offer any book regardless of its content? I don't think so. A

Re:Go Amazon!

[LocalH]

It is censorship, just not government censorship.

Re:Go Amazon!

[JaredOfEuropa]

Actually, with a physical book or a regular DVD, you do own the content of that particular item. The proof? You are free to lend or re-sell that item. And if you decide to keep it, no one can ever prevent you from enjoying its content, short of breaking into your house and taking the physical media. This is how people generally understand "ownership", and people (rightfully) expect to get the same ownership for digital, DRMed media. That's what they think they are getting, until the rude awakening comes and Amazon decides to pull a book off their Kindle, or the firm running a central DRM server goes belly-up (this has happened with a certain online music vendor), or you decide you'd rather have a Sony player instead of an iPod, and you find none of your music purchases will transfer. Not because of technical impediments, but because it turns out you don't own the content and the vendor is free to keep it hostage. Incidentally, this is why for a long time I have steered well clear of companies who sell both content and equipment. To be fair, the music industry has for a good part cleaned up its act and most music is more or less DRM free, and transferable.

But so far, the public is largely unaware of the implications of DRM. And that needs to change, before DRM becomes the default. In some cases, content providers have lobbied to make DRM mandatory, to twhart pirates but also to keep indie labels off the market since they are unlikely to be able to afford expensive DRM keys. The public needs to understand this to make sure such laws are never allowed to be drafted. And the more companies like Amazon screw up their DRM, the sooner this will happen.

As for the difference between DRM and obscure formats, this is exactly what needs to be regulated by law. At the moment, in the Netherlands at least, "fair use" is merely a privilege: if DRM gets in the way of using your content, too bad. Now there are some politicians stating that you, as a consumer, should have the right to backup, transfer or play your content on the device of your choice. Getting the content transfered to your device of choice is your problem, but DRM should not get in the way. Even if the content provider switches to some obscure file format, there will always be someone writing a conversion tool, and under these new rights it shall not be unlawful to write, distribute or use such a tool to break DRM or convert weird file formats. Yes, this would pretty much outlaw unbreakable (or phone-home) DRM... unless, ironically, a universal DRM scheme would be adopted and used in all devices, guaranteeing your right to use and transfer your content. The only problem is that content and equipment manufacturers would like a whole different type of DRM, of the kind that takes your rights away. Again, legislation is needed to protect the consumer.

Re:Go Amazon!

[geekoid]

They pulled material you paid for from their online backups so shuodl you choose to remove the book, you can never get it again,.even thought you paid for it.

So if it isn't censorship, then its thievery.

Re:Go Amazon!

[locallyunscene]

Could it possibly be that these titles aren't selling well, which accounts for the apparent discrepancies between apparently similar titles? The ones left are selling well?

Would that be considered censorship?

No it would not because it was not a decision based on moral objections. I think the definition is pretty clear about that.

Re:Go Amazon!

[locallyunscene]

It would only be censorship if a publisher came to Sears with a profitable venture to sell said novels and Sears turned them down based on moral objections.

And don't put words in my mouth regarding the ACLU and illegality. I suggest you start acting like a rational adult instead of using straw men and hyperbole to try and get your point across.

Re:Go Amazon!

[locallyunscene]

Again, you should probably read the definition of official before you claim it is interpreted incorrectly:

An official is someone who holds an office (function or mandate, regardless whether it carries an actual working space with it) in an organization or government and participates in the exercise of authority (either his own or that of his superior and/or employer, public or legally private).

Re:Go Amazon!

[eltonito]

Again, that still wouldn't be censorship, it would be business. Sears already does exactly what you are describing with the DVD's they carry in stores. They have corporate guidelines on which movies they will sell based on various criteria set at the corporate level, which are inevitably influenced by a moral component.

What you are saying is that Sears be required to sell hardcore porn if it's profitible, even if it collides with their business principles. That is f**king frightening.

Re:Go Amazon!

[HeronBlademaster]

So your opinion is that a bookstore should be morally obligated to carry every single book that has ever been presented to them to consider for sale, and that if they decline to carry a book or genre or some other set of books they're engaging in evil censorship?

Is it evil censorship for a bookstore to decide that a certain segment of books is damaging its image in the eyes of the bulk of its customers, thus decreasing sales, and that it will therefore no longer sell those books?

considering that the negative backlash is more perceived directly from their main customer targets

You'll forgive me for scoffing; I find it absurd to pretend that Amazon's main customer demographic cares for even a split second that Amazon stopped selling gay rape fantasy books. I would venture to say that most of Amazon's customers, if they even hear about it (which is doubtful), would simply shrug and say "Good, now I won't accidentally stumble on one."

There's the plain old strict definition of censorship and there's the evil freedom-of-speech-suppressing information-hiding most-commonly-used definition of censorship. We really only need to worry about the latter.

Re:Go Amazon!

[compro01]

The number of competitors is irrelevant when one company holds 90% of the market.

Re:Go Amazon!

[Sal Zeta]

So your opinion is that a bookstore should be morally obligated to carry every single book that has ever been presented to them to consider for sale, and that if they decline to carry a book or genre or some other set of books they're engaging in evil censorship?

Please, don't use words as "evil" as some sort of binary moral value. I'm sure that most people at amazon are quite torned regarding this. It's even understandable in their positions, despite being completely aware of the possible consequences. Unfortunately amazon has such relevance in today culture that the effect of their censorship is just nominally different from a violation of first amendment from the US government. I'm not from the US, but from what I've studied the constitution was created protect the population from what was considered the only possible danger for the population as a whole (i.e. the English Monarchy or the United States themselves), from a time where private companies weren't considered capable of doing the same.

You'll forgive me for scoffing; I find it absurd to pretend that Amazon's main customer demographic cares for even a split second that Amazon stopped selling gay rape fantasy books. I would venture to say that most of Amazon's customers, if they even hear about it (which is doubtful), would simply shrug and say "Good, now I won't accidentally stumble on one."

Point is, Male on male sexual violence is depicted inside the Divine Comedy,the Decameron, hinted in the Tempest, and most of the Greek neoclassic tragedies. Actually, gay rape is somewhat tame considering what happens in most tragedies. It's not unknown in french literature, too.

If you're looking for something more "Pop", there's always Fight Club (the book, not the movie), and most of the "Punk" literature movements starting from the '90 in UK and Detroit. Some of these books have been awarded by the New York Times as "book of the year".

Yeah, I'm perfectly conscious that the books here considered are not even close to the cited works. And as I said before, I'm not a psychologist, so I cannot even fantom the real effects of such books. Problem is that such books are still sold, and the writer of the censored books would be entirely in their rights to ask "where is the difference? why aren't they being censored, too?" ; speaking in terms of contents and not artistic merits, of course.

But by using such a broad brush that is censorship, Amazon is basically answering them , "because I say so", which summed with the point I've made before, creates an ugly, ugly precedent.

There's the plain old strict definition of censorship and there's the evil freedom-of-speech-suppressing information-hiding most-commonly-used definition of censorship. We really only need to worry about the latter.

Unfortunately they only diverges in their means and not their mechanics. Censorship it's still censorship, and should be applicable only in cases where it's objectively clear that rampant distribution would be a dangerous thing.

Side note: I live in Italy, a country well known in present day for the effects of lack of separation between the private media and the political power. Previously, it was known for fascism. My grandfather used to tell me that fascism didn't have to get control of the press through violence for a simple reason: the whole production of paper for books and newspapers was owned by Mussolini sympathyzers.

Re:Go Amazon!

[HeronBlademaster]

I only used the word "evil" to distinguish malicious, speech-suppressing censorship from activities which are technically censorship, but which are not malicious and do not suppress the freedom of speech. Clearly Amazon is engaging in the latter, not the former, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Unfortunately amazon has such relevance in today culture that the effect of their censorship is just nominally different from a violation of first amendment from the US government.

The first amendment does not mandate that private companies be forced to sell particular books. In fact, you could argue that the first amendment explicitly lets them not sell particular books!

At any rate, I was not saying that Amazon is trying to remove any book that happens to mention rape. I was saying that from what it looks like with this incident, they're trying to keep their store image clean by removing books with titles referring to rape. This is wholly different from censoring any mention of gay sexual violence with the intent to prevent any customers from ever reading any book that might refer to that subject.

But by using such a broad brush that is censorship, Amazon is basically answering them , "because I say so", which summed with the point I've made before, creates an ugly, ugly precedent.

It is hardly an "ugly, ugly precedent" for a company to be allowed to decide what products it sells, regardless of whether some subset of their customers want to buy those products. Do you think Amazon should be forced to make available every single book that is conceivably available on the market? Where do you draw the line? Why is that line any better than letting them draw the line based on earning a profit, which is their responsibility to their shareholders?

Don't confuse what Amazon is doing with the issue of freedom of the press. Amazon is not demanding that these books not be printed. Amazon is not demanding that these books not be sold elsewhere. Amazon has simply decided that they do not want to sell the books. This is no different than if a national brick-and-mortar bookstore decided they did not want to carry gay rape fantasy novels in its stores; certainly nobody would be complaining about censorship if that happened.

I would argue that a far uglier precedent would be to force Amazon to sell books they do not want to sell. It's a very short step from there to forcing publishers to publish books they do not want to publish, and you can probably see why that would be a bad thing.

You may not agree with Amazon's moral decisions on which products they sell, but it is absurd to claim they should not be allowed to make those decisions.

Re:Go Amazon!

[shaitand]

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

I don't see anyone saying they should be forced to do otherwise by government. Even if they did it would be because they using their monopoly (90% marketshare) to push a moral agenda not because a bookstore doesn't have a LEGAL right to censor books.

Just because its legal doesn't mean it isn't censorship and that people don't have a right to be pissed about that. Amazon is a common carrier for books, google is a common carrier for links. I'm not okay with google or Amazon censoring the search results. I find Amazon's case to be worse but this kind of behavior can definitely lead to me boycotting their product and encouraging others to do the same... LOUDLY.

'All the sooner, people will wake up to the fact that they don't really "own" that DRM-ridden content after all.'

I'd agree but I don't think it matters. I'm fully aware of it but I still have a kindle app loaded with books on my phone. The reason is simple. I can't pirate all the new content in the book world. There are too many titles, you can't find all the new releases or even anywhere close to most of them. If its a popular book you might score a copy in one of a dozen formats (which still might be DRM'd!) as early as a month after release.

If I have a problem with a hardware store I just go to a different hardware store (at least until the next time the other guy isn't competitive on what I want) but if I don't like my kindle book my only choice is another equally restrictive DRM laden device or a legal source with no major publishers content.

Re:Go Amazon!

[shaitand]

"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."

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

There is nothing implicit in the term that sets a bar for how great an offense it has to be to qualify as censorship or requires a public entity be doing the censoring (although Amazon is a publicly traded entity and its officers and owners enjoy legal protections a private business owner does not). Censorship is also not illegal.

Censorship requires speech or expression which a book certainly is. Your engine repair shop probably doesn't have anything that qualifies. But if the owner of the shop fired anyone who used profanity in the shop he would be engaging in censorship.

"If one is unhappy with their selection or practices they can simply buy elsehwere. Shocking concept, isn't it?"

So you are saying that simply buying elsewhere is the only recourse. One doesn't have the option of expressing their outrage at the shops practices, namely censorship, to others on a public message board so they too might refuse to do business with the shop if they disagree?

Additionally, does your local engine repair shop hold 90% of their market like Amazon? The actions of a monopoly are harder to avoid and farther reaching than the actions of a private entity.

It seems reasonable that if a general bookseller like Amazon starts censoring books they should be opening themselves to liability for the content of the books they continue to carry.

Re:Go Amazon!

[shaitand]

The second definition is the relevant one and you are simply incorrect about the use of the word official.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/official

A company cannot be an official. However, any authorized person at the company is one of the companies officials. They officiate over the Amazon marketplace and are supervising the conduct/morality of those shopping in the marketplace. Any author who doesn't abide by Amazon's morals will have their expression aka book, censored from the marketplace.

Re:Go Amazon!

[shaitand]

Amazon doesn't have to succeed in preventing you from purchasing the book to be censoring. Succeeding in censoring the book from their own outlet is all that is required. Nothing in the definition requires they have authority over you, having authority over the marketplace is good enough.

Re:Go Amazon!

[shaitand]

"Well, by this logic I could say that Pre WW2 Nazi-affiliated Libraries in Germany were entirely in their right to burn every book they didn't like. Their nation (their leaders were legally elected by their country) ,their rules. The same happened in Spain during Franco's regime, or with Mussolini in Italy."

In THEIR right or in THE right? There is a difference. Those sovereign nations absolutely had the right to do as they wish and nobody else had a right to stop them. Just because you don't think what someone is doing is right doesn't mean they don't have a right to do it.

Re:Go Amazon!

[shaitand]

Amazon controls 90% of the market. If that isn't a monopoly I don't know what is.

Re:Go Amazon!

[ScentCone]

having authority over the marketplace is good enough

In what way does Amazon have authority over the marketplace? There are thousands of book sellers. Explain how Amazon's decision not to carry a particular genre is preventing those sellers from doing so. Be specific.

Re:Go Amazon!

[mikechant]

Would we ever decide that Amazon is required to offer any book regardless of its content? I don't think so.

Agreed, forcing them to sell particular books is unlikely to ever be a reasonable option and I don't think I've seen anyone suggest this as such.

But if they become even more dominant than today, refusal to handle certain books could become one aspect of a multi-stranded competition/monopoly abuse case (e.g., they control 95%+ of the market, *and* refuse to handle - amongst other legal works - books critical of their dominance *and* abuse publisher contracts to prevent any meaningful competition).

Solutions might then include (say) breaking them up into multiple companies as has happened in the past.

Meanwhile, on amazon:

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/4861353319
http://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/B003X0XDZI
http://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/B000GCGM3Q/
http://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/B0007TFACM/
http://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/B0046X7RJ4/
and many other charming titles....

Re:Meanwhile, on amazon:

[commodore64_love]

Those same books exist in the back of my local Barnes & Noble. Except they are american, not japanese, include both boys & girls, and they are not wearing any clothes at all. You see: Photography of nudes is protected by the First Amendment of the Supreme law of the land. (Freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of expression)

Only images of under-18 sex is outlawed.

Re:Meanwhile, on amazon:

[BigSes]

Its Amazon Japan, thats like comparing apples and oranges as far as what is acceptable in different cultues.

Re:Meanwhile, on amazon:

[BigSes]

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

Re:Meanwhile, on amazon:

[XCondE]

wow! the recommended products on the titles above leave no shadow of doubt about the target consumer of these. Just eew.

Re:Meanwhile, on amazon:

[retchdog]

if you really couldn't figure it out from context, you deserve it.

Re:Meanwhile, on amazon:

[BigSes]

I don't see how that's valid. It could easily been some Marquis De Sade book that Amazon won't carry here in the states, or possibly a Japanese type of Kama Sutra sort of book. I didn't assume it was a Gravure-style picture DVD with adolescent girls. Its offtopic, its not even a book. Good work on your deductive reasoning there, chief.

Re:Meanwhile, on amazon:

[datsa]

The .jp country code was all the NSFW warning I needed...

In control of religious extremists?

[Z00L00K]

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.

Re:In control of religious extremists?

[SuricouRaven]

The religious extremists of the US generally turn to politics, because they see that they really can advance their cause through non-violent activism. Not always, but in general. The Islamic extremists elsewhere in the world realise that they havn't got a hope in hell* of achieving their desired aim through politics, so they go for violence instead.

*Or whatever the Islamic eqivilent is - I know they have one, I don't know it's name.

Re:In control of religious extremists?

[drinkypoo]

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.

Nerd rage may be the funniest kind of rage, but it is also eternal, oh and by the way, we rule the world Amazon operates in because we are the people with the power on the internet. Hilarious but true: witness Anonymous. I expect Heinlein to remain long into the dark night of the impending future.

Re:In control of religious extremists?

[Sonny Yatsen]

Maybe I'm an atypical atheist, but I don't object to religion or the teaching of creationism in schools. I object to the teaching of religion or creationism in SCIENCE classes. I have no problem with religion or creationism in a Christian theology class, a Sunday school class, or even a world literature class.

And no, I don't think books about religion should disappear and replaced with science books. I think religious books should belong in religious studies and science books should belong in science. After all, isn't it the Bible that teaches us to give unto God what is God's and give unto Caesar what is Caesar's? Religion has no business impersonating a science. So give unto science what is science's.

Oh, and that last bit about Wal-mart, I have no idea what you're talking about, so I won't respond to that substantively.

Re:In control of religious extremists?

[nanospook]

Removing Heinlein's books would just be "bad" business. Why would Amazon do that? These books are vetted for High Schools and have been around in mainstream fiction for decades. There's a big difference between the titles removed recently and the content in Heinlein's books. E.g. Sleeping with his mother. He had lived centuries and went back to see his mother and then rescued her from death. So it's not incest in the typical way. Would you recognize your own mother when she appears to be in her 20's 30's and you have lived a thousand years? (Haven't read these in forever so someone correct me if I'm dis-remembering the plot). Amazon appears to be removing "bad taste" fetish books..

Re:In control of religious extremists?

[Duradin]

Did Amazon even notice Anonymous's little temper tantrum?

Re:In control of religious extremists?

[Rob the Bold]

The religious extremists of the US generally turn to politics, because they see that they really can advance their cause through non-violent activism. Not always, but in general. The Islamic extremists elsewhere in the world realise that they havn't got a hope in hell* of achieving their desired aim through politics, so they go for violence instead. *Or whatever the Islamic eqivilent is - I know they have one, I don't know it's name.

I doubt that the the fraction of Christians using violence to advance their goals is meaningfully different than the fraction of Muslims. Kind of like the difference between using SPF 50 vs SPF 100.

Re:In control of religious extremists?

[flaming error]

In American culture, Religion may indeed triumph over Science, but Religion would lose to Money. Amazon isn't going to deprive itself of significant sales.

Re:In control of religious extremists?

[SuricouRaven]

Globally, the Islamic ones seem to be commiting more attacks-per-year, even though they have a lower population. Or perhaps it's just a reporting bias.

Re:In control of religious extremists?

[CAIMLAS]

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.

What? THat makes no sense.

How are these things related to protestant Christian extremism (which I presume it is you are referring to):

* banning anything related to sex
* selling weapons
* showing how to abuse someone (wtf)
* glorifying war

I'm not a protestant CHristian, but this sounds stupid and false to me. I'm not sure where any of those things have been doctrinally defined as "this is what we do" (except for banning the public display of sexual imagery in public and similar, which can be argued from a number of other vantage points sans the religious: there's no -good- reason for hedonistic displays in public, for starters.)

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

You folks are a bunch of reactionary nuts. There is no reason to believe this, and such a response as your's is retarded. We've got a long way to go before something as even as controversial and intentionally offensive as (oh) "Piss Christ" is banned, never mind the inverse response of banning non-Christian things.

This is a commercial entity doing what is best for themselves. Nothing more. It is in no way similar to banning books or burning them. Go shop somewhere else, if it bothers you so much.

Oh, and as far as your Muslim response... there are many things entombed in the Quran and enforced throughout the Muslim world through law (nevermind culture) which are odious to the rights of humans, never mind the 'radicals'.

Re:In control of religious extremists?

[rhizome]

We've got a long way to go before something as even as controversial and intentionally offensive as (oh) "Piss Christ" is banned

You may not consider it a ban, but a gallery show including "Piss Christ" was shut down after some nut tried to remove it and some others attacked it with a hammer. Tomato, tomahto, I call it a constructive ban via extremist actions. And don't forget the changes brought to the NEA after the controversy exploded in Jesse Helms' tiny brain.

Re:In control of religious extremists?

[HeronBlademaster]

Nope.

Re:In control of religious extremists?

[retchdog]

yes, you are atypical, in that you apparently haven't yet noticed the goal of intelligent design, &c. (it is to destroy science and the materialistic world-view, since apparently it is such an incredibly irresistable force for socialism and atheism).

"Maybe I'm an atypical chess player, but I don't object to losing my queen, after all the point of the game is to capture the king."

"Who?"

[Joce640k]

I'm pretty sure it's not the atheists...

Don't buy from them?

[Mark19960]

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!

Re:Don't buy from them?

[Call Me Black Cloud]

Exactly. Or better yet, seize this business opportunity and serve the market segment Amazon is rejecting. Don't just speak up for the underserved pedophilia and gay rape market, be an entrepreneur and serve them yourself. Publish DRM-free PDFs and accept all submissions for sale. Link to a print-on-demand service for those that prefer physical media.

Amazon is not the only book vendor, and nothing prevents a competing company from also selling books.

Re:Don't buy from them?

[martijnd]

Your point is that Amazon is a publicly traded bookstore. They don't sell items they don't like.

But what does this make Google ? They are a publicly traded library.

Google is also in the process of digitizing vast numbers of real world libraries. Presumably so that we don't have to visit libraries in the future.

Do they also remove (digitally burn) the books that contain words that are not compatible with their current/future corporate image?

Re:Don't buy from them?

[hibji]

Only that you might end up like the pedophilia book guy. He was arrested on obscenity charges in florida after sending his book there. The obscenity laws are quite clear, they can charge anyone who publishes or distributes obscene material. They wouldn't go after Amazon, but they sure as hell will go after the little guy.

http://law.onecle.com/florida/crimes/847.011.html

Re:Don't buy from them?

[wygit]

But are you saying he shouldn't let people know about Amazon's editorial decisions?

It's called "news"

Re:Don't buy from them?

[ortholattice]

Actually, it seems to me the removal of these titles would open up a great business opportunity for some young entrepreneur, using a website with a name like booksbannedbyamazon.com (or maybe booksbannedbymajorretailer.com if the use of "amazon" is legally contentious).

Re:Don't buy from them?

[hypergreatthing]

unless of course the LLC was located in the amazon, brazil. Genius idea!

Re:Don't buy from them?

[misexistentialist]

But with Amazon's dominance of the book market, it may be impossible to find, and will certainly be more expensive. Eventually manuscripts won't be published at all if they don't meet Amazon standards. And people are right to check their footing on the slippery slope, because "wholesomeness" is usually all or nothing. If Amazon removes "indecent" titles they have no defense when "parents' groups" demand that sex toys be removed from the site so that children don't see them, or that only music with expletives removed should be sold so that their children aren't exposed.

Re:Don't buy from them?

[Bigbutt]

I personally don't care what titles they sell. They're a business. They can certainly sell what they want to sell.

What I don't like is them driving up to my house, walking into my library, taking the book I bought, leaving $5.99 on the coffee table and leaving.

[John]

Re:Don't buy from them?

[Pandrake]

Ebay? Craigslist?

Re:Don't buy from them?

[GameboyRMH]

There are already a few DRM-free eBook stores, I hope the authors who had their books removed switch to them.

Re:Don't buy from them?

[GameboyRMH]

Wasn't "the pedophilia book guy" writing an actual manual for pedophiles? Hardly the same thing as a book that happens to have gay relationships in it and rape in the title.

Mind you I'm not even sure if a pedophilia manual should be banned. But I see that as a questionable issue while a book that has gay relationships in it and rape in the title (or even has rape in its storyline) is totally in the clear.

Re:Don't buy from them?

[NeutronCowboy]

I don't care if they stop selling titles because they don't sell well. I do care if they stop carrying titles because the corporation objects to them on moral grounds, for two reasons:
1) A corporation doesn't have morals. The morals it objects to are therefore the morals of a particular group of customers, which can be anything. I'd rather a corporation have exactly no morals in all situations, rather than espouse them on a case by case basis.
2) When corporations become large enough, their censorship is just as insidious in its effects as government censorship. It might not carry the the threat of violence, but its behavior-changing impact is very similar.

Re:Don't buy from them?

[shutdown -p now]

What "dominance of the book market"? Last I checked there are plenty other popular book stores, both brick & mortar and online. For the latter, there's at least B&N and Apple Book Store to name the big fish, and then there's a bunch of smaller guys, each of which may not have an extensive catalog, but no-one is forcing you to buy from just one of them.

If Amazon were a monopoly on the book market, then I'd understand the argument and the need to regulate. But as it is, they are just one of the players. It's not yet time for an intervention into free market.

Re:Don't buy from them?

[hibji]

The point is that obscenity laws are vague (i know it when i see it) and vary between communities. The problem is that this arrest of the pedophilia book guy provides the precedence for the most conservative/repressive community to basically imposes its morals on the whole of the internet.

It may be about pedophilia now, but there is really no limit to what they can and will prosecute next.

First they came for the pedophilia authors...

Hmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you know that "rape" means "grate" in french? Maybe someone should release some "m/m gay fiction" (quick aside, isn't that kind of redundant?) entitled "il râpe le fromage".

Two jaded lovers, finding happiness in their shared interest: making nachos.

He, heh, food for thought. See what I did there?

Re:Hmm.

[SuricouRaven]

Or how about a book on the history of canola farming?

Re:Hmm.

[jarlsberg71]

Rape and Seed all in the title? Toss that one on the "burn" pile.

Slashdot is censored!

[Z00L00K]

It seems that not even Slashdot is safe from censorship.

Comments seems to dissapear, and a test gives the message "This exact comment has already been posted. Try to be more original...".

Re:Slashdot is censored!

[GameboyRMH]

I've seen that happen before, posts you just made seem to have totally disappeared. Can't find them in the discussion and they don't show up on your user page, all the refreshing in the world doesn't help. But they pop back into existence within a few minutes.

Re:Slashdot is censored!

[10101001 10101001]

It seems that not even Slashdot is safe from censorship.

Comments seems to dissapear, and a test gives the message "This exact comment has already been posted. Try to be more original...".

No, that's not Slashdot censoring. They don't find it objectionable that there are duplicate comments; it's just that it interferes with their backup method. The key point to know is, they backup sets of comments.

Re:Slashdot is censored!

[Z00L00K]

You didn't get it - the original message disappeared and a repost gave the error message.

So was there a censor screening the message in the meantime?

What's a good alternative?

[vadim_t]

I might want to buy an ebook fairly soon. Can anybody recommend a good ebook reader where this kind of crap isn't possible?

I'd like: no DRM, standard USB connector, possibility of uploading anything I want from USB, and open source firmware.

Re:What's a good alternative?

[slim]

I might want to buy an ebook fairly soon. Can anybody recommend a good ebook reader where this kind of crap isn't possible?

I'd like: no DRM, standard USB connector, possibility of uploading anything I want from USB, and open source firmware.

A Kindle addresses all of those except the OSS firmware, insofar as it won't refuse to display non-DRM'd files.

Epub support would certainly be nice though.

Re:What's a good alternative?

[KingArthur10]

The issue is not finding a device free of working with DRM, but rather a store that sells DRM-free works.

If you want an ebook reader built on open source software, look at the Nook. Many have even rooted them to allow for custom installations. It allows for a variety of DRM and DRM-free formats to be used (should you find those DRM-free stores).

The market is in its infancy, and until one store gains a good monopoly (like iTunes with music), you're not going to see real competition (like DRM stripped books).

Re:What's a good alternative?

[drinkypoo]

The Color Nook has been opened completely but is very expensive. It is possible to install Debian on the Kindle but well... I think that sentence says it all.

Re:What's a good alternative?

[History's Coming To]

The BeBook seems to fit the bill. It'll handle most non-DRM formats, standard USB connection, you can use it as portable storage if you wish (ie it won't play an vob file, but it'll sit there on the file system quite happily) and best of all the firmware is open source and linux based. Battery life is somewhere in "weeks" if you don't play music with it.

The original version, last time I used it, is a bit glitchy, but perfectly useable. Not used the Neo version, so I can't comment on that.

Re:What's a good alternative?

[AltairDusk]

Nook Color should do the trick if the price isn't a problem. As a bonus you can flash it to a fully functioning Android tablet.

Re:What's a good alternative?

[Ubergrendle]

I don't think the firmware is open source, but otherwise the Kobo reader is a canadian alternative. Its a startup with venture capital from our major bookstore chain Chapters, but it is setup as a separate enterprise.

Re:What's a good alternative?

[wygit]

I was going to suggest the Sony, (I have the 600) using Calibre instead of the Sony Reader app, until you got to the last requirement.

I don't know of any that have open source firmware.

EFF has a comparison of the various readers as far as privacy, security, etc at

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/12/2010-e-book-buyers-guide-e-book-privacy

Re:What's a good alternative?

[hedwards]

I'd go Nook. It has DRM but it's not mandatory. You can access anything you like off any computer running Linux, OSX or Windows. It supports epub which is the industry standard. You can load anything you wish via USB as well as copy pretty much anything that isn't DRMed off.

But, I don't think that any ebook reader at this point has an open source firmware available. And I wouldn't expect there to be any time soon. But with the way that Nook works, I don't personally see any need for that anytime soon. But it is based upon Android so it should be within the realm of possibility to give it an open source firmware.

Re:What's a good alternative?

[shadowrat]

Galaxy tablet? Maybe even a jailbroken ipad.

Re:What's a good alternative?

[Christian Marks]

Consider the BeBook Neo or Club readers. These will read many of the popular ebook formats.

Some libertarian-minded commenters here seem to think that Amazon is operating strictly within a "self-regulating" free market and ought to have the rights of private individuals and especially conservatives, who demand the freedom to ignore externalities. In fact Amazon actively engages in monopolistic practices and resists free markets. (I'll avoid the larger issue that Amazon depends deeply on government to ensure that markets it operates in function under controlled conditions, but resists acknowledging this and tries to avoid paying for the services it takes for granted, such as trademark, copyright, trade secret and patent protection--like many companies.)

I used to have an Amazon Kindle. They advertise low prices for electronic books. But those purchases are tied to an Amazon Kindle account, not to you. You cannot transfer a book you have read to someone else, as if it were a real book. The analogy between physical property and intellectual property breaks down. Amazon controls downstream copies of the electronic books you purchase from them. You pay $9.99 to Amazon for an ebook in the mistaken belief that you are saving money on the purchase of merchandise that purportedly behaves like physical property. In fact, that $9.99 helps Amazon stifle markets. If I sold you my Amazon Kindle with the books I purchased, and you re-registered the Kindle in your name, my books would vanish. It would be as if I sold you my bookshelf with books I purchased from Amazon, and Amazon removed the books once you claimed the bookshelf.

You could say that I agreed to whatever terms Amazon devised. Fine: not acknowledging that Amazon's monopolistic practices have nothing to do with free markets is ideology. And that is one reason why I am recommending the BeBook reader.

Re:What's a good alternative?

[Rob the Bold]

I might want to buy an ebook fairly soon. Can anybody recommend a good ebook reader where this kind of crap isn't possible?

I'd like: no DRM, standard USB connector, possibility of uploading anything I want from USB, and open source firmware.

Nook reads PDFs, has micro USB and you can store these files locally on a micro SD card (at least in the Color version).

Re:What's a good alternative?

[flaming error]

I suggest a netbook running Linux.

Re:What's a good alternative?

[shutdown -p now]

You do not have to buy books from Amazon to read them on Kindle. It will read anything in PDF or MOBI. Most of the books I read on mine come from other stores.

Then, also, stripping DRM from Kindle store books is trivial (though illegal in US due to DMCA).

It is curious...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

A fairly large part of Amazon's business practice, aside from efficient JIT inventory/shipping, is customer profiling and recommendation(an extension of the classic retail upsell, only every recommendation isn't for a magazine or service plan, and beaten over your head!). Given their fair expertise in this area, and generally commanding lead in online bookselling, it seems unlikely that this is a case of "poor, poor, Amazon, haunted by the lawsuits of angry parents whose offspring's attempt to search for sparkle-ponies dumped them into the M/M Rape BDSM section". Surely they can trivially keep team pathologically sensitive from finding anything they don't search for, and wave the free speech flag to cover the rest.

Thus, one is inclined to suspect that(since books about incest, rape, or whatever are presumably sold for a profit just like any other book) somebody inside or outside the company is being pushy for reasons ideological rather than financial, and that they are being surprisingly quiet about it(unlike say, the tremulous morons at the Parent's Television Council, who are explicitly ideological; but ontologically incapable of being quiet). Who exactly that might be is rather puzzling...

Re:It is curious...

[h2oliu]

To take your excellent idea on profiling and expand it. Maybe Amazon found that dealing with government requests about those books was too expensive, and thus chose to stop selling them so they would have fewer government requests to deal with?

Re:It is curious...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

While I hardly trust governments, not to moralize when it suits their purposes, it seems very out of character for them to moralize quietly...

Only the most informal(or allegedly-terrorism-related) pressure avoids leaving some sort of court record. Obscenity trials, subpoenas for J. Pedophile's buying history, and the like all leave court records. Informal pressure doesn't necessarily leave any documentary record; but most state AGs or DOJ officials only waste their time on smut peddlers if either A) they are a card-carrying nutjob for jesus or B) they wish to burnish their credentials among that demographic in preparation for their run for Governor/President/AG/whatever...

If a state attorney general were behind this, I'd expect a steady stream of press releases crowing about their success in protecting the children from pedophile filth. No PR gain if nobody knows that it is you. At the federal level, team jesus already thinks that the president is a muslin, communist, fascist, love child of Malcom X and Hitler, so any strategy that attempts to defang them with a few petty obscenity crackdowns, at the cost of pissing off every last liberal democrat who hasn't already realized that they elected a republican, seems absurdly tone-deaf.

The state would not hesitate to apply pressure if they felt it to be in their interest; but their reasons for doing so so quietly seem a lot weaker...

Bible

[antifoidulus]

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.

Re:Bible

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:Bible

[ThatMegathronDude]

It's wishful thinking probably.

Re:Bible

[mcgrew]

The Torah is the old testament, and is included in the Koran. It's mostly history of the ancient Arabs and Jews, with poetry and other goodies. The Song of Solomon is pretty ribald, but again, that's Jewish, not Christian. To Christians, the old testament is merely background information.

The New Testament (Christian Bible) only contains one sexual passage, about a woman who was to be stoned for adultery but ultimately forgiven.

Let's not forget the Bible

[Anonymous Coward]

Which contains stories of rape and incest.

Re:Let's not forget the Bible

[jgrahn]

Which contains stories of rape and incest.

And rape and mutilation. A graphics novel version of The Book of Judges (by Neil Gaiman and others) went to trial in .se in 1990: http://seriewikin.serieframjandet.se/index.php?title=Pox-r%C3%A4tteg%C3%A5ngen&oldid=140123 . The publisher won, but was boycotted and had to (more or less) close down.

Amazon: Remember to remove the Bible too!

[toriver]

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.

Re:Amazon: Remember to remove the Bible too!

[dkleinsc]

Heck, not only that, but a good portion of the classical Greek literature goes away too. Homer and Hesiod? Gone, because of the sibling incest between Zeus and Hera. Sophocles and Aeschelus? Gone, because of the 2 most famous instances of parent-child incest (Oedipus and Electra) in all of literature.

Re:Amazon: Remember to remove the Bible too!

[SuricouRaven]

I hate to actually say something in defence of religion, but the reason Lot's wife got salted was for disobeying God's direct order not to look back. OT God wasn't like the loving God of the new testament. He was a satistic, legalistic dick. When he gave commands, anyone who violated them *would* be punished harshly. No excuses, no defences. Another example is God's command never to touch the Ark of the Covenant, ever... and subsequent smiteing of a man who instinctively placed a hand upon it during transport as it was about to fall off it's carrier.

Re:Amazon: Remember to remove the Bible too!

[Steauengeglase]

Apparently someone hasn't been to the library in a while. DDC places religion in the 200s, literature in 800s.

Re:Amazon: Remember to remove the Bible too!

[elrous0]

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?

Re:Amazon: Remember to remove the Bible too!

[ceejayoz]

If you tally it up, God is directly responsible for somewhere between 2 and 25 million deaths in the Bible. Satan is responsible for somewhere between 10 and 60.

Re:Amazon: Remember to remove the Bible too!

[zeroshade]

I always think it's funny when the vocal newly minority still believe they are the majority.

Newsflash, those who are highly religious and believe the bible is fact are quickly becoming the vocal minority (at least in the US).

Re:Amazon: Remember to remove the Bible too!

[mapkinase]

Second part is fictional. There is nothing in the life of Lot that indicates to his drinking to such extent that he could sleep with his daughters. That part of the Bible is definitely a fiction invented by later transcribers.

Re:Amazon: Remember to remove the Bible too!

[Empiric]

Because I tend to dislike generally distorting people's understanding of basic philosophy (ethics) for the purposes of scoring some "religion bad" Slashdot points...

Babies are not "innocent". They are amoral. "Innocent" implies the ability to choose an evil act as an act of self-conscious will, and to have chosen against it.

Re:Amazon: Remember to remove the Bible too!

[Monkeedude1212]

It's typical of the old testament, where God was supposedly way more vengeful. Keep in mind the Pharoah had already spread the order to kill the first born of the Jews so by that point he was getting even and then some. I think "was a jerk to Moses" is putting it very lightly. Enslaving a particular race or faction is a little bit more than just being a jerk.

Now - there are some sources that point to say that what was considered 'slave labour' back then was not exactly what we today would consider slave labour. They might have earned wages, they might have been well fed, they might have even gotten the Sabbath off. The only real reason it would have been considered slave labour is that you likely didn't have the freedom to quit your job. If you were told to make brick you likely spent your day making brick, but it was not necessarily in shackles, or under the lash of a whip, or more than say 10 hours a day. Archaeology tends to be a touchy subject when they start investigating the biblical stories - but its glaringly obvious when you look at the facts: These massive monuments the Ancient Pharoahs built took almost their entire lives to build, there is no way you could go on from king to king of oppressive behavior without massive slave revolts, resulting in major casualties ultimately deteriorating the work force. It's far more likely that slaves were treated well enough to keep them subdued, though that might seem harsh, it wasn't that different less than 200 years ago. In fact the whole book of Exodus doesn't have a whole lot of Arky to support it, but of course it is kind of an embarassing story and the only historians back then were people meant to spread propoganda so it's unlikely they would record it if it did happen. There are artifacts here and there that seem to corroborate the times but nothing substantial.

A lot of people like to claim the Bible itself is the best historical record, and while that has some basis, it is obviously a source dating to the past, that actually makes it harder to put faith in. Imagine a thousand years worth of the telephone game, you know the one where you whisper in the ear of the person next to you till it reaches the end and you see how different it is from the original. Imagine how much of the Bible was spoken tradition before it was written down. The same can be said of the The Iliad, but you don't see as many people following Zeus today. Both of these were just stories at some point. I often wonder what it is about the Bible that has so many people captivated. I have read it myself more than once, and even the lighter and easier to read translations still seem pretty dry. Then again, so do most history textbooks.

What were we talking about again? I got off track.

Oh right. Amazon. Sounds like business as usual.

Re:Amazon: Remember to remove the Bible too!

[Empiric]

Thanks... I could indeed use a refresher on the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy.

Re:Amazon: Remember to remove the Bible too!

[cdrguru]

My vote is for Kings II where a bear is sent to kill children for making fun of a prophet. Always seemed to be an act of a kind and loving God.

Re:Amazon: Remember to remove the Bible too!

[migla]

If you tally it up, God is directly responsible for somewhere between 2 and 25 million deaths in the Bible. Satan is responsible for somewhere between 10 and 60.

That sounds like some of the real world "good guys" vs "bad guys" battles of today too.

Re:Amazon: Remember to remove the Bible too!

[Spad]

And let us not forget the amount of bestiality that Zeus was party to - I never quite got why he found it easier to seduce women while disguised as a swan than as a man.

Re:Amazon: Remember to remove the Bible too!

[tekrat]

"If you tally it up, God is directly responsible for somewhere between 2 and 25 million deaths in the Bible. Satan is responsible for somewhere between 10 and 60."

I forget.... which side are we on?

Re:Amazon: Remember to remove the Bible too!

[elrous0]

Well, that certainly justifies killing a bunch of children who had nothing to do with any of that shit. Thanks for clearing that up.

Re:Amazon: Remember to remove the Bible too!

[elrous0]

I think it's Eurasia now, or maybe Eastasia--one of them.

Re:Amazon: Remember to remove the Bible too!

[shutdown -p now]

How do you protect people by murdering infants?

Re:Amazon: Remember to remove the Bible too!

[shutdown -p now]

There is a well-established practice of infanticide as a form of punishment in the Bible. Remember Psalm 137:9?

"Happy shall he be, that takes and dashes your little ones against the stones."

That is supposed to be a prayer, by the way.

Re:Amazon: Remember to remove the Bible too!

[metaforest]

I think a better example is the story of Job. Look what God did to him. God makes a bet with the Devil that Job will be loyal to Him no matter what the Devil does to Job (he cant kill him though) Job goes through hell for a stupid bet, without even knowing why until the end. Innocent blood is shed, animals are killed, crops are ruined. Job is tortured by Nature and Disease. God bets with His follower's livelyhood against the Devil without Job's consent or knowlege! How is that the act of a loving God?

Re:Amazon: Remember to remove the Bible too!

[alexo]

If you tally it up, God is directly responsible for somewhere between 2 and 25 million deaths in the Bible. Satan is responsible for somewhere between 10 and 60.

The way I understand it, Satan is an agent of God and, as such, the deaths you mention are mis-attributed.

God = Judge
Satan = Attorney General

Re:Amazon: Remember to remove the Bible too!

[alexo]

And Pharoah had 10+ chances to avert this, and was warned ahead of time.

"And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had spoken unto Moses."
Yay for free will!

Amazon makes a good call

[Proudrooster]

Amazon has made a good call here by protecting its brand and not associating itself with illegal and immoral activities like pedophilia.

Re:Amazon makes a good call

[Call Me Black Cloud]

There's nothing wrong with a company that has standards. If you don't like those standards then you are free to patronize another company or start your own.

As a publicly-traded company Amazon also needs to be profitable. It's a smart business decision to reject pedophilia - the amount of money made selling pedophile-friendly products would not make up for the sales lost by those boycotting Amazon for carrying those products.

Re:Amazon makes a good call

[scotts13]

I'm pretty sure Amazon sells Agatha Christie novels... does that make them "associated with" murder? How about Mein Kampf? Try thinking a little more clearly, please.

Re:Amazon makes a good call

[locallyunscene]

If you don't like those standards then you are free to patronize another company

Absolutely, there is a lot of competition in the bookseller market.

or start your own.

... And if I don't like this country I can just move to another one right? Please. Just because people are Free to do something(which they should be) doesn't mean it's reasonable to expect them to do so. It doesn't make any more sense for me to quit my job to enter a business I know little about, than it does for me to move to another country because I don't like some policy or another. It makes more sense for me to voice my displeasure to the censor.

Re:Amazon makes a good call

[terjeber]

You are right that there is nothing wrong with a company that has standards. I have no problems with that. Amazon hasn't shown here that they do however. They have only shown that they are gutless cowards who will bow to the pressure of superstitious nutcases at the first sign of trouble.

If you think that selling books about fictional acts are "associating itself with illegal and immoral activities" I do not think that there is anything I can do to explain to you why that proves that your brain is not more useful for thinking than strawberry slush however. You see, a brain made entirely of strawberry slush is not capable of any real neural activities, and understanding that your statement is absurd in the extreme requires actual neural activity somewhere between your ears.

It's a smart business decision to reject pedophilia

Yet more proof. Amazon did not reject pedophilia by refusing to sell those books. Really, they didn't.

selling pedophile-friendly products

You really need to find some sort of entity that has a brain that can explain what Amazon is actually doing here to you. I assume that a Chimpanzee will do. We are not talking about "pedophile-friendly products" here. Really, we are not. Here is a clue for you: If Amazon was supposed to be consistent in their refusing to sell these products they would also have to stop selling the Bible, which also deals with fictional pedophilia. Would you describe the Bible as a "pedophile-friendly product"?

Here is a clue for you: Before you let moronic idiocy flow freely from your non-functional brain through the permanently gaping hole in your head called your mouth, try to find out what the topic you are commenting on is actually about.

Re:Amazon makes a good call

[geekoid]

we don't like you~

Re:Amazon makes a good call

[GameboyRMH]

Well then they should dump the Twilight books right away for the pedophilia, necrophilia and portrayal of an abusive relationship.

Well I'm all for eliminating degerate art

[Elbowgeek]

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 :-)

They came first for the perverts...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Well, actually first they came for George Orwell.

And lots of people spoke up, so they promised not to do it again.

I guess this time they decided to pick on an easier target.

Re:They came first for the perverts...

[wygit]

An easier target lets you get your foot in the door...

"Music industry spokesman loves child porn"
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/04/28/music-industry-spoke.html

Re:They came first for the perverts...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

You realise that was pulled not out of censorship but because the ebooks publisher only had rights to sell it in Europe? It was a case of pulling it or leaving everyone (the publisher, Amazon, the user) open to copyright infringement lawsuits. Never let facts get in the way of hysteria I suppose.

Does it really matter? The fact is that they can and did delete content from people's kindles. That is simply impossible to do with real books. Every time they do it, whether its for their convenience or their morals or whatever - its a case of them deeming their own interests more important than their customers. They could have left the content there and gone to court, if need be, to argue that ebooks should be treated the same as paperbooks. But they didn't. Hell, they could have avoided the problem by buying 'licenses' or whatever the hell they are called for the american ebook version of 1984. Instead they took the easiest way out for themselves, never mind that it was the worst way out for their customers.

Re:They came first for the perverts...

[quantumRage]

So if I had a kindle and live in Europe and bought a book which they have the right to sell in Europe but not in US. Does that mean when I move to US, they would delete it from my device?

Bad Amazon

[Akral]

Honestly, it is scary, how most of the people would not react to this in any way.

Vote with your dollar my ass. Mine is one dollar in 3 billion others. =7

Re:Bad Amazon

[flaming error]

Good thing we're here. I'm sure all our ranting on Slashdot will make them re-think their policy.

Will the Bible be next?

[jDeepbeep]

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

It will continue in silence until

[Even on Slashdot FOE]

they start censoring things people can defend without sounding like perverts. People generally don't want to be known for defending these things, it hurts their chances of achieving high positions.

I can just imagine how the defenders would be described in the news - defenders of (fictional) incest and gay rapists. They won't mention the fictional part, of course.

Re:It will continue in silence until

[PontifexPrimus]

"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

Re:It will continue in silence until

[HeronBlademaster]

This isn't a law, it's a single company deciding not to sell a small number of books. Hardly the same thing. There's no "human freedom" being lost. Unless you think there is somehow an inherent "human freedom" to be allowed to buy specific books from Amazon, but that would be absurd.

How about this one?

[Haedrian]

"Cooking with Rapeseed oil"

Re:How about this one?

[scorp1us]

They have obsoleted the rapeseed name. It is now Canola oil.

From Snopes:
"The Canadian seed oil industry rechristened the product "canola oil" (Canadian oil) in 1978 in an attempt to distance the product from negative associations with the word "rape." Canola was introduced to American consumers in 1986"

Re:How about this one?

[Anne_Nonymous]

Changed. Now: Cooking with Slowsweetconsensualsexafteralonghotshowerandamassage Oil.

Re:How about this one?

[compro01]

Rapeseed and canola are not the same thing. Canola is a specific type of rapeseed which was bred to contain less erucic acid and glucosinolates.

Re:How about this one?

[14erCleaner]

I see The Rape of the Lock by Alexander Pope is still listed. For now...

Amazon is probably trying to avoid ****-storms like the one that occured last month, when a pedophilia how-to book was removed following a petition drive and boycott threats.

Not much but...

[mschaffer]

Not much to discuss, so I will make a trip to the local bookstore.

Re:Not much but...

[wygit]

No, the award bestowed on Robert Heinlein by the Science Fiction Writers of America is called the Grand Master award. If you don't like it, or his work, too bad.

And if we don't like it, we can not only not shop there, but we can spread the word about their policies, which others may not know about, which is the point of the article.

If you don't approve, go read something else.

Re:Not much but...

[hairyfeet]

The problem with your "don't shop there" theory is this: It doesn't actually...oh what is the word?...Oh yeah work. Who doesn't know the RIAA is douchebags? Anybody? Well then we should be getting our airwaves back right about....listens to the crickets...oh wait a tick, they are enjoying record profits even as we speak!

What about Apple? Who doesn't know Steve Jobs is such a control freak he makes Ballmer look like a Care Bear and is fanatical about his desire for control, especially over HIS iDevices, which are never ever really yours? Well I guess they'll be going broke in....more crickets...that's right, they now have a higher cap than even MSFT!

The problem with the invisible hand vote with your dollars bullshit is it has never ever actually worked not even once. Name one, just once where it actually worked. A company can have their CEO wipe his ass with baby seals and as long as he makes something grandma or little Suzy or the guy down the street that wants to show how much disposable income he has wants? Well they will be right there making money hand over fist whether you like it or not. Case in point: Watch how quickly those that are in love with the iShiny will come out of the woodwork to jump through flaming logic hoops just to try to rationalize away any control freak issue of their personal iGod. Hell look at how much environmental damage Exxon and BP made, and I don't see either of THEM hurting for money, do you?

GOOD for them

[Auroch]

Amazon isn't required to sell ALL books. If they don't want to sell porno, they don't have to. Same goes for any material, really.

Re:GOOD for them

[Joehonkie]

I don't disagree, but they already sold it, so they don't have any right to take it back from the people they sold it to.

Re:GOOD for them

[bangzilla]

Depends on the terms of service, which no one reads (have you read the Slashdot Terms of Service?). So they may or may not have the right to take it back from the people to whom they sold a license to the work (I've not read the license agreement - but neither have you so your post is speculative at best and may be downright incorrect). Data people, data.

Re:GOOD for them

[geekoid]

Terms of service are just words, they may, or may not, be enforceable. I suspect regardless of the terms of service, the court would ultimately rule against such action.

Re:GOOD for them

[kramerd]

I don't disagree, but they already sold it, so they don't have any right to take it back from the people they sold it to.

Businesses do this all the time. It is commonly referred to as a recall, used to take back a product that is either dangerous or potentially dangerous. All Amazon has to do is refund your purchase price (which they have for titles in the past).

Apologies for redundancy

[jDeepbeep]

Sorry for redundancy. /. kept loading this page as having zero comments when I posted, then a second later it said 37 comments, so naturally I hadn't read any.

Capitalism To the Rescue!

[Haedrian]

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.

Re:Capitalism To the Rescue!

[zeroshade]

So your response is that the "free market" allows him to open is own company, yet the same supposedly "free market" will prevent him opening up said company unless he pays the competition a ton of money (if they are even willing to license the patent at all) in order to be legally allowed to operate. Yup, that's sure a viable solution. =/

Re:Capitalism To the Rescue!

[Haedrian]

Its called Satire :)

Re:Capitalism To the Rescue!

[zeroshade]

Ah, perhaps I've just gotten too used to the idiots who actually use that reasoning without a hint of irony =P

Re:Capitalism To the Rescue!

[forkfail]

And don't forget to have your checkbook ready to buy into the (soon to be existent) top tier of the New And Improved Intertubez (tm).

Is this a case for voting with your wallet?

[GundamFan]

I'm no fan of censorship, but Amazon.com is a private company capable of making there own business decisions whether or not I agree with them. It's not as if these books are not available in other places, perhaps a local business that you could feel good about supporting. Calling a company's decision to stop selling a product censorship is at best an over reaction in my view. Amazon must feel that they will sell more books if they stop selling certain others. Otherwise the leadership at Amazon is making these decisions based on personal or religious views and if that is the case then I wouldn't recommend buying any Amazon stock in the near future.

Re:Is this a case for voting with your wallet?

[wygit]

According to 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.

How do you know what Amazon "must feel"?

According to the article, the writer believes it was a response to complaints by a Fox news reported who freaked out over the titles.

Re:Is this a case for voting with your wallet?

[compro01]

perhaps a local business that you could feel good about supporting

What local business? The last independent bookstore within 100 miles went out of business 5 years ago thanks to amazon et al offering lower prices and (formerly) wider selections.

"Voting with your wallet" breaks down once companies grow large enough and oligopolies and "industry standards" start to form.

Re:Is this a case for voting with your wallet?

[misexistentialist]

Amazon must feel that they will sell more books if they stop selling certain others.

You are OK then with the content of the largest online retailer's site being determined by crackpots? Because the sane majority will lumber along while Amazon tries to retain the business of various crazed activist groups who will boycott the site unless all of the witchcraft, etc. is removed.

Re:Is this a case for voting with your wallet?

[HeronBlademaster]

and (formerly) wider selections.

So the gay rape fantasy ebooks were the only set of books making Amazon's selection larger than your local independent bookstore? That must have been a large building.

You don't need a bonfire, anymore.

[Ouija]

A couple of generations ago, you needed a bonfire in the middle of the street to get rid of books full of unpopular ideas.
Today, that can be accomplished very quietly with a few inode updates.
The Internet and DRMed information is like Alexandria written on gunpowder-impregnated flash paper.
Information is easily linked and too rarely duplicated. Unplug a server, and it goes away.
We can stand around and shrug when some paedo gets his dirty book pulled from his tablet.
Nobody will be there - or care - when it's our turn.
Mark my words.

Re:You don't need a bonfire, anymore.

[Call Me Black Cloud]

Such drama. Bravo.

Here's the flaw in your prophecy of doom: you are free to start your own digital Library of Alexandria. Put your censorship/DRM-free collection on the web. Put it on TOR as a hidden service. Put it on Freenet. Keep your material in a TrueCrypt volume on a standalone computer and trade DVDs with others.

It may be easier for some entities to restrict some content, but it's also never been easier for an individual to distribute and protect content.

Just a conspiracy theory...

[dogmatixpsych]

Last time I checked Amazon was a company that can choose to sell what they want to sell. They can even choose to not sell things they used to sell, especially if they've hired new people who might be opposed to such books.

Or, the most likely explanation is that the Chinese government is pressuring the Saudi Arabian government, which is pressuring the U.S. government to pressure Amazon to not sell those books.

yeah they are free.

[unity100]

http://news.mongabay.com/2005/0718-worlds_largest.html

corporations today are bigger than governments. until fools like you wake up to this fact and become aware that a corporation can govern your life much more than a government can, we will have to take all this shit.

no. you dont have choice. economies of scale in capitalism do not allow choice. dont fool yourself.

Re:yeah they are free.

[unity100]

http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1867262&cid=34218862

here is your citation. this is news media. if you want to research, search procter & gamble, unilever, benckiser to see how narrow your chemical products choice actually is.

Re:yeah they are free.

[unity100]

if you want to research, search procter & gamble, unilever, benckiser to see how narrow your chemical products choice actually is.

Re:yeah they are free.

[unity100]

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1224/MR1224.appc.pdf

rand corporation's consolidation trend report will satisfy i presume. in the end its from the same political spectrum. yet, still an example from banking :

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-13/soros-says-u-s-bank-oligopoly-should-be-broken-up-update1-.html

the homework i gave you, will also open you into a world of wonders. remember to research the owners of unilever et al.

And you still don't seem to understand what "monopoly" means. Here's a hint: there's a reason it starts with "mono".

there is no difference in between oligopoly or monopoly from citizens' side.

Re:This isn't censorship

[mikael_j]

I assume you're american. I'll try to put this as clearly as possible. It's not just the government that can engage in censorship. If a company that sells books decides to stop selling certain books and the only reasonable explanation for this is that they have issues with the content (despite it being legal) then that is indeed censorship. It may not be jack-booted thugs breaking down doors and torching your books but it's still censorship, they are for moral/ideological/other non-business reasons choosing to suddenly pretend that these books don't exist, that's censorship (they clearly had little trouble carrying them before so I doubt it's an issue of the books not being available).

Re:Boycott?

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

I've been attempting to boycott Amazon for stuff like this but I simply can't help myself over how convenient it's become not to have to spend several hours a week shopping.

Randy, is that you?

I would seriously like to have input into their decisions

I'm sure they'd be falling over themselves to provide you with a properly argumented explanation of their corporate decisions as fast as they possibly could if you asked them.

I have a choice

[mschaffer]

Sure, it's not the library, but I don't have to purchase anything from Amazon.com if I don't want to.
Mr. Bezos may believe that he can make more money by kowtowing to special interests, but he won't get another cent from me if he unreasonably censors Amazon.com's products.

I used to purchase items from Amazon.com because of the breadth of material available in one "store". Knowing that they are intentionally censoring products makes me really want to support the smaller stores.

Did they censor V.C. Andrews?

[Centurion5]

Did they censor V.C. Andrews "Flowers in the Attic" Series. That entire series was about incest.

it started with this guy

[circletimessquare]

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/amazon-removes-pedophilia-book-store/story?id=12119035

After defending sales of a self-published book on pedophilia, online retail giant Amazon last night reversed course and pulled the book from its Kindle store.

The electronic book, "The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: a Child-lover's Code of Conduct," by Philip R. Greaves II, went on sale on Oct. 28 and cost $4.79 to download.

that was november 11. to amazon's credit, it initially defended the selling of this book. but it caved under pressure and bad publicity, and now the internal politics of amazon seems to have shifted course, and amazon has proactively started cutting other books that amazon doesn't want to be associated with, for whatever reason. it's a sea change. before october 28, amazon's policy seemed to have been "publish whatever". now, it's "publish whatever doesn't make amazon a target for bad pr"

It's the new censorship

[Toe, The]

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.

Re:It's the new censorship

[commodore64_love]

>>>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.

Re:It's the new censorship

[rainmouse]

Also to claim amazon or google or whoever has some kind of monopoly is ridiculous.

Amazon has an estimated international 90% market share of e-books and google has over 86% of search market share. Although you are right this is not 'exclusive control' as the word monopoly implies, the fact that a company has the power to censor 90% of any market is troubling. The good news is that both companies hold on the market are declining, sometimes fast as seen in both links below.

http://chitika.com/research/2010/search-market-share-microhoo-making-headway/

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-18438_7-20012381-82.html

Re:It's the new censorship

[Rockoon]

Also to claim amazon or google or whoever has some kind of monopoly is ridiculous.

Its too late. This kind of monopoly is now defined as such as a matter of law in America.

Shouldn't have hatred Microsoft so much, I guess.

Re:It's the new censorship

[BobMcD]

Also to claim amazon or google or whoever has some kind of monopoly is ridiculous.

This would be ridiculous, but for a few simple tests:

A) Can the owners of a Kindle/etc use their device to read whatever they wish from wherever they wish?

B) Can the purchasers of ebooks keep them forever, as with a physical book?

So here we can see that, while not a 'monopoly' exactly, these ebook guys are wielding extraordinary power over their customers AFTER THE SALE. That last part is key. You can't exactly get your money back from the purchase of the device and every single book on it once you run afoul of one bad experience with a policy. So there's no going back once you decide to buy. And many, many, many of these purchasers have absolutely no idea that this stuff is even possible, let alone commonly done.

This opens up another test:

C) Are the wielders of this power applying it fairly and with the same value system as their customers?

Because THAT's the truly salient point. If they're taking dollars from people, using them in a manner contrary to their wishes, and refusing to give them back upon dispute, then we have a problem.

'Monopoly' is the wrong word, but that's an amateur's point to make. It's just a language gap. Pick whatever other word you wish, but to argue that 'no monopoly' == 'no problem' is totally, completely false. Particularly in a future world where paper books simply do not happen, we need to fix these gaps. Applying and subsequently rebutting the wrong label is just wasting everyone's time.

Re:It's the new censorship

[commodore64_love]

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.

Re:It's the new censorship

[budgenator]

The thing that alarms me the most isn't that Amazon is censoring books for the Kindle that are present or future sales, but are censoring books already sold; they don't even have to go through the effort to physically burn the book, just click a mouse and all of the book sold are instantly unpublished like they had never existed. While I'm not exceptionally upset about the material they've sent into limbo this time around, the logical course of these actions should send shivers up the spine of any freedom loving person.

Re:It's the new censorship

[overlordofmu]

I have been in a cave in the side of a mesa in the low desert of the state of Arizona. Coatimundi, coyote, gila monsters, rattle snakes and javelina are my companions. We learn from each other and live in mutual respect and harmony.

Where is your cave? Is it in Oxfordshire?

Would you be interested in learning why I like the desert? It's clean.

Re:It's the new censorship

[BobMcD]

- Will your peers ignore your warnings while continuing to drive Amazon to such levels of success as to make it impossible for you to purchase books from anywhere else?

If you cannot imagine a 'yes' answer to this question, then I can only assume there's not a Walmart in your neighborhood.

Look, I concede that Amazon is not the government, but again it is really, really simplistic thinking to refute that claim (which I genuinely went out of my way to illustrate that I was NOT making.)

It is possible, my friend, for things to be hazardous even while not being the government. It truly is.

Re:It's the new censorship

[ArsonSmith]

There are 2 Walmarts within 3 miles of my house in opposite directions. I rarely visit them and there are plenty of other stores to purchase things from. If i need a cheap poorly made item, or it's 2am i can run to them to grab it. I see that as a good thing.

Re:It's the new censorship

[Mr. Slippery]

- 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.

Under a capitalist state, corporations like Amazon have the government to raid your house or put you in jail for them, under laws like the DMCA. Adobe had the FBI to arrest Dmitry Sklyarov. The BSA has U.S. marshals to carry guns for them. Why should they bother to have their own cops or jails?

Re:It's the new censorship

[Stormy Dragon]

These companies have a kind of power we haven't seen since the days when there were only three TV networks. Probably even more.

Except that this isn't being driven by some "let's be evil today" impulse on Amazon's part. It's being done because it fears consumers. We've enabled the government to go around essentially mugging corporations everytime some random mob of people starts yelling for it loud enough and that unfortunately means corporations have to bow to the whims of those mobs (in this case the moral outrage busybodies) in order to survive.

I'd argue that this specific problem is occuring not because Corporations have to much power (in some ways they do), but because in some ways they don't have enough power.

Re:It's the new censorship

[LWATCDR]

Actually thanks for that.
In this case it isn't censorship at all. Amazon just doesn't want to carry that book.
If you read that website you will see that the books are available at Barnes and Nobel and other online stores.

Re:It's the new censorship

[GreatBunzinni]

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.

Oddly enough, you accuse others of living in a cave but yet you failed to notice that the real cause of the actions the governments you mentioned have implemented are none other than multinational corporations which, directly or indirectly, pressured those governments into compliance with their views. Measures such as the so called internet 3 strikes law or even the imposition of a sales tax that directly and blindly benefits particular corporations are a good example of the power over governments that some corporations already enjoy and use.

Re:It's the new censorship

[ultranova]

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).

And if we ALL voted for third parties in the next elections, the Demopublicans would be ousted from power. It's simply not going to happen.

They are a "90% eBook monopoly" only because we made them that way, and we can destroy them just as easily.

You live in a democracy, so you can destroy your government just as easily. That kinda negates all of your points.

Re:It's the new censorship

[BobMcD]

...there are plenty of other stores to purchase things from...

Either your test is too broad or you never want to purchase non-grocery things from local stores. Even accepting that it were true that Walmart hadn't ever negatively impacted your freedom to choose other options, I'd think you could still imagine the essence of what I meant without nitpicking the full rigor of it being true against your own, anecdotal, evidence.

Re:It's the new censorship

[DragonWriter]

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.

Distinguishing between corporate power and government power is somewhat pointless, since corporations are themselves exercises of government power. All corporate power is government power.

Re:It's the new censorship

[psydeshow]

- Can amazon suck money out of my wallet? Nope.

Funny enough, they can. Their patented "one-click" shopping technology can do just that when abused by cross-site request forgery or an annoying kid sister.

I know that's not the spirit in which you posted, but come on, they aren't exactly a powerless entity either.

Re:It's the new censorship

[commodore64_love]

>>>make it impossible for you to purchase books from anywhere else?

That is ridiculous. There are tons and tons of alternate bookstores to buy from besides Amazon, and always will be. And yes I have a Walmart but there are likewise tons of other B&Ms to shop from. You're starting to sound as nutty as Alex Jones with your "the future is damned" conspiracy theories. Monopolies don't last. Again, look at Microsoft and how their share has been eroded by Seamonkey/firefox and Chrome and Opera. And the portable computers we call "phones" which run non-MS software. Their 90% monopoly is crumbling even as we speak.

Re:It's the new censorship

[BobMcD]

Attribute me to someone else's words in whatever way that helps you understand the sentiment. However, whether the word 'impossible' is even weakened to the point of 'inconvenient' we'd still have a right to be concerned, and depending on the degree, to intervene.

Re:It's the new censorship

[Excelcia]

You seem to think that corporations have a duty to provide you with everything you want. A person or group of people exercising their right not to so something is not censorship. The whole idea that Amazon, or anyone for that matter, who chooses not to sell something is breaking some sort of trust is ridiculous. It is up to Amazon's shareholders and board of directors to determine the policies on what they will or won't sell.

Feel free to complain to them if they don't sell what you want, that's part of business. But labelling it censorship and getting hot and bothered about them becoming totalitarian is ludicrous on its face. Hell, if a huge retailer is purposefully abandoning a market segment, this should be news for celebration. Wow, a huge company is ignoring market! Let's get some investors together and fill the market share and make scads of money doing it.

So, either complain to Amazon, or start your own business. It's not censorship when someone else decides not to sell something you want. It's censorship when someone comes into your house with a gun and says gimme your porn.

Re:It's the new censorship

[RobertM1968]

>>>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.

Your error is in failing to remember that some decent portion of such censorship is at the behest or with the "funding" by those corporations. Too many people keep separating the two. It's corporations and government, working on increasing censorship and control; sometimes for mutually agreeable reasons, other times for reasons specific to either party (where the other party sees a different benefit in it for them).

But that aside, I must agree with the overall gist of what I think you are trying to say. The governments should be responsible for preventing such occurrences. Instead they are working WITH corporations to enact such idiocy. In my book, that makes them more guilty.

Re:It's the new censorship

[noidentity]

[governments] 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.

Exactly. The latter can merely prevent you from accessing said material really conveniently using the services they provide.

Re:It's the new censorship

[DarkTempes]

A) Can the owners of a Kindle/etc use their device to read whatever they wish from wherever they wish?

Yes. Using Calibre (or other software) you can convert nearly any text format to an ebook format readable by your Whatevercompany Ebook reading device.

B) Can the purchasers of ebooks keep them forever, as with a physical book?

Yes. Maybe not backed up on Amazons servers but there is nothing stopping you from keeping a copy on your computer (or even your Kindle). As far as I know, after the 1984 fiasco and per court settlement, Amazon no longer removes books from Kindles remotely without user permission. They will remove access from buying the book via the Amazon store or redownloading from your "archive" in their cloud. Slashdot news titles and summaries are often misleading or plain wrong.

C) Are the wielders of this power applying it fairly and with the same value system as their customers?

Do not care. I can buy books from elsewhere if Amazon won't sell a book. Someone will always sell these books if there is demand unless they are illegal (and probably then too).

I don't think Amazon should have removed the two specific books from the article from their store but I also feel that, as a corporation and not a government, they have a right to sell what they want to sell. Would you force a bookseller to buy copies of books from every publisher that exists so that the threat of censoring doesn't exist? In any case, the barrier to entry for ebook marketing and distribution is so low that I can't even see that a market share monopoly matters.

Re:It's the new censorship

[BobMcD]

As far as I know, after the 1984 fiasco and per court settlement, Amazon no longer removes books from Kindles remotely without user permission. They will remove access from buying the book via the Amazon store or redownloading from your "archive" in their cloud.

That was my belief as well, but people are saying that their books are being deleted and Amazon is denying them refunds.

C) Are the wielders of this power applying it fairly and with the same value system as their customers?

Do not care.

Well, hell man, if you do not care, kindly butt out and let those of us who do care discuss it?? What kind of a ass-backwards slant is that? "I don't care, but here's my opinion anyway..."

Someone will always sell these books if there is demand unless they are illegal (and probably then too).

Not on paper, and likely not in an easily-available format. We're not looking at a scenario where mp3's are new and being traded via Napster. This DRM situation is more perilous because it is younger and benefits from the experience of the music industry's failures.

I don't think Amazon should have removed the two specific books from the article from their store but I also feel that, as a corporation and not a government, they have a right to sell what they want to sell.

I almost always agree with this sentiment, but I think that communications media are different. Just as a think it is wrong for a web provider to delete a site due to it's content, so is Amazon wrong to delete a book. Free speech isn't just an amendment, it is a principle. People that practice it should be applauded and those that abuse it only for their own gain should be decried.

Would you force a bookseller to buy copies of books from every publisher that exists so that the threat of censoring doesn't exist?

Yes, by way of your double-edged and entirely straw-tastic question, I can still say yes. If you want to sell books then you should be required to sell any books you can reasonably obtain by special order from your customer. Also, would I stop the Nazis from burning books? Yes.

If books aren't special to you, then I kindly ask you forget how to read.

In any case, the barrier to entry for ebook marketing and distribution is so low that I can't even see that a market share monopoly matters.

And how many widely-accepted ebook readers are there to date? How many vendors of such books? Do you know anyone who owns a reader? Are they happy with it? This market is super, super new. To claim that it has low barriers is superfluous at best.

Re:It's the new censorship

[jwhitener]

"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..."

If Walmart decides that a certain music CD is too dirty, they say "clean it up/beep it, or we won't sell it". That single corporation can make or break any number of products, as well as reshape the contents of those products. There have been numerous articles describing this influence.

While you are correct that you can buy a book/movie from numerous sources, if the top 1 or 2 mega stores decide that a product is bad, good luck finding the product (or an uncensored version).

Now, while this may be less true when dealing with smaller indie labels, smaller book publishers, etc.. it certainly is true for any major label/movie studio. No producer/publisher/record label is going to back expensive products if they can't get them on the shelves of the mega stores. Of course, you can find a few exceptions (certain rap artists that do well despite walmart refusing to carry them), but in general, the mega stores do drastically effect what is or is not produced/published.

Not technically a monopoly, but the the influence is so vast that it should be called one.

Walmart alone was worrisome and sparked quite a few articles about content producers complaining about walmart's influence in deciding what sells and what doesn't sell. To see Amazon joining in these practices is scary. If Walmart, Amazon, and a couple other mega sellers stop carrying "edge content", are publishers/producers going to bother footing the bills for an artist to create it?

Re:It's the new censorship

[DarkTempes]

There is so much wrong with what you've written that I don't even know where to start. Firstly, this article is about Amazon's self-publishing department delisting an author's ebooks. I do not believe any ebooks were removed from devices of purchasers.

Secondly, Ebooks and ebook reading software have been around for a very very long time. It is not new. Ebooks themselves since at least the 70s. Maybe they aren't popular but reading paper books isn't very popular either. Newness and popularity having nothing to do with barrier to entry for selling ebooks.

Yes, portable ebook readers are new to the last decade and are just now becoming more popular and have the potential of making ebooks more popular. You speak of DRM on these devices as if it's the end of the written word.
Ebook format doesn't matter. Every device that I know of accepts at least one entirely open non-DRM ebook format. It is very easy to convert between formats.

Even if Amazon banned my book and no other marketplace existed then I could still toss it online with my own website at $5/month costs and sell it as an ebook, in multiple formats, that would be viewable on any device. The barrier to entry for selling ebooks is THAT low. If you want to start a website selling ebooks the only HARD part is getting the popular publishers on board because they want to protect their precious hardcover sales. They're also usually the people pushing hard for DRM formats.

In this market the only possible way I see corporation censorship being a problem is if one could prove that Amazon (or any company) has such a large monopoly on ebooks that by not being able to list your book on Amazon you are then not able to financially make it worth it to sell your ebook. The existence of other paper book and ebook marketplaces (barnes and nobles to say the least) makes me think that is not true.

Re:It's the new censorship

[datsa]

In contrast the government holds the monopoly on the power to jail, take, or kill.

Would you prefer that the government didn't have that "monopoly"? Maybe my local mall should have the right to detain shoplifters indefinitely, or publicly execute them. That's what lifting the monopoly would open the door to. Thankfully, we have common law, and shoplifters have equal opportunity to present their case in a trial under the law as the mall does (in theory, at least). The alternative is taking most of the power of law enforcement away from the the government altogether, which also seems like a bad idea.

Those are your two choices to government monopoly, I'm not sure what you're complaining about.

Re:It's the new censorship

[shaitand]

"There are tons of other bookstores where I can shop"

Not for long, the major brick and mortar chains are going out of business. They used to offer the advantage of providing instant gratification when you wanted a book but thanks to digital book readers they don't even have that anyone. You can buy the book in your bathrobe and have it this instant. Now all they have left are publishers who don't offer digital versions at the same time as print and non-fiction volumes where one might want a hard copy for easy reference.

Thanks to used book poachers who buy all the worthwhile titles from used book shops and resell them on amazon those will soon have no selection and die off (these usually offer credit, so readers would bring back the good titles and keep the selection healthy).

That's like claiming Walmart isn't a monopoly because there are a few stores selling some of the same products that aren't out of business yet.

Their only major competitor, K-Mart only exists because walmart chooses to leave it with just enough territory to exist... so they won't be considered a monopoly. For instance, Wal-mart has deliberately chosen not to put up stores in the metropolitan areas of Miami and has instead left that territory to K-mart. There are k-marts in areas with Wal-marts but their decline is obvious.

"during this last month I gradually excised google from my browsers to use other search engines (like bing, yahoo, hotbot, lycos, etc)"

And had to intentionally choose to use inferior options to do it. The portion of consumers who are willing to accept an inferior choice consistently to make a point are statistically irrelevant. You may vote with your dollar but you are just pissing in the wind and the McDonalds and the Wal-marts of the world exist because of it.

Look at the paypal, where google has the 'do no evil' motto Paypal works on the opposite principle. How many people agree with their practices? I've never met one. Hell if you get a paypal rep on the phone even they don't agree with the shit paypal does (not that they can fix it). Yet the number of people actually boycotting paypal is so tiny they aren't even a buzz in paypal's ears.

"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."

That presents a false dichotomy. The potential abuse of government doesn't make the abuse of mega corps and monopolies insignificant or otherwise okay. We don't have to choose. We can desire both be declawed. And that isn't even considering that government is actually run by and doing its censorship at the behest of said mega corps.

Re:It's the new censorship

[shaitand]

"There are 2 Walmarts within 3 miles of my house in opposite directions. I rarely visit them and there are plenty of other stores to purchase things from. If i need a cheap poorly made item, or it's 2am i can run to them to grab it. I see that as a good thing."

If anyone else did it might be something that would continue. But you are in a statistically insignificant minority who are willing to pay more for the same good. Your plenty of other stores will become more and more expensive as time goes on and eventually will all go under.

Just because the Walmart effect hasn't completely run its course in your neighborhood yet doesn't mean the conclusion isn't inevitable.

Re:It's the new censorship

[shaitand]

'In this case it isn't censorship at all. Amazon just doesn't want to carry that book.'

And Amazon not wanting to 'carry that book' can be safely extended to Amazon deciding I'm not permitted to 'carry that book' on my kindle either? They pulled the already sold copies from customer devices as well.

Besides which, Amazon not wanting to 'carry that book' means that book has been silenced from 90% of the market.

Re:It's the new censorship

[LWATCDR]

No store is required to carry or sell a product. Do you want Whole Foods to be forced to carry Coke and Pepsi? This author has a number of ways to publish his book including making it into a Mobi format file which people can put on their Kindle or a PDF that they can convert.
So not at all. Even for the Kindle he can still publish his book.

Re:This isn't censorship

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

I assume you're american. I'll try to put this as clearly as possible. It's not just the government that can engage in censorship.

I assume you're not an american, otherwise you'd know this: the US government and corporations are in cahoots.

Re:This isn't censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

I assume you're american.

Fuck you

Re:This isn't censorship

[nettdata]

No, I'm Canadian, hence the "here's my two cents worth, Canadian" signature.

And you're a fucking moron.

Wups.... that might not have been nice enough to convey the proper level of Canadian politeness.

My bad.

Re:Legal and normal

[SuricouRaven]

You stated one of the main concerns there. Right now, Amazon is just one store of a very large number. But, if consolidation continues, that may not always be true. Look at the market for internet service, for instance - in theory, it's a free market, and customers are free to leave the service of an ISP if they are unhappy with it's policies. In practice, many people live in places where only one or two companies provide service, and no other ISP wishes to move into an area where they would have to compete with an incumbent.

It's not censorship

[eagl]

It isn't censorship, it is a store owner deciding what things he/she wants to sell in their store. If I owned a store and had a magazine and book rack, you bet I'd be picky about what I put on the shelves. No censoring involved, just applying my standards of taste to what I, as a store owner, decide to display and sell in my store.

If Amazon wants to be choosy about what they sell, good for them. They shouldn't be forced to sell stuff that they're not comfortable with.

Now if it was the GOVT pulling it from the store, then yea it would be censoring. But it isn't. There is no constitutional right for a smut author to have their crappy book with a crappy title sold by any particular company... It is a marketplace and the same rules apply to books as do to any other item the store owner decides doesn't fit the store standards or image.

WTG Amazon for doing this.

Re:It's not censorship

[tradotto]

Alright, but what if the book store owner decides he doesn't want to sell book X so comes to your house and removes if from your bookshelf?

Re:It's not censorship

[Doctor Faustus]

If I owned a store and had a magazine and book rack, you bet I'd be picky about what I put on the shelves. No censoring involved, just applying my standards of taste to what I, as a store owner, decide to display and sell in my store.

Which is censorship if you're doing it for any reason other than that it wouldn't sell enough.

There is no constitutional right for a smut author to have their crappy book with a crappy title sold by any particular company

I don't anyone suggested it's unconstitutional, but are you opposed to government censorship because you actually think it's a bad idea, or just because the constitution forbids it?

Re:It's not censorship

[eagl]

I oppose govt censorship because it is bad and I am happy that the constitution forbids it. Abuse of authority bothers me. But I have absolutely nothing against private citizens or store owners picking and choosing what they view or sell.

Interestingly enough, that also forms the basis of my opposition to various forms of FCC censorship. If people don't want to see nekkid people on TV, turn off the TV or use the ratings filter included on pretty much all tuners nowadays. Don't like listening to Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken? Change the channel. Don't need any govt intervention there, just turn the damn thing off or change the channel. But the US is populated by a bunch of people who want to decide what is good for everyone else and then use the govt's power to force everyone to comply with their own ideas. That's not good and it's why the govt isn't supposed to censor things except in fairly clearly defined circumstances.

The concept of censorship includes the idea that the suppression of a particular bit of information is forceable - ie. there is no way around the suppression and the suppression is enforced by a person or group with the power to effectively enforce the restriction. Amazon simply cannot censor anything that is otherwise legal because there are tons of legitimate and widely available alternatives. The first amendment guarantees the right of free speech but it does NOT guarantee an audience or forum. In London they have a park where people can stand on a box and say whatever they like, but in the US there are no guarantees of a forum or audience. Amazon is simply removing some books from the forum they provide in accordance with usage agreements they can change at their whim. Still don't like it? Feel free to register www.gayincestporn.com (or whatever suitably describes the removed material) and publish yourself.

Re:What are we supposed to discuss?

[XnavxeMiyyep]

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

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

Drat! There goes my attempt at being a writer...

[s0litaire]

...Guess my "Man's Man guide to Rape Seed oil cooking" won't get published under Amazons new rules...

It would have made me a fortune....

It's not censorship.

[wideBlueSkies]

Probably been said a million times before, but I'll have another go at it. Amazon is a private platform, and if the subject matter in question irks the management or board, they are well within their rights to not sell related product. It's not censorship.

Ergo, the authors of said subject matter are perfectly free to build their own sites. And anyone shopping for that kind of stuff.... I don't think we really care where you go. Just get lost, thanks.

Re:It's not censorship.

[DragonWriter]

Probably been said a million times before, but I'll have another go at it. Amazon is a private platform, and if the subject matter in question irks the management or board, they are well within their rights to not sell related product. It's not censorship.

There are two problems with this:
First: While government censorship is restricted under the US constitution, "censorship" is not limited to government censorship, and includes action by private parties.
Second: Amazon is a corporation. Corporations do not exist in nature. They are created, subsidized, and structured by governments through law. Their characterization as "private" is a deliberate fiction.

Re:What are we supposed to discuss?

[tverbeek]

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

I would think that authors would care. What's your advice for them? "If you don't like it, don't sell there"? Wait... that's exactly what Amazon apparently wants. Not much of a protest - or even a viable business move - is it?

Re:This isn't censorship

[nettdata]

Yeah... I don't think he knows that censorship doesn't mean what he thinks it means.

Re:What are we supposed to discuss?

[mcgrew]

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.

Re:Why does the left pretend to care about censori

[SuricouRaven]

Does anyone else hear the sound of straw moving?

Calibre

[WED Fan]

I have a Kindle. I purchase books from Amazon, paper and e. However, I find other books from other sources. I'm leary of Amazon reaching into my Kindle to remove books I've purchased, so I regularly crack the AZW and convert them to MOBI. Calibre is one of the best tools for managing this. Yes, I have found digital copies of every Heinlein book I've ever owned. What is Amazon going to do about "Lord Foul's Bane"?

Re:Calibre

[natehoy]

I think the Covenant Chronicles is safe, at least for now. There's only one case of rape in it, it's not in any way incestuous, and it's not described in great detail.

Still, doesn't Amazon have an "Erotica" section to keep erotica in, so those who are not interested in it can easily avoid it and those who are can? I have yet to encounter anything on Amazon that would come close to being qualified as erotica, so I'd say their filters work pretty darned well.

So what's the problem? If they think people into non-incestuous erotica would have a problem with incestuous erotica, why not just make new categories called "incestuous erotica" and "homosexual erotica" and move everything objectionable to "heterosexual erotica" fans to their appropriate categories?

Are we so afraid of the written word that we give it the power to create incestuous rapists out of random folks, just because they encountered the title of a book they didn't like?

Re:Calibre

[WED Fan]

Why not put a disclaimer in the discription: "Warning: Contains themes some readers may find objectionable to include descriptions or references of..."

Instant Market

[tradotto]

This opens up a market for a web company selling banned books for the kindle.

Re:This isn't censorship

[mikael_j]

Oh, we are well aware of that. And thanks to wikileaks we also have proof that our government lied to the people while changing laws to be more friendly toward US corporations on orders from the US government...

Re:What are we supposed to discuss?

[cheekyjohnson]

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

Great plan! Now all we need to do is rid a majority of the population of its ignorance so that this will actually have some noticeable effect.

Re:What are we supposed to discuss?

[elrous0]

While, for the 40th consecutive year, Harlan Ellison continues his undisputed reign as Grand Asshole of Science Fiction.

They should call Amazon a special interest store

[scotts13]

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.

Re:We're supposed to be concerned?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Courageous, I want you inside me! Please put yourself into me! I MUST HAVE YOUR SEMEN IN ME!!!!!

Re:What are we supposed to discuss?

[camperdave]

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

Sure it is. A democracy is a political system where governing power is derived from the people. Granted, it isn't a fair democracy, but as long as everyone has a voice it is a democracy.

Sounds like Amazon has read some books

[tekrat]

Particularly "1984" and "Fahrenheit 451" and has confused them with the corporate policy manual.

It's only a matter of time before "Catcher in the Rye" is banned from Kindles -- after all, only serial killers/terrorists read that.

I can't wait until they expand the ban to "anything" the Christian Taliban finds objectionable.... which is pretty much everything. I predict mass kindle burnings as people rebel against it all. Which is bad news for Apple as well, as their closed system pretty much is following Amazon's model of banning anything they don't like.

Ironically, this will be good news for open-source-based tablets with real usb ports and no "app store" that limits what you can and can't load into your tablet.

Either that, or America isn't what it claims to be, and everyone is perfectly happy being oppressed. Hurrah for Big Brother, we love you! I'm moving elsewhere where there really *is* freedom, like, Chad.

Re:Sounds like Amazon has read some books

[iconic999]

If you don't like it, shop elsewhere, or start your own bookstore and sell all the fictional incest and homosexual rape books you want.

Re:Sounds like Amazon has read some books

[tekrat]

Really? And do I have to develop my own e-book reader so that Amazon isn't quietly deleting anything that might be on the kindle?

I suppose you're all for Sony removing the "Other OS" feature THAT THEY SOLD AS A FEATURE on the Playstation 3? After all, if you don't like it, develop your own gaming box. Huh, nice solution that.

You don't seem to understand. When our liberties are threatened, we're all damaged. It always starts with the weakest links in society, the ones that are "OK" to oppress, like the Jews were. Then once you've taken care of that issue, you move on to bigger and bigger targets. And then pretty soon, you've sent civilization backwards 100 years.

I suppose next they are going to remove any book with the word "shit" in the title, which of course means banning all books about cooking with Shiitake Mushrooms. If you're all for removing information from the people, then you have no one to blame but yourself when you wonder why America is the most ignorant and stupid nation on the planet.

I wonder if the Romans truly understood that the Empire was doomed when the Visigoths came over the wall. Chances are that some of them were as dumb as you are, and believed that Rome would continue for eternity. America doesn't have long left.

China, India, and even some African nations are coming up fast, pretty soon we're going to have to compete on a level playing field. And the American people aren't up to the task because they think "god" is going to bail them out because they are the chosen people (and they think that because they are a bunch of ignorant twits), then I'm afraid they will be just another page in the history books, assuming those too aren't banned.

Tell you what. I'll fight for my rights. If *you* don't like it, start your own damn country where you can oppress people and deny them liberty. Good luck with that.

Re:Sounds like Amazon has read some books

[Dunega]

I don't own a Kindle and I don't buy books from Amazon, how am I being oppressed again? Right, I'm not. If you don't like their business practices, don't do business with them.

Re:Sounds like Amazon has read some books

[iconic999]

Got news for you: Amazon is exercising *their* right as a private company to sell what they want. Sounds like you want to take away *their* rights. Sorry, but you have no Constitutional right to force them to provide you with incest and homosexual rape "literature." If you don't like it, seek another solution.

Re:Sounds like Amazon has read some books

[tekrat]

And here's some news right back: Corporations are now in control of the government, and seem to have more "rights" than citizens. Pretty soon they will control *everything* as you or I understand it. They already control what you read, what you hear, what you watch. "News" is just another form of corporate filtered "infotainment", and Congress is bought and sold like it was a stock.

Sounds to me like you're a corporate mouthpiece that wants all control in the hands of the elite, where people have only the rights granted to them by their masters, any of which can be taken away on a whim or profit motive.

If you want to live in a world where you're a mindless consumer, a wage slave that exists only to provide wealth to his corporate masters, go for it.

But don't tell me I'm wrong to demand that equality exists for all, and furthermore, don't tell me that I'm confused about "private enterprise" because any sufficiently large corporation is indistinguishable from government.

Just ask any farmer that has ever had to deal with Monsanto.

Re:Sounds like Amazon has read some books

[tekrat]

So, to bring this back on target:

If I open a diner, and my sign on the door says 'Whites only', that's OK because I am a private business? I mean, if you're black, and don't like that, you're free to eat elsewhere or open your own diner that serves blacks only, right?

Re:Sounds like Amazon has read some books

[Lordnerdzrool]

That's a pretty random tirade. Don't drink and Slashdot.

At any rate, I don't see how grandparent is suddenly a "corporate mouthpeice" because he suggested you open a /small business/ that caters to a market that those "evil corporations" are intentionally leaving behind. If anything, he stands opposed to those "evil corporations" considering he's suggesting you open a business opposed to them.

Re:Sounds like Amazon has read some books

[shutdown -p now]

Really? And do I have to develop my own e-book reader so that Amazon isn't quietly deleting anything that might be on the kindle?

They're only deleting stuff purchased from their book store. They won't delete any books that you've got from other sources (which Kindle can still happily display).

Re:We're supposed to be concerned?!?!

[Pseudonym Authority]

Titles on the subject of unpatriotic material disappear from Amazon and we're supposed to be concerned. WTF is wrong with you?

This is not censorship. It's a simple issue of a retailer not wanting its image stained by garbage.

It's both their right and responsibility to see to this kind of stuff.

Interesting how ...

[galego]

Censorship seems to have become a bad word. Censorship can be good or bad. We use Netflix parental controls to 'censor' what our children might be exposed to ... intentionally or inadvertently. I (amongst others), see that as sound parenting practice, others may not. You could argue whether or not amazon removing a product is even 'censorship'. To some it is good, to some it is bad. If your tax money were running Amazon, then you might have a real complaint. As it is, vote with your feet and/or your money.

If you really have the need for books about incest and pedophilia, go buy them from whomever sells them. If you want Amazon ( or Borders or your library or whomever) to carry them, request it from them. I don't, so I'm fine with this [apparently evil] form of censorship.

Maybe their method for review/censor is over-simplistic or just plain inconsistent. But their choice of what they sell is just that ... their choice. As is your choice yours on where and what to buy.

Re:Interesting how ...

[petermgreen]

Maybe their method for review/censor is over-simplistic or just plain inconsistent. But their choice of what they sell is just that ... their choice. As is your choice yours on where and what to buy.
And if it wasn't for the abomination known as drm this would be a much smaller problem.

But as it is if you want to buy a peice for your device you often have little choice but to buy it from the manufacturer of the device under their terms. Then if you want to view it on another device (including a replacement device when yours dies) you have to rely on their goodwill to allow that. Some systems even allow content to be removed remotely from existing devices.

This puts the vendor of the device and content in a far more powerful position than the seller of a physical book.

Sometimes you can find legal drm free sources but afaict that is still the exception not the rule.

Re:Interesting how ...

[petermgreen]

"peice for"
That should have said peice of media for.

Re:I can put tape over my own mouth too

[SumterLiving]

A lousy decision, you say? What makes you such a business expert to say this? Post your resume/accomplishments in the business world that shows you know more about making money than say, Amazon. After all, Amazon will probably lose more money by continuing to sell books most people find somewhat offensive than taking them off their virtual bookshelf. So what are their options??? Take their chances selling the "rape books" while some organization screams rape or take their chances that you will vote with your wallet while screaming censorship. The way I see it, Amazon is in a lose-lose situation but someone in the company "thinks" they will lose more by not selling rape titled books. In my heart, I feel Amazon is making the best of a bad situation. Obviously you disagree and that's OK with me.

Re:We're supposed to be concerned?!?!

[wygit]

Not necessarily.

We're supposed to be informed.

Re:What are we supposed to discuss?

[jedidiah]

The beauty of a genuinely free market is that you don't have to be able to cast a lot of votes. Just a few will do.

This is why it is imperative to resist monopolies of any sort, even "vertical integration".

I am rather surprised that Amazon didn't do this sooner. The same goes for all of the well known B&M stores.

I expect them to "pander to the mediocre middle". This isn't news.

Ah, the eternal excuse of the true right winger

[SmallFurryCreature]

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.

Re:Ah, the eternal excuse of the true right winger

[Algorithmnast]

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

I know it's not much, but I vote with my money. If company X enters into a behavior I find horrible, I stop doing business with them.

In fact, Conservative Christians have done with for the past few years, and it seems to work for them. (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/15/usa.mcdonalds and http://www.afa.net/Detail.aspx?id=2147483663)

Why not try it with Amazon? I think they'd notice if the geeks were to put their money where their outrage was.

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

Perhaps you're right - I don't know the "guy". But from reading his post (to which you replied) I didn't get that he racist or bigoted, only that he was mistaken about what censorship is, and that he was claiming that a company can constrain what it sells in America.

Perhaps you're right that he's a Right Winger, but then I don't get that from his post. Perhaps he is an Independent?

I'm still interested in the legal ramifications of Amazon removing purchases titles from Kindles....

Re:Ah, the eternal excuse of the true right winger

[Fujisawa Sensei]

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

I know it's not much, but I vote with my money. If company X enters into a behavior I find horrible, I stop doing business with them.

In fact, Conservative Christians have done with for the past few years, and it seems to work for them. (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/15/usa.mcdonalds and http://www.afa.net/Detail.aspx?id=2147483663)

Why not try it with Amazon? I think they'd notice if the geeks were to put their money where their outrage was.

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

Perhaps you're right - I don't know the "guy". But from reading his post (to which you replied) I didn't get that he racist or bigoted, only that he was mistaken about what censorship is, and that he was claiming that a company can constrain what it sells in America.

Perhaps you're right that he's a Right Winger, but then I don't get that from his post. Perhaps he is an Independent?

I'm still interested in the legal ramifications of Amazon removing purchases titles from Kindles....

And I encourage a everybody else to boycott Chick-fil-a. As someone who is not a xistian, I find the corporations stated purpose of "Glorifying God" and imposing their religious doctrine on employees incompatible with my own beliefs.

Re:Ah, the eternal excuse of the true right winger

[Algorithmnast]

And if all people did that, then it'd be a far better poll of what people believe in than any agenda-driven poll.

Unfortunately, geeks are a small sample set of the world's population.

And worse, the world's bulk of people don't really know what they believe in.

Re:Ah, the eternal excuse of the true right winger

[sglewis100]

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.

The debate should be over whether or not the books really promoted what they were banned over. Then you can decide if Amazon was removing books for sale that were morally offensive and described illegal acts, or just rash to judge. This has NOTHING to do with "no jews allowed" (it's no illegal to be Jewish" or "whites only" (it's not illegal to be black). This has to do with rape, which is illegal, and incest, which is illegal. So you can describe the portrayal of it as legal but offensive, but portraying an illegal act in a book is not the same as against breaking the law yourself through discrimination. Also, Amazon has a monopoly... of Kindle users. Just like Apple has a monopoly... of iPad users. Kindle book store = Apple app store. Monopoly of the industry is quite a bit different. The most aggressive projects are 8 million Kindles sold this year . Sony claims to have sold a couple of million eReaders, which use ePub and support content from non-Sony stores, including Kobo (can't find a link now). B&N is making 18,000 NookColor tablets a day, and if they keep that pace for just 6 months that's over 3 million shipped. Then there are Kobo readers, people using non-Kindle apps on their iPads and iPods, folks using apps other than Kindle on their Android, discount no-name eReaders sold at KMart and other fine establishments, and before you know it, you realize that anyone in this comment thread suggesting a monopoly, really is way off base. WalMart doesn't sell music with explicit lyrics. Is it censorship? Sure. Nothing inherently ILLEGAL about it, nor do they possess any more of a monopoly in Music than Amazon does in eBooks.

Re:Ah, the eternal excuse of the true right winger

[sglewis100]

And I encourage a everybody else to boycott Chick-fil-a. As someone who is not a xistian, I find the corporations stated purpose of "Glorifying God" and imposing their religious doctrine on employees incompatible with my own beliefs.

I boycott it every Sunday. Is that what you meant?

Re:Ah, the eternal excuse of the true right winger

[Fujisawa Sensei]

And I encourage a everybody else to boycott Chick-fil-a. As someone who is not a xistian, I find the corporations stated purpose of "Glorifying God" and imposing their religious doctrine on employees incompatible with my own beliefs.

I boycott it every Sunday. Is that what you meant?

< 15% is a fail.

Re:Ah, the eternal excuse of the true right winger

[BaronHethorSamedi]

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

Amazon can also not jail me for attempting to publish ideas with which it disagrees. States have been known do that. Personally, I prefer Amazon's brand of "censorship."

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.

You're not upsetting "the powers that be"--in this case, it's a retail outlet that's been "upset," and declined to carry certain titles. What's your alternative--that the retailer be required to carry those titles? Will that foster more freedom? Please consider: if you're looking to publish a text, regardless of its subject matter, you now have more ways to do that than at any other time in the history of the human race. Whining about freedom being abridged when Amazon drops a title seems ludicrous to me when the author can hop online and publish it near-instantaneously on any one of the dozens of internet-based distribution channels that are open to anyone with access to a computer.

This guy would also defend "No jews allowed" or "Whites only" on private businesses.

I think this assumption says a lot more about your biases than it does about the OP's.

Re:Ah, the eternal excuse of the true right winger

[CAIMLAS]

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

I presume you've got a problem with democratic decisions?

I much rather have state censorship.

Ah, the true response of a totalitarian.

The state can be voted out. Amazon can not.

Until Amazon becomes the only source for literature, Amazon most certainly can be voted out. If your sentiments were socially acceptable as to the odious nature of these 'literature redactions', this might actually happen. But since pretty much everyone finds these things offensive, you're just going to have to rot.

Sorry, no: I'm not going to support an independent organization being forced to sell something which they deem to be offensive, unprofitable, and/or counter-productive.

Re:Ah, the eternal excuse of the true right winger

[internettoughguy]

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.

Utter bullshit, the best democracy can do is allow me to read what the bigoted majority approves of, and that is certainly not the worst it can do.

On the other hand, the worst Amazon can do is not sell me this book, but it seems I can get it from their competitor buy.com.

The "right to read" should never be put to a vote.

Re:Ah, the eternal excuse of the true right winger

[alexo]

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

How do you "vote the state out" when 98% of the population consistently vote for either the giant douche or the turd sandwich?

Re:Will the Bible be next?

[galego]

Yes, there are such stories in the Bible. What level of detail do they rise to? I haven't read the stories referred to in TFA (and don't want to), but my guess is they are a little more detailed than the instances referred to in the Bible ... and yes, that does make a difference for many people. Also, what light those acts are painted in is relevant.

Keep in mind that the Bible *recounts what happened* and what happened to those people subsequently... with the intent that we learn correct behavior for ourselves as a result. It is a history and not fiction. For someone to write fiction about such acts, they have to dwell on them a bit in their mind and dream it all up to be able to write it down ... is that a pleasant/ good thing? Not IMHO.

Granted, some will posit that the Bible is fictional ... not my conviction.

freedom!

[Ephemeriis]

I see a lot of posts pointing out that Amazon is a privately-owned company and free to carry (or not carry) whatever books they like.

This is certainly true.

But this issue is more than just some random retailer deciding not to carry a book they don't like.

Amazon is removing these titles from Kindles. They carried a book, you bought it legally, you owned it, and now Amazon has gone and deleted it. Imagine if you bought a paper book at Barnes & Noble, and they decided to stop carrying it, so they sent somebody around to your house to collect that book and destroy it. This is troubling on a number of levels. It raises plenty of questions about ownership of digital property.

Amazon is also absolutely ginormous. They're one of the (if not the) largest on-line retailers. What they do affects more than just their own business and their own customers. Just like Wal-Mart refusing to carry AO video game titles has basically rendered them non-existant.

I'm not claiming that Amazon does not have the right to do what they did. Nor am I necessarily going to condemn it as a bad thing. But all the folks claiming it isn't a big deal because Amazon is well-within its rights are kind of missing the bigger picture.

And in 30 years more...

[cjcela]

.. we will be longing for a past long gone were authors could write whatever they wanted and not be censored. This is serious, given how large and influential Amazon is. One may or not agree with having a rating system for certain topics, but censoring books based on its title?

Re:And in 30 years more...

[Dcnjoe60]

.. we will be longing for a past long gone were authors could write whatever they wanted and not be censored. This is serious, given how large and influential Amazon is. One may or not agree with having a rating system for certain topics, but censoring books based on its title?

If I write a bunch of poetry and I can't get it published, is that censorship? Amazon chooses, as is their right, not to publish or sell certain types of media. BTW, the title of the book in question, is "How to Rape a Straight Guy." It's title is fairly accurate to its content. Every book publisher in the world makes decisions, daily as to what they are willing to publish or not. Those decisions are based on market, quality of writing, and yes, content.

Amazon gives self publishers a pass on market and quality of writing (or filming, or whatever media you are using). They still screen for content. However, they only remove an item after someone has complained and it is shown that it violates their publishing agreement as to content.

That doesn't fit the definition of censorship.

Re:And in 30 years more...

[Bigjeff5]

If I write a bunch of poetry and I can't get it published, is that censorship?

Yes, but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing.

Choosing between red socks and blue socks is discrimination, by the way, obviously not a bad thing either. Same deal there.

Censorship is only really evil when taken into the context of an institution that has great authority over the individuals being censored. Pretty much the only institution that has that kind of authority is the government. Amazon has zero real authority over the people, but they do have some practical authority over their customers - particularly poor Kindle users.

Still, Amazon's censorship is the kind of thing you stop shopping at Amazon for, and maybe even join a movement advocating a boycott of Amazon. It's not something to pass new laws over (they would be really freakin scary laws).

Re:And in 30 years more...

[Bigjeff5]

Yes, but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing.

To clarify, it's censorship if the reason you can't get published is because they find your content objectionable.

It's not censorship if you can't get your poetry published because your poetry sucks.

Re:And in 30 years more...

[Dcnjoe60]

But poetry, by definition, can't suck. It can span the realm of technical genre to free prose, and as such, is always a matter preference by the audience. That equates to presentation and content.

Amazon, with respect to choosing which genre of books to publish or not, is also not practising censorship. It is not prohibiting the individual from pedalling their wares, elsewhere, only not on their storefront.

Likewise, if Random House rejects my submission, I am free to submit it elsewhere.

Re:And in 30 years more...

[Dcnjoe60]

If Amazon were the only publisher, then yes, this could be construed as censorship, however, they aren't and it's not. As for people who purchased a kindle, well, since most books are not available for kindle, then they aren't on the receiving end of being censored either. And what about a Nook? Is Amazon responsible for publishing books to the Nook? Or B&N to the Kindle? No, they aren't. And neither are they responsible for publishing everything submitted to them.

Re:Warning: libertardian prattle above

[commodore64_love]

>>>It's bad when the government does it, but good when corporations do it, yadda yadda.

NOT what I said.
You got an F in reading comprehension, I bet. It's bad when either of these organizations do it, but the difference is that 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.

Re:We're supposed to be concerned?!?!

[hedwards]

Yes we should be concerned. If they're blacklisting without qualification it could make it very hard to distribute materials for fighting domestic violence, rape and molestation on their site. Instead of materials that are aimed at promoting such activities.

Re:What are we supposed to discuss?

[commodore64_love]

By that reasoning companies don't need to cater to the masses, but instead can just build a few hundred $500,000 cars to market to the rich. A few companies have tried that but most went bankrupt in the 1920s and 30s. It is more profitable to cater to the masses (Ford, Chevrolet, Toyota), because the "poor" masses have more collective power (dollars) than the minority rich.

Re:What are we supposed to discuss?

[hedwards]

Because when a major retailer does that it makes it much harder to get published. You can make what you like of it, but when a retailer like Amazon declares something to be banned from their bookshop, it makes it significantly harder for a writer to get published. Get several major bookshops in lock step on it, and you're more or less banned.

Sure you can self publish, but that's a lot harder if you don't have the exposure through a major chain, and you're going to have to do it without an advance to allow you to focus on it exclusively prior to publishing. You also probably won't have money for a professional editor.

Re:It's business, nothing personal.

[wygit]

You're making up a knee jerk reaction and then attacking it. Maybe your feeling was wrong. People in general really suck at mind reading.

Maybe the continuation to "Just how far is this going to be allowed to proceed" is "...without widespread coverage of what they're doing?"

Re:Oh but ....

[unity100]

and how are they calling out ? any examples of calling it out ?

Re:Not censorship....

[wygit]

It is according to 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.

Re:Warning: libertardian prattle above

[mikechant]

...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.

Re:censorship = profit

[terjeber]

Censorship it is not. It is gutless bowing to the whims of lunatic religious nutcases. There is no real difference in mentality between the new religious nutcases currently ravaging the US society and the Taliban ravaging the Pakistani countryside. Sadly US business is all to eager to take it up the behind from the North American Christian Taliban though.

Re:What are we supposed to discuss?

[Monkeedude1212]

You are of course assuming everyone has a dollar.

Re:What are we supposed to discuss?

[zeroshade]

Poor people do not have a voice. Homeless people do not have a voice. Thus it is not a democracy.

Abuse of Monopoly Power????

[tekrat]

You're right. But you're also missing that Amazon, being the biggest player in the industry, has near-monopoly power. And if they are abusing that power to censor material, then they are abusing that monopoly power, which is also illegal (or at least was once illegal in the USA... who knows anymore, since Congress is up to the highest bidder?)

Re:Abuse of Monopoly Power????

[Bigjeff5]

It only works for a competing publishing company, and even then Amazon must be violating anti-trust laws.

Simply being a monopoly isn't against the law, but it does put you in a position to break laws that are much more difficult for smaller companies to break.

The oft-cited Microsoft example: Microsoft didn't run into legal trouble because they were shipping IE with Windows (at least, not in the US - the EU went way overboard IMO), they ran into legal trouble because they were coercing hardware retailers into not shipping PC's with Netscape pre-installed by threatening to revoke their contracts with MS. Because MS had sole control over who was able to purchase Windows, and because Windows was far and away the most popular OS on the market (95%+ at that time, I believe), not being able to ship Windows was a death sentence for hardware retailers. This abuse of their monopoly position to unfairly eliminate competition is illegal.

I don't see how Amazon's censorship is going to affect any of their competitors in any way (in some ways it's actually a boon to competitors, since they can say "we have it, Amazon doesn't"), so I don't see how it can run afoul of anti-trust laws. They aren't coercing anybody else into not selling these books, they are simply not selling them themselves. That's well within their rights, and if these books can't generate any interest outside of Amazon, well, that's business. Not everyone gets to be successful.

Re:Abuse of Monopoly Power????

[Bigjeff5]

For an example of what Amazon could do that would be illegal, if Amazon threatened to not carry any of a given publisher's books if they did not stop publishing certain books they found objectionable, that would run afoul of anti-trust laws. Amazon is in a position to at the very least severely damage that publisher, and they are abusing that position prevent the sale of certain books, which would be in direct competition with Amazon's books (who is also a publisher and retailer).

That would be an illegal abuse of a monopoly, and in fact that would even get a company that was not a monopoly into big legal trouble. The monopoly simply makes the potential damage much greater, and as a result the potential fines much greater.

Re:censorship = profit

[Jiro]

What makes you think this is being done to appease the religious rather than to appease feminists?

Re:Warning: libertardian prattle above

[thedbp]

>>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.

OMG!

[Dcnjoe60]

OMG! If anybody would actually read the posts and the linked pages plus do a little research they would see that this article is highly misleading. Amazon removed another self-published book titled "How to Rape a Straight Guy." They also have removed some erotica books whose "main" theme is about incest. They are not going on a witch hunt, however.

Amazon pretty much lets you self publish anything, then if someone complains, they review the material published for compliance with their user agreement with the writer/content creator. If after review, there is a violation of said agreement, then the material is removed.

If Amazon tells you, before you ever publish the book, that you can not use their self-publishing platform for certain types of works, then it is the writer that is at fault for either a) ignoring the agreement or b) being ignorant of what they've agreed to.

Amazon's usage agreement is pretty straight forward. It's referenced on the pages from where you sign up to use their self-publishing program. Oh, by the way, did I mention that it is THEIR (Amazon's) service being provided? Surely, people on slashdot aren't suggesting that Amazon must publish and sell everything that anybody wants?

No really - that's not censorship.

[Mr. Underbridge]

Sigh... for the millionth time, yes, it is censorship, it's just not government censorship and therefore not illegal censorship (in the US). It's still censorship. That's what the fucking word means, for Christ's sake.

Actually, I checked and was unable to find a dictionary or legal definition to support your contention. Based on what I was able to find online, definitions of 'censorhip' require active suppression of content by some sort of authority. That authority bit is important - webster, oxford, and various legal sites all seemed to use a similar word ('authority', 'official', etc). This is in keeping with the history of the word from its Roman roots.

So we have two requirements for censorship - some sort of authority, and restricted speech. You'd be hard-pressed to prove either here - Amazon has no official capacity, and they have no ability to suppress anyone's communication since there are many other avenues of selling books,

In short, Amazon doesn't 'censor' anyone by simply choosing not to sell someone's book, even if that reason is due to objectionable content. If they are, then every business on Earth is also guilty of censorship since they won't sell my goat-porn picture book.

You can't make a word mean something it doesn't simply at your own whim. If you can cite a dictionary definition that supports your much expanded definition of the word, I'd like to see it.

Re:No really - that's not censorship.

[Spad]

censor - noun

1. an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.
2. any person who supervises the manners or morality of others.

censor - verb

7. to delete (a word or passage of text) in one's capacity as a censor.

censorship - noun

1. the act or practice of censoring

And no, an "Official" does not have to have anything to do with government.

Re:No really - that's not censorship.

[Mr. Underbridge]

And no, an "Official" does not have to have anything to do with government.

True. But Amazon certainly has no 'official' capacity in any sense that doesn't render the word meaningless.

The current context fails your definitions as follows:

def #1 because A) Amazon has no official capacity in any way, and B) Amazon isn't extracting portions (interestingly, a much better case can be made for Walmart, as a prior poster mentioned).

Def #2 fails except in the vaguest sense that would make everyone on earth a censor and render the word meaningless.

Def #7 fails because, again, Amazon isn't removing offending portions of text.

Again, let's say I'm a creator of man-goat pornography - are you contending that every business on earth is in the act of censorship because they won't sell my book? If we expand the definition of 'censorship' that widely, it loses its meaning.

And, frankly, it cheapens the meaning of real censorship that people have had to deal with.

Re:No really - that's not censorship.

[Bigjeff5]

True. But Amazon certainly has no 'official' capacity in any sense that doesn't render the word meaningless.

Are you saying the censors at Amazon have no official capacity at Amazon? That's strange, I thought they were employees of Amazon, acting on behalf of Amazon in an official capacity.

What exactly are Amazon's censors, if not official Amazon censors? Is this some sort of grassroots movement sprung up within Amazon that the management has turned a blind eye towards? I find that extremely hard to believe.

Re:No really - that's not censorship.

[Mr. Underbridge]

Are you saying the censors at Amazon have no official capacity at Amazon? That's strange, I thought they were employees of Amazon, acting on behalf of Amazon in an official capacity.

If the definition of 'official' is that general, it becomes both circular and meaningless. Amazon's decision carries no weight or effectiveness in the real world outside their own choice to sell or not sell something.

And I repeat my goat porn test - every business is now a censor under your definition since they won't carry my book. The definition becomes meaningless and almost existential if you say that not selling any given work is an act of censorship of that work.

Re:No really - that's not censorship.

[lessthan]

The definition says 'authority,' not legal authority or moral authority. What can be meant by authority? You can be your own authority, 'censoring' your speech around children. Doesn't your boss have authority over you? Couldn't he try to censor you?

Re:No really - that's not censorship.

[shaitand]

Amazon can't do anything. It is the executives aka officers aka officials at Amazon who are censoring messages in the Amazon marketplace.

An authority doesn't have to be part of government authority. The leader of your book club is engaging in censorship if they decide to remove objectionable materials from your club reading list.

"and they have no ability to suppress anyone's communication since there are many other avenues of selling books"

Nothing in the definition requires they suppress every avenue or that they be successful in suppressing any. Attempting to suppress even one channel is good enough. Amazon officials are censoring books from the Amazon marketplace (which is a big channel, encompassing 90% of the market but the magnitude isn't a requirement of the definition) because they find the material objectionable or want to appear to* (which is the real key to the definition, and the part you are excluding).

"If they are, then every business on Earth is also guilty of censorship since they won't sell my goat-porn picture book. "

No, only businesses that choose not to carry your book because it contains goat-porn AND find goat-porn objectionable. It isn't censorship for a car dealership not to carry your material based on content because they are simply in a different business and don't find the material objectionable.

*The MW definition doesn't include allowing for censoring for appearance sake but usage and not MW defines language. I doubt anyone would agree a minister burning Korans wouldn't be engaged in censorship simply because he is secretly Muslim pedophile.

Re:No really - that's not censorship.

[shaitand]

"def #1 because A) Amazon has no official capacity in any way"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/official

Most telling is not the definition per say but the example of an official:

"A company official responded to our request."

An official is a person. Amazon is a collection of people, as well as a marketplace run by the same. It has officials. Amazon can't censor something but its officials can.

"and B) Amazon isn't extracting portions (interestingly, a much better case can be made for Walmart, as a prior poster mentioned). "

From the definition:

'...for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable...'

The definition doesn't require anything to be extracted, only suppressed. The definition only requires the objectionable parts be suppressed it doesn't specify that nothing else can be suppressed or removed along with it. A censor could read a speech and burn it to suppress the parts he found objectionable and satisfy the definition... or he could remove an entire book from the market in order to suppress the parts of said book he found objectionable.

Re:No really - that's not censorship.

[shaitand]

"If the definition of 'official' is that general, it becomes both circular and meaningless."

That is an opinion, not a fact. There is nothing about censorship that requires its effects be far reaching, that is only your own personal bias on the definition. A parent is an official within a household and if they review the programming their child may watch they solidly engaging in censorship despite the reach going further than their door or even their own television.

'Amazon's decision carries no weight or effectiveness in the real world outside their own choice to sell or not sell something.'

Nothing in the definition requires it to. Amazon officials aren't censoring the hold world just the limited piece of it they have authority over. The FCC isn't censoring the whole world either, just the limited piece of it they have authority over.

Is the FCC's reach broader? The Amazon market holds 90% of the book market. But the scope of the censorship is not part of whether it is censorship or not.

The telling factor of censorship isn't who is doing it, or the scope of its impact, or how it is being done. The telling factor is WHY.

'1. ...suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.
2. any person who supervises the manners or morality of others.'

'other grounds' is indeed too broad to have meaning. Technically, anytime someone is selective about what information they include, or excludes information based on any set of criteria they are censoring. But the second definition and the first few examples give some context, 'other grounds' is obviously included as a catch all for other forms of pushing an agenda.

Fortunately, we don't have to speculate. The first item on the list AND the subject of definition #2 is the one that applies to the Amazon officials. They are censoring materials they find morally objectionable.

'And I repeat my goat porn test - every business is now a censor under your definition since they won't carry my book.'

I've already refuted your goat porn test in another post. If a business doesn't sell books or porn then the reason isn't because their officials find your book objectionable so we have eliminated the vast majority of businesses in accord with the definition. Those who do carry books and exclude your goat porn book because they find it morally objectionable are indeed engaging in censorship.

I think you'll find that the reality is that businesses aren't including your goat porn because an official with a greater scope which encompasses them is censoring the material. Bestiality is illegal... at least here in the US.

Re:What are we supposed to discuss?

[thedbp]

What world are you living in? It's not because the masses have more collective monetary power (they don't), it's economics of scale. You can only sell so many $500,000 cars, and there's very little chance of repeat business in any short time frame.

It's about selling in volume. That's what made Wal-Mart.

In 2004, the top 5% of the economic bracket controlled over 58% of the wealth. That was a long time ago, now the figure is skewed even more in favor of the rich.

Sorry, but you're wrong.

Re:We're supposed to be concerned?!?!

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Titles on the subject of gay rape disappear from Amazon and we're supposed to be concerned. WTF is wrong with you?

I actually value individual freedom, instead of just spouting off about "freedom" but not actually meaning it. Freedom is a virtue. I value the freedom of every person to choose for themselves. Most people clearly do not. I don't really want to read about incest for the most part. Nor do I want to read about white power or intelligent design. I still value companies that make it their policy to not make those choices on my behalf, but to be impartial and allow every individual to make other choices.

I understand that Amazon is a private company and they have the right to carry anything they want and not carry anything they want. I'm sure this move will make them more money. I just don't approve of it and will spend my money elsewhere whenever possible because unlike most Americans I value individual freedom, including freedom to make choices I disapprove of.

Why do you hate freedom? WTF is wrong with you?

Re:This isn't censorship

[zeroshade]

While he might not be polite, the "fucking moron" is entirely correct. So, who is actually the moron?

Re:This isn't censorship

[zeroshade]

Technically, yes. You are engaging in censorship. A parent's right to censor material for their children the believe to be inappropriate is just a type of censorship that is generally accepted. It doesn't change the fact that it is, by definition, censorship.

Re:Oh but ....

[Chris Pimlott]

Morality and ethics are not exclusively defined by what is legal.

Or in other words, it is not the end-all and be-all argument to say "it's legal so you should have no problem with it".

What Do You Mean "We," Paleface?

[RobotRunAmok]

You assume that all geeks are automatically outraged by Amazon's decision not to distribute the books in question.

You assume a lot.

Re:What Do You Mean "We," Paleface?

[Algorithmnast]

No such assumption - I used the term "where their outrage was".

If there is no outrage, then that is an empty set, and there's no call to action.

Re:What Do You Mean "We," Paleface?

[Algorithmnast]

"Paleface"?? A racist comment coupled with an assumption?

While I don't read or write Cherokee, my ancestry goes right through that tribe, and through the Trail of Tears, and most of my relatives still live within a few hours of Talequah, the capital of the Cherokee Nation.

Hypocrisy is often ironic.

Re:What Do You Mean "We," Paleface?

[BBTaeKwonDo]

Deep breath, dude. The line is from an old joke about the Lone Ranger. LR and Tonto are surrounded by hundreds of Indians preparing to attack.
LR: "Tonto, we're surrounded. There's no way to escape. It looks like we're doomed."
Tonto: What Do You Mean 'We,' Paleface?
The joke is only funny if you know that Tonto was extremely loyal and would never desert LR.

Generally, jokes aren't considered racist if they're complimenting a member of the supposedly-affronted race.

Re:What Do You Mean "We," Paleface?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

I imagine it would be quite difficult for any self respecting intellectual not to be disgusted by Amazon's actions here. Since most geeks claim to be intellectual in some sense, I would infer that most geeks in fact regard this censorship as contemptful.

Re:What Do You Mean "We," Paleface?

[RobotRunAmok]

Oh, get off your high horse, ferchrissake.

Just because a book exists does not bind a bookseller to stock it, any more than iTunes is under any obligation to sell music from your favorite bar band. If Amazon wants to "make a statement" by not selling gay pedophiliac titles, or even books with the word "Red" in the title, that's their call. Maybe Barnes & Noble will step up to fill the void, and grab all the gay pedophiliac (and sympathetic geek) patronage that Amazon will lose.

Yeah, I can just imagine THAT marketing campaign...

Re:What are we supposed to discuss?

[ScentCone]

Poor people do not have a voice. Homeless people do not have a voice. Thus it is not a democracy.

They are being stopped from attending their city, county, and state hearings and public events in what way? They are stopped from voting in what way? In fact, groups like ACORN were famous for giving more help to those people - in terms of voting - than they were to "typical" middle class voters.

Re:What are we supposed to discuss?

[Rob the Bold]

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

For one thing, we could discuss that rather strange rationale. Banning fictional accounts of one particular type of illicit activity? We seem to like logic and consistency here, is there a way to explain Amazon's rationale for banning fictional incest but not fictional murder, e.g?

Re:What are we supposed to discuss?

[ScentCone]

the figure is skewed even more in favor of the rich

Which is especially worrisome because the wealth of the country is a fixed amount, and has been for centuries. Every time somebody gives birth, the wealth of the country is divided into smaller and smaller shares, which is why poor people today live exactly like poor people in the 1800's, with their complete lack of refridgeration, television, and antibiotics, all of which are owned by rich people.

Re:Legal and normal

[mlts]

IIRC, it wasn't censorship of why 1984 and Animal farm were pulled; it was disputes about Amazon's right to carry those books. This mechanism likely kept Amazon from suffering the same fate as MP3.com where the big record labels sued that company into component quarks because of the MP3 locker service they offered.

Re:What are we supposed to discuss?

[zeroshade]

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.

Re:What are we supposed to discuss?

[commodore64_love]

>>>the wealth of the country is divided into smaller and smaller shares, which is why poor people today live exactly like poor people in the 1800's

Brilliant sarcasm.
Way to hoist that
guy on his own petard.

Re:This isn't censorship

[Qzukk]

to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <censor the news>; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable <censor out indecent passages>

-- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor (verb)

Funny, Merriam-Webster thinks it means what he thinks it means. And yes, if you suppress or delete anything considered objectionable so your kids don't see it, you're censoring it.

Amazon is fully within their rights to censor it, and we're fully within our rights to call them out on it.

Re:Warning: libertardian prattle above

[commodore64_love]

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.

Re:What are we supposed to discuss?

[mcgrew]

The king gets a ten thousand votes, the lords get a thousand votes each, and the peasant gets one vote. That's feudalism, not democracy.

Re:not the first

[dougisfunny]

Just because the person Kirk kissed was green it doesn't count?

Re:What are we supposed to discuss?

[butchersong]

I'm from rural eastern Kentucky and know plenty of poor people. Most, even those that live in shacks have at least one car, satellite tv and mess of food stamps enabling them to eat way more than they need to because basically all they do all day is sit around eating and watching tv. Money is not some finite resource that gets smaller across generations. It is a unit of 'labor' and you can't even begin to compare worker productivity now vs the 1800s.

Re:We're supposed to be concerned?!?!

[Courageous]

There are plenty of people who will sell literature fantasizing about the rape of other people if you wish to read it. For that matter, there is an endless supply of free material on that subject.

Amazon should be removing such material from their site because in the long it will be poor for their corporate branding. Removing it is merely good corporate stewardship. Getting all uppity about it is just silly.

Amazon is not impeding your freedom at all; however I am detecting the vague sentiment that you would like to impede THEIR freedom.

C//

Business can do what it wants

[benwiggy]

When people say "They are business, it's not censorship. They can sell whatever they want", I am reminded of the following:

Giosué Orefice: "No Jews or Dogs Allowed." Why do all the shops say, "No Jews Allowed"?
Guido: Oh, that. "Not Allowed" signs are the latest trend! The other day, I was in a shop with my friend the kangaroo, but their sign said, "No Kangaroos Allowed," and I said to my friend, "Well, what can I do? They don't allow kangaroos."
Giosué Orefice: Why doesn't our shop have a "Not Allowed" sign?
Guido: Well, tomorrow, we'll put one up. We won't let in anything we don't like. What don't you like?
Giosué Orefice: Spiders.
Guido: Good. I don't like Visigoths. Tomorrow, we'll get a sign: "No Spiders or Visigoths Allowed."

La vita é bella, Roberto Begnini.

Re:What are we supposed to discuss?

[mcgrew]

Nice straw man, I said nothing of the sort. What I said had nothing to do with taxes or income redistribution, it has to do with the fact that "voting with your wallet" isn't democracy. In a democracy, everone has one vote and only one vote.

Re:We're supposed to be concerned?!?!

[Courageous]

Amazon needs to be concerned that material of the type they deleted will stain their corporate branding and eventually find them in news articles of the type they can ill afford. It is good corporate stewardship for them to stay away from edgy sorts of porn and other such. Mocking me will not make this any less true.

Re:Warning: libertardian prattle above

[FourthAge]

If Ayn Rand books were the ones being censored, then Slashdot would have nothing to say.

If our society really did get back to book-burning, then Rand would be an early choice. I think this martyrdom is rather undeserved in her case, since there are far more dangerous authors, but being aware of the Streisand effect, we must expect any book that is widely burned to also be widely read. So, it is clearly better to burn the books that are simply believed to be dangerous, rather than the books that actually are, which should be disposed of quietly.

As to governments versus corporations, have some sense of proportion. You are trying to create a moral equivalency between despotic governments and major corporations, which suggests you have no sense of the scale at which these very different organisations operate.

Re:What are we supposed to discuss?

[mcgrew]

Amazon has a game both Bob and I want, so does Troll and Toad. Amazon has it for 10$ and Troll and Toad has it for 15$

You only have ten dollars, Bob has thirty dollars. Bob percieves that the T&T game is better than the A game (prettier box, playing pieces ceramic rather than plastic) and buys two of them. You can only afford the cheap shit.

Bob may be able to buy more things than you, and he's better than you and more successful

Now THAT'S inflammatory. If you think having more money than someone makes you a better person, I pity you.

Re:not the first

[Even on Slashdot FOE]

We're talking about Uhura, not the Orion slave girl.

Re:What are we supposed to discuss?

[FourthAge]

Brilliant! Yo MC Thatcher, pick it up:

"They would rather the poor were poorer,
Provided the rich were less rich."

Re:What are we supposed to discuss?

[jewens]

Sure it's fair. Remember everytime you cast a vote (i.e. shop at a business) you are diminishing your future ability to vote.

Sure Warren or Bill could ensure the success of their favorite establishment by spending a million dollars a day there but that doesn't take away from the competition's ability to earn business based on their own merit.

Re:We're supposed to be concerned?!?!

[Courageous]

Then you should go back to school for some reading comprehension since I explicitly stated the exact opposite in the post you're responding to.

The sentiment is that somehow they are impinging your freedom. Such remarks are a preamble to action; which is to say, regardless of your overt remarks, your covert sentiment is clear.

However, they Amazon is not impinging your freedom at all. You are not even a party to their decision or any of its consequences.

You never answered my question. Why do you hate freedom?

I didn't answer this question because it's an implied statement drawn most obviously from your imagination, saying nothing about me at all, and only things about you.

C//

Re:I can put tape over my own mouth too

[bangzilla]

But you "censor" every day when you choose what to watch (or not) on TV, or on the radio, or that which you read. By your argument that Amazon should be required to sell everything, you should be required to consume everything. Oh and while I'm at it - you're an idiot: "just like how 80% of all industries are monopolized by 3 to 4 corporations" it's called a monopoly because there is just one ("mono"), not "3 to 4". And i have no idea what you mean by your cliched "Business is about nothing" - Business is actually about transactions and exchange of value.

Re:What are we supposed to discuss?

[The Clockwork Troll]

plutocracy

Re:Oh but ....

[bangzilla]

Let's be clear, monopolies are not illegal. Illegality is only established when a monopoly is proven to be conducting itself in an anti-competitive nature.

Re:What are we supposed to discuss?

[budgenator]

I don't know about $500K but Maserati has a base MSRP of $118,900 to $136,300, Ferrari $192,000 to $310,543, McLaren has a MSRP of $245K, Then there is a big jump to the Bugatti Veryons with a base MSRP of $1,705,769 for the coupe and $1,990,064 for a convertible, but a convertible that goes 254MPH just seems wrong. I can't imagine them doing to much volume with those.

Re:Will the Bible be next?

[flaming error]

Yeah, but those are in the Old Testament, which doesn't count anymore. (Except, of course, for the parts that still do count.)

Re:Warning: libertardian prattle above

[Anonymous Coward]

"Okay. Please cite an example of this where a corporation committed murder & was not punished by the law."

The tobacco industry has killed millions, if not billions, peddling a known chemically addictive and lethal substance with no remorse. And not only are they not punished by law, they're often protected by it.

It's simple, really

[CAIMLAS]

It's simply, really, and anyone who didn't fail economics 101 and/or adheres to radical anti-societal social beliefs would realize it for what it is:

If you're selling a lot of everything, and one of your items offends more people to the point of complaining or not returning to your place of business than it brings in in lost sales, you do not sell said offensive item.

I don't care if it's a plush Barney toy or a piss and shit painting of Mohammed the Dog. Not selling said offensive item makes sense when you've got a 'universal marketplace', as Amazon does.

This is not censorship. They've just decided it isn't in their best interest to sell these specific items. (This is illustrated by actual works of fiction with merit - by Hienlien - still being sold through their store.)

In other news, I've seen other, completely innocent items (as well as several vendors) yanked from Amazon. Why? Those vendors and/or items were shit, and bad for business. Is that censorship too, or can you admit that such a practice might just be in the better interest of its customer base?

Re:It's simple, really

[geekoid]

It is censorship; however Amazon isn't guilty of any crime. I'm not sure why people can't see that.

OTOH, they did also deletes purchased copies that people had backed up.

SHELL

[Anonymous Coward]

nuff said

Re:SHELL

[alexo]

nuff said

No, it's not "nuff", there's much more to be said:
- Union Carbide
- United Fruit Company
- ITT
- Blackwater

Re:Warning: libertardian prattle above

[jaypifer]

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

Re:What are we supposed to discuss?

[SydShamino]

Maybe if the amount "spent" on votes is distributed evenly amongst the voters, that could be corrected over time.

It's GDKP for politics!

Re:Warning: libertardian prattle above

[donutello]

You're just making the parents argument that government power should be limited. All you've done is listed examples of governments abusing their power.

Re:What are we supposed to discuss?

[SomeKDEUser]

woooosh.

Re:What are we supposed to discuss?

[butchersong]

Ah sarcasm... yeah I need to work on that.

Re:What are we supposed to discuss?

[Bigjeff5]

I don't see why you are so antagonistic when you are making the GP's point. It's like he said "You can't pump the gas until you put the nozzle in the gas tank" and you respond with "No you idiot, you have to put the nozzle in the gas tank first! Then you can pump the gas!"

Uhhh... Yeah, that's exactly what he said.

Anyway apparently neither of you has heard of Ferrari, or Maserati, or Bugatti, or Lamborghini, or Rolls Royce, or Bentley, or Mclaren, or any of the dozens of other super-expensive car manufacturers.

These companies regularly do runs of 100 some-odd $500k+ cars. Most all of them have cars that cost $1m each. The Bugatti Veyron Super-Sport costs almost $3m - there are only going to be 30 of them. That's $90m revenue for 30 cars.

Note that the 300 Veyron's sold so far brought in about $500m. I have no idea what the profit margins might be on these things, but that's an assload of money for 300 cars.

Re:Not Censorship -- Freedom

[cheekyjohnson]

You're wrong. Amazon is censoring it. While it's true that the government isn't doing it and they can go elsewhere, Amazon is still censoring the material on their end (which they're allowed to do). Technically, it is still censorship.

Re:What are we supposed to discuss?

[Bigjeff5]

You have no idea what money actually is, just like so many other people. It's sad, really.

Re:Warning: libertardian prattle above

[GreatBunzinni]

It's bad when either of these organizations do it, but the difference is that 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.

And guess who actually controls governments or at least manipulates them?

Re:Warning: libertardian prattle above

[geekoid]

Yes, because the government is just one body.

I bet you got an F in civics.

Re:Warning: libertardian prattle above

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster

You're welcome.

I suggest you look a tad bit harder

[geekoid]

Here is a dew definition right off the top of a search:

Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations as determined by a censor.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

The use of state or group power to control freedom of expression, such as passing laws to prevent media from being published or propagated
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/censorship

censor - ban: forbid the public distribution of ( a movie or a newspaper)
censor - someone who censures or condemns
censor - subject to political, religious, or moral censorship; "This magazine is censored by the government"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

The practice of suppressing a text or part of a text that is considered objectionable according to certain standards.
www.medialit.org/reading_room/article565.html

is the removal or withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body. Typically censorship is done by governments, religious groups, or the mass media, although other forms of censorship exist

Re:Warning: libertardian prattle above

[Stiletto]

What's the difference between "the government screwing you on its own" and "a corporation gets the government to screw you"? I say there is no difference whatsoever. The final output is: you're screwed. The government is the muscle used to enforce corporate will.

I would argue that there is no government censorship in the USA. Companies decide they want to censor, and the government is merely the implementor.

I'm Curious

[Xaedalus]

How DID the congregation react?

Re:I'm Curious

[Aqualung812]

How DID the congregation react?

About 1/3 knowingly nodded, about 1/3 got wide-eyed & looked at each other, and the remaining 1/3 looked pissed that he would say such a thing. I think he got letters after that one.

So, yeah, about 2/3 of the people had not really read the Bible, which I expect to some extent (who knows how long they have been following this faith), but was also revealing to me.

Re:I'm Curious

[omarius]

I've been reading the NLT Bible on the one-year plan (done tomorrow!) and the one that really surprised me was the reference to horse cocks.

Re:Warning: libertardian prattle above

[ultranova]

If Ayn Rand books were the ones being censored, then Slashdot would have nothing to say.

I would. Much as I hate the evil little bitch and her fanclub, freedom of speech means that evil little bitches also get to say their piece, no matter how vile it might be.

Protip:

[GameboyRMH]

If you have an Amazon account, be sure to sign out and clear your cookies (including Flash cookies) before and after looking at whatever those are. If you use Private Browsing mode you should still clear your flash cookies before and after, only recent versions of Flash handle private browsing, and only with certain browsers.

Re:Warning: libertardian prattle above

[Omestes]

If Ayn Rand books were the ones being censored, then Slashdot would have nothing to say.

You have no basis for this statement. Slashdot would probably be one of the most vocal (for what its worth) opponents of Rand banning. Slashdot has a HUGE population of Randroids. One of the reasons I love it hear is that the strange extreme conservative Libertarians (who would be mad at censoring Rand because she is their messiah) are almost completely balanced by extreme liberal libertarians (who would be mad at censoring Rand because censorship is evil in itself, even if Rand was a nutter).

If our society really did get back to book-burning, then Rand would be an early choice.

I don't see this. A large portion of those in power have deified her, or at least her egotistical, self-serving, "philosophy". Again; you have no basis for this statement. ...but being aware of the Streisand effect, we must expect any book that is widely burned to also be widely read. So, it is clearly better to burn the books that are simply believed to be dangerous, rather than the books that actually are, which should be disposed of quietly.

This makes no sense. I think your reversing the effect of the so-called "Streisand effect" here. It would be more popular BECAUSE it is being burned, not being burned BECAUSE it is popular to be a proper case of the Streisand effect. I don't think Ayn Rand is terribly popular among the population, though perhaps more so than she actually deserves.

As to governments versus corporations, have some sense of proportion. Youre trying to create a moral equivalency between despotic governments and major corporations, which suggests you have no sense of the scale at which these very different organisations operate.

I'm not sure what your getting at here. The line between corporations and government has long been blurred. These days both are of a global scope, and some corporations are as ubiquitous in our daily lives as the government. Some corporations have operating budgets above that of many governments. Some corporations are basically standing militaries (Blackwater, or whatever they are called these days). Thanks to the modern American political climate, many corporations have far less oversight than the government. Many corporations are allowed to pass their own laws. We get all of our civic information from corporations (not governments), so they control the channels.

So who should I be more afraid of? I'm not really sure any more.

Corporations vs. Government; Hand vs. Body

[DragonWriter]

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.

It is, of course, true by definition that government has done anything corporations have done at least as much as corporations themselves have done it, because corporations are creatures of government, and therefore every act committed by a corporation is an act commited by government.

However, the legal fiction that corporations are private persons just like natural persons rather than organs of government results in corporations being free from all the Constitutional limitations on action that are placed on other creatures of government, and the particular manner in which they are constituted by government also makes their action less accountable to the citizenry than those of other organs of government power.

Re:Warning: libertardian prattle above

[MaskedSlacker]

And if you think the corporations will ever allow a limited government again....well...

How do you think the federal government got this way? The expansion of the corporate system in the 19th century. Homogenization of trade laws across the 50 states, the growth of the commerce clause, etc. All driven by the rise of big businesses (especially the railroads at the time).

Democracy vs. Plutocracy

[DragonWriter]

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

Um, if "dollars are your votes", that's a plutocracy, not a democracy.

Censorship

[DragonWriter]

But Amazon certainly has no 'official' capacity in any sense that doesn't render the word meaningless.

An official is someone who holds a position with defined authority (an office.) Someone in the Amazon corporate heirarchy holds an office within that heirarchy wherein they have the authority to determine, based on (among other considerations) content, what should and should not be distributed by Amazon. Insofar as such decisions are made based on content, those decisions are acts of censorship.

Re:What are we supposed to discuss?

[camperdave]

If the king gets his power as the result of an election (as opposed to through heredity, or through arm wrestling contests, or whatever), then yes, it is a democracy. Ten lords, or ten thousand peasants, could vote another way and the king would be out on his ear.

There's no particular reason why everyone should have an equal say. For example, why should the opinion of an uneducated person, unfamiliar with the issues, who decided on a whim to go vote because the bars were closed and he had nothing better to do, have as much weight as that of an educated person who has thought through the issues and who has come to an opinion that he thinks is just and fair for all?

Re:Warning: libertardian prattle above

[DamnStupidElf]

The very laws the gp is talking about provide for extra criminal charges for copyright violation. Have you taken a cell phone with a camera into a theater lately? The Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005 deputizes movie theaters (they can detain you with legal indemnity until police arrive if they suspect you recorded a movie) and criminalizes recording movies in a theater or leaking unreleased movies. This is in addition to existing civil and criminal penalties.

Re:Warning: libertardian prattle above

[commodore64_love]

Zero of those people were "killed by the tobacco industry". They killed themselves.

QFT. Just as surely as eating too much fat, or drinking too much beer, or driving your car over a cliff, is an act of suicide. The corporation didn't kill these people - they didn't force them to walk into gas chambers or stand in front of a firing squad.

Re:Warning: libertardian prattle above

[puto]

The United Fruit Company(now Chiquita) has killed in millions either via bullet, poverty, starvation, crippled infrastructure, and reduced education efforts in entirecountries. They are still operating.

Re:Private company

[Bigjeff5]

Actually you're wrong, it's still censorship. Censorship is simply an entity in a position of authority prohibiting works it finds objectionable. Amazon certainly has authority over what Amazon sells in its store, so removing any work from the Amazon store because they find the content to be objectionable is, be definition, censorship.

However, it's only censorship imposed by the government* that is truly evil. I have the option of shopping somewhere else if I don't like Amazon's censorship policies. For most people, moving out of the country because you disagree with your government's censorship policies is not an option. Therefore the only option is to fight against censorship from within the country.

It's just like discrimination - choosing between red and blue socks is discrimination. It's even a superficial criteria for discrimination - the color of the sock - but you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would tell you that discrimination between red and blue socks is evil.

Put discrimination in the context of the government, however, and the issue changes completely for specific situations (race, creed, religion, etc). There are still a lot of forms of discrimination that are just fine, even for the government. Choosing who gets to design the next big rocket, for example. Companies bid, and the government discriminates between them based on various criteria like cost, design quality, features, etc. It's a very good thing. It's only bad if the government discriminates against one of the companies for the sole reason that the project manager of said company is from Micronesia.

* Any entity that has similar authority over people would qualify, but generally only government fit the bill.

Re:What are we supposed to discuss?

[forkfail]

You do know that Adam Smith, in his (in)famous "The Wealth Of Nations" argued against monopolies and felt that governments were necessary to prevent them.

You really should read the source material before you trot out free market/invisible hand arguments.

Re:What are we supposed to discuss?

[mcgrew]

Yes, it is.

Re:What are we supposed to discuss?

[mcgrew]

So you're among those who would insist on IQ tests, literacy tests, and public affairs tests before a person is allowed to vote?

I hope you're not an American, because your ideas are VERY unAmerican. I may be a middle class person with a higher than normal IQ, but I'm no better than someone with a two digit IQ who works in a factory and never reads, and his vote should count just as much as mine.

One person, one vote. That's the American way.

Re:Warning: libertardian prattle above

[Anonymous Coward]

Union Carbide is perhaps the most famous case of corporate killing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster
Shell in the Niger Delta: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_delta
The Pfizer drug trials in Nigeria. The Nestle milk incidents.
An archaic but amazingly bloodthirsty case at the borders of libertarian economics and royal prerogative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Free_State

Re:Warning: libertardian prattle above

[TarPitt]

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

Use of privately hired security forces by corporations to murder individuals they oppose is a basic fact of US history:

A bit from the referenced article:

The company hired the Baldwin-Felts Detective Agency to protect the new workers and harass the strikers.

Baldwin-Felts had a reputation for aggressive strike breaking. Agents shone searchlights on the tent villages at night and fired bullets into the tents at random, occasionally killing and maiming people. They used an improvised armored car, mounted with a machine gun the union called the "Death Special," to patrol the camp's perimeters. The steel-covered car was built in the CF&I plant in Pueblo, Colorado from the chassis of a large touring sedan. Frequent sniper attacks on the tent colonies drove the miners to dig pits beneath the tents where they and their families could be better protected.

Private corporations would contract out their security functions to firms like Baldwin-Felts and Pinkerton, with results similar to those described in the Ludlow Massacre.

This is the reality behind the libertarian fantasy of a weakened government unable to protect the citizens at large, coupled with wealthy corporations able to hire what is in effect a privatized police force.

Re:Warning: libertardian prattle above

[clarkkent09]

Please stop blaming corporations for government corruption. As long as there are politicians with the power to help or ruin any business (and with their hand aggressively extended in the direction of those businesses) there will be no choice for any industry or individual company but to play ball and to spend time and money on competing for influence in Washington instead of spending it on innovating and competing in the marketplace.

Re:Warning: libertardian prattle above

[clarkkent09]

Once, for an actual assignment, I tried to find some real counter arguments to Ayn Rand's philosophy and all I find is either idiotic ad hominem abuse like this or literary criticisms of her writing style/plot/characters etc which is an epic case of missing the point. If you know of any please feel free to provide them.

They're not actually stopping anyone from reading

[Rix]

You can load .mobi files on your Kindle without asking Amazon's permission. It's no more censorship than your local bookstore declining to order a box of your books is.

And really, it's just about money. Amazon doesn't want to spend money looking in to whether or not your use of rape or incest has literary worth or not. They're happy to sell works including that if someone else ponies up the cash for editorial review, as evidenced by all the Heinlein in their store, but they don't want to sift through all the slash fiction garbage on the internets.

Re:Not censorship

[SnarfQuest]

But, I prefer to buy my bicycle from Taco bell! How dare they censor my choices like this!

Re:Warning: libertardian prattle above

[dgatwood]

Come on. You can't be serious? Even schoolchildren know that sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me. Censorship is wrong because it is attacking something that fundamentally cannot cause true harm (with very few narrow exceptions like libel, which are and should continue to be disallowed). And you're comparing this to preventing people from selling dangerous products that are known to kill people?

Re:Not censorship....

[DamnStupidElf]

Just like not serving black people in your restaurant isn't racism. It's just a business decision if some of your customers or community leaders don't like to eat with black people, after all.

Re:Not censorship....

[msauve]

LOL. Worst analogy evar! The logical result of your reasoning is that a retailer should have no choice in what products they sell.

Re:Warning: libertardian prattle above

[dgatwood]

This makes no sense. I think your (sic) reversing the effect of the so-called "Streisand effect" here. It would be more popular BECAUSE it is being burned, not being burned BECAUSE it is popular to be a proper case of the Streisand effect. I don't think Ayn Rand is terribly popular among the population, though perhaps more so than she actually deserves.

No, the GP got it right. The GP's comment was that if you burn any piece of literature, the fact that it is taboo will inherently make it increase in popularity. Thus, you should only publicly burn ostensibly subversive or dangerous materials, and you should dispose of the truly subversive or dangerous materials surreptitiously so as not to draw attention to their existence.

Re:Not censorship....

[Duradin]

A retailer not having a choice in what products they sell does seem to be a common opinion here. (It's for freedom of course.)

Re:They should call Amazon a special interest stor

[HeronBlademaster]

I think your definition of "an entire class of titles" is different from mine. There can't have been that many gay rape fantasy books... and if there were, I don't really want to know about them.

Or is it your opinion that Barnes & Noble is not a "general interest" bookstore because they don't carry rape fantasy books in their brick and mortar stores? Is it your opinion that a bookstore must carry books from every conceivable genre before they can be considered a "general interest" bookstore?

The term "general interest" merely refers to "stuff most of the population would be interested in." I have a hard time believing gay rape fantasy falls into that category.

Credit card companies used in the same manner.

[areyouserial]

Also, don't forget the way those with state power in America routinely lean on the near-monopoly in the credit card industry to effectively censor ideas they don't like, as in the example of the website Insex, who's owner received a visit from the FBI when they cut off his credit card processing because "it was rumored that 'terrorists' were using violent pornography as a means of laundering money". WINK WINK, NOD NOD. That gasping is the sound of your freedom of expression being extinguished. The feds are using the same playbook with wikileaks now.

Are they going to read every book to find them?

[Kickstart70]

Take, for example, Piers Anthony's Bio of a Space Tyrant series...brother and sister sleep together and their relationship is an important theme throughout the book. However, the basic plot is not about incest, it's about the rise of a diplomat in a Space Opera. So, is it just books that are "about incest" or those that have that element within them? Where's the dividing line?

Not really analogous

[snowwrestler]

We're talking about the products that Amazon sells, not the people who buy from Amazon. Besides, what is the alternative? The government forcing bookstores to distribute certain books, or every book? That doesn't make sense to me. There's no "right" to have your book published, sold or bought, no matter what it's about.

Re:Warning: libertardian prattle above

[10101001 10101001]

Just as surely as eating too much fat,

Well, any tobacco is "too much tobacco". Beyond that, you don't actually need tobacco but fats are needed in the body.

or drinking too much beer,

Yet you can readily drink beer daily without ill effect if consumed in small enough quantities. In fact, it might even be healthy for you. That's not true for tobacco.

or driving your car over a cliff,

Which is outright misuse of a car. Is smoking a cigarette outside the advertised purpose of a cigarette?

is an act of suicide.

Right, in the same vein as lighting up a cigarette and using the burning edge to cause repetitive trauma to the body to induce death. That's not really what's being talked about.

The corporation didn't kill these people - they didn't force them to walk into gas chambers or stand in front of a firing squad.

No. They just lied for decades that tobacco was safe. So, if a corporation tells you those gas chambers are perfectly safe to stand in and let you turn on the valve, they're not at all at fault for killing you. Oh, and yes, once it becomes apparently they're lying, then it does move much more into the realm of suicide. But, that doesn't explain all the still extant corporations and their management which lied for years and still hasn't been punished (and taking a cut of their money doesn't count; that just really makes the government a complicit party).

Re:Warning: libertardian prattle above

[ultranova]

Once, for an actual assignment, I tried to find some real counter arguments to Ayn Rand's philosophy and all I find is either idiotic ad hominem abuse like this or literary criticisms of her writing style/plot/characters etc which is an epic case of missing the point. If you know of any please feel free to provide them.

Atlas Shrugged - which Rand wrote as an introduction to her philosophy - is a silly superhero fantasy about an ubermensch engineer coming up with a magical generator and retreating from the world along with his equally superhuman businessman buddies, at which point the world collapses. This is accompanied by a rambling speech dozens of pages long, and an apparent rape fetish. Oh, and it also extolls the virtues of smoking, presumably because Rand herself smoked and couldn't keep her personal habits separate from her wrk. What the heck do you expect the responses to be, when this crap is represented as "philosophy" and evidence for the virtues of selfishness - and the evilness of altruism - the woman preached?

Objectivism isn't really a philosophy, it's a bunch of assertions about the nature of reality and human nature, and many of those assertions are flat-out wrong, those about the nature of selfishness perhaps most obviously so: selfish people don't debate whether it's in accordance to their nature as human to take something or not, they simply take and be done with it. That, alone, is sufficient to invalidate her conclusions about what the best political system might be.

None of this would really matter if objectivism was confined to academia; unfortunately, as noted above, it isn't. Objectivism has political goals which, due to the erroneous assertions at its core, tend to create truly destructive consequences when implemented. And, much as I hate to say this, calm and reasoned debate on politics is not effective for stopping said policy, while mud-slinging is.

Re:Warning: libertardian prattle above

[Xyrus]

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.

You're right. They also wouldn't have any influence over the financial system or businesses, which would have turned this country into a broke, polluted, husk by now. Companies are not interested in morality or doing the right thing, as has been demonstrated repeatedly.

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.

Are you talking about outright gunning people down or directing, instigating, or influencing actions that lead to loss of life? Are you talking about this country or countries where the companies do business? Are you counting immediate deaths or deaths over time? Let's get specific here. For example, the Union Carbide incident in India was pretty nasty. Arguably tobacco companies have been helping people kill themselves for a few decades now. So on and so forth.

Gunning people down is too messy. Bad press. Companies are a bit more subtle, and given their resources and connections if they wanted to "suicide" someone you can be sure it would only be reported as a suicide.

Over 150 million people were murdered by their OWN governments during this past century. Have corporations ever mass-exterminated that many people?

Over the past century? No. Governments tend to kill quickly. Companies are out for profit. There's no profit in killing your slaves^H^H^H workers quickly.

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.

Any companies using under-developed nations to get around environmental and safety regulations.

Re:Warning: libertardian prattle above

[clarkkent09]

Actually, I was asking for rational counter-arguments from someone who has actually read and understood what she wrote, which means that your response does not qualify. It simply demonstrates the continuing inability of her opponents to come up with anything other than yet more ridiculous personal attacks (an interesting question for psychologists: why does any conservative female, but not necessarily male, attracts such a high amount of vicious over the top hatred from those who disagree with her?). What does her smoking have to do with anything? What does the length of a speech have to do with anything? What rape fetish? You are responding to her alleged assertions by making your own assertion that they are wrong with nothing to back it up. By the way, not that it matters, but most of what you said is incorrect:
 
  Atlas Shrugged - which Rand wrote as an introduction to her philosophy - is a silly superhero fantasy about an ubermensch engineer coming up with a magical generator and retreating from the world along with his equally superhuman businessman buddies, at which point the world collapses.
 
Totally wrong. Atlas Shrugged is really about the harm that government coercion in all its forms does, especially when it comes to the control of industry. It was written at a time when central planning and nationalization of industry were still popular themes among the left in the US and the disaster that those policies produced in the Soviet Union were not fully understood. It was exaggerated in order to make those harmful effects (which in reality happen over long time) more obvious.
 
  Objectivism isn't really a philosophy
 
Yes, it is. You see, I can simply state things just as easily as you can.
 
  it's a bunch of assertions about the nature of reality and human nature, and many of those assertions are flat-out wrong, those about the nature of selfishness perhaps most obviously so: selfish people don't debate whether it's in accordance to their nature as human to take something or not, they simply take and be done with it. That, alone, is sufficient to invalidate her conclusions about what the best political system might be.
 
I didn't understand that at all so I can't reply to it. Try saying something intelligible.
 
  Objectivism has political goals which, due to the erroneous assertions at its core, tend to create truly destructive consequences when implemented.
 
Please provide an example of when objectivism was implemented and what destructive consequences has it produced.
 
  And, much as I hate to say this, calm and reasoned debate on politics is not effective for stopping said policy, while mud-slinging is.
 
Absolutely wrong. It is ideas that matter in the long run. This is why, despite a long history of mud slinging against them, her books are among the best selling and most influential in history.

Re:Warning: libertardian prattle above

[datsa]

Okay. Please cite an example of this where a corporation committed murder & was not punished by the law.

Here you go: http://killercoke.org/

I'm sure you can find many, many examples of US-based corporations doing horrible things to people, mostly to factory workers in third world countries.

Since you're only thinking about what corporations do in the US (which has a strong government with laws to protect its citizens from corporations), you come to the incorrect conclusion that governments are violent and corporations are not.

Have corporations ever mass-exterminated that many people?

Could governments have committed the violence they did (and continue to do) without help from private industry? Weapons are manufactured by the private sector.

Unfair insinuation about Heinlein?

[Jane Q. Public]

AFAIK, where Heinlein discusses these topics, it is in the context of philosophically interesting (and perhaps challenging) edge-cases. And he did not preach about it, except to point out (quite properly) that sometimes society's rules do not really make much sense.

OP did not exactly say so, but I got the impression he was implying that Heinlein was advocating incest or pedophilia. If so, I do not believe that is a completely honest characterization.

Re:Warning: libertardian prattle above

[shaitand]

"If the constitution was enforced the US Congress would not have the power to bailout AIG."

Enforced by whom? Which branch of government benefits by having its powers checked by the constitution? The congress which makes unconstitutional laws and refuses to appoint any supreme court judge unless they swear continuously for hours, days, or weeks that they won't 'legislate from the bench' aka nullify or weaken laws which infringe on the rights of the people. The executive branch who converted a collection of largely independent states with their own citizens and independent citizen militias into a federal army and federal citizens? Or perhaps its the judicial branch who decided they were better at interpreting what is just and unjust than the people and unilaterally gave themselves the authority to override the people's voice in the peoples only direct check against unjust laws and government, jury verdicts and jury nullification?

It is impossible to reform the system from within the system. To even begin to do this you would have to try to accumulate the power to effect change and it is people doing just that which resulted in our present state.

The only way anything is going to change in this country is via revolution. In this nation of weak stomached individuals who think that a few unstable children who can't handle 'cyber bullying' is a reasonable justification for eliminating free speech (aka anonymous speech) I'm not holding my breath.

"people will wake up to the fact that ..."

[booyabazooka]

I doubt it, because they're catering to the majority. Most will never notice that some incest-related books are missing from Amazon. A lot of the people who do find out about the ban will probably approve of it. Very few will make any connection whatsoever to the fundamental nature of digital restrictions management systems.

Re:Warning: libertardian prattle above

[shaitand]

"Exactly. How is it that people who are so afraid of "censorship" are also the ones that want the government to control everybody else's actions?"

That is how the two party system is rigged. It doesn't matter which one you pick or which one is in power. Only the portions of their agenda which are bad for the people are going to happen.

What if I am opposed to censorship, support the right to bear arms and believe in it as a way to counteract the power of the police and government, am opposed to liability shelters such as corporations, believe in a return to state rights, believe in a return to jury nullification, believe in a return to the constitution including the part that says that all powers that weren't explicitly granted to government stay in the hands of the people, and don't believe in nanny laws including the audacity of government to claim it has the authority to tell citizens who aren't endangering others which medications/drugs they can have or use and when. Oh and lets not forget, believes that police and other officials should be subject to the law and have to answer to the same courts and the same charges the rest of us do when they break it.

In other words, where is the party that wants to weaken government, check the wealthy, and empower the people?

Re:Warning: libertardian prattle above

[shaitand]

Even libel needs to be narrowed. It shouldn't matter if my opinion hurts your reputation or your business I'm entitled to have one and express it. Right now truth is usually a defense, anything short of demonstrable falsification should be proof against libel.

Re:What are we supposed to discuss?

[camperdave]

So when did America become a democracy? 1870, when non-whites were allowed to vote? 1920, when women were allowed to vote? Or perhaps it was 1965, when the poor were allowed to vote? Was it perhaps 1788 when the second constitution was ratified? Or 1777, when the first constitution was adopted?

My choice: 1789, the year of the first US election; the year when the people chose who would rule over them.

Re:Amazon's action is not censorship

[tkprit]

I gotta agree -- I hate 'censorship'-proper, but being selective is a service to the consumer, and Amazon's got to make that choice.

Anyway, part of being a published author is the quest to get your work published. Heinlein earned the right over time (DECADES) to get just about anything published; Number of the Beast wouldn't have seen the light of day if it hadn't been for his earlier works.

I think Kyle Michel Sullivan is doing the groundwork to BECOME such an author, and I wish him well. I bet if his stuff sells, Amazon will review their submission criteria.

Amazon Cannot Censor

[AP31R0N]

Governments censor. Companies have every right in the world to not carry something.

Re:What are we supposed to discuss?

[shaitand]

The wealth of the country is not fixed. But the wealth of the world IS fixed. The world doesn't gain more natural resources. The only thing that is really variable is man hours.

I'm sorry but just because the average quality of life has improved doesn't make it okay for the minority to enjoy the majority of our nation's output while contributing the least to it.

The idea that manager or CEO hours are worth more than a laborers is a myth. There are only 24hrs in a day for each of us and manager isn't even an especially skilled position being a freeloader err... investor is an even less skilled position. Most of the top 5% aren't even doing the investing they just write the checks and collect the cream.

The top 5% may take credit for the labor of the other 95% but nothing would grind to a halt without them. We'd be better off feeding the freeloading bastards to the fishes and using their wealth to buy natural resources from other nations.

Re:We're supposed to be concerned?!?!

[shaitand]

"However, they Amazon is not impinging your freedom at all. You are not even a party to their decision or any of its consequences."

Amazon controls 90% of the book market. 90% of the book market is a party to the consequences of this decision.

How can you possibly claim that Amazon's officers have a right to censor their marketplace but their customers have no right to consider the ethics of that choice when deciding whether to continue using Amazon's services?

Has the idea of the free market gone so far now that if customers hold a company accountable for their actions by voting with their dollars and encouraging others to do so its considered infringing on the rights of the company?

Re:Warning: libertardian prattle above

[TheTyrannyOfForcedRe]

Please cite an example of this where a corporation committed murder & was not punished by the law.

How about all the people who were killed by toxic poisons produced and promoted by corporations over the years. I'm sure you could easily find hundreds of examples. Here's one to start you off: Tetraethyl lead (TEL) added to gasoline. Ethyl Corp poisoned millions of Americans (pretty much all of them) with lead and was never punished.

"Death rates from a variety of causes have been found to be higher in people with elevated blood lead levels; these include cancer, stroke, and heart disease, and general death rates from all causes." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_poisoning

A more recent example: People living on top of natural gas "fracking" sites are dropping dead of cancer at an alarming rate.

What's up with Gilbert Grape

[uninformedLuddite]

apart from censorship? And NO I didn't read the article or even search Amazon's database. I like the new /.

Re:censorship = profit

[uninformedLuddite]

you had to mention feminists didn't you. I feel mind raped now.

Re:It's business, nothing personal.

[nharmon]

I totally suck at mind reading. However, in this case the story was posted as YRO, so it seems there is SOME sentiment there with regard to having the government step in.

Re:We're supposed to be concerned?!?!

[Courageous]

So When I explicitly write that I...

It is the dichotomy of both your reasonable response (taking your dollars elsewhere) and your unreasonable one (that Amazon is violating anyone's rights) that I am responding to.

Voting with one's dollars is a fine idea. However, Amazon is violating no one's rights. To say so is an invitation to action, because rights violations always are. Ethically and morally (and in a perfect world: legally), it is never okay to violate another's rights. To wit: if you really think they are violating another's RIGHTS, you are pretty passive about it by merely taking your dollars elsewhere.

Whatever else is true, I think you will fairly well stand alone if you attempt to find agreement that Amazon's decision to drop m/m gay rape porn from its inventory is violating anyone's rights (or "freedom") as you put it.

Another poster observes that Amazon exercises undue influence in the book market. This may be true, and is its own problem. I don't care to discuss monopoly power right now. What I will say is that if a private seller decides not to carry m/m gay rape porn, it is simply ABSURD to call this violating anyone's rights or "freedoms".

C//

Really

[kubernet3s]

Can someone explain to me why anyone would even bother buying a Kindle? So far, the only advantage to the Kindle is the ability to utilize Amazon's store, whose draconion control of their wares is getting out of hand. As some have commented, yes Amazon has a right to sell their product like this, and I have the right to sell shit in a dixie cup, but neither of us has the right to expect people to buy it and like it.

Putting aside the fact that most stuff outside of the public domain isn't worth reading anyway, it seems like a much smarter idea to invest in an off-brand e-reader which would let you do about as much as the Kindle, without the plus-hundo markup.

Re:We're supposed to be concerned?!?!

[Courageous]

Well first I'd like to clarify that the books dropped were not "rape porn" as you so badly mischaracterize them.

While I did not RTFA, I am quite confident in the summary. It referred to "m/m rape". Now, as someone with more than 20 years of experience with both porn and the internet, if the subject is not as I say, the error is certainly in the summary. Please do not blame me.

But they absolutely are taking away individual choice and acting against the principal of individual choice and freedom.

Your statement would hold equal merit if you accused Disney of the same thing by deciding not to carry films about the subject in its film inventory. Which is to say, no merit at all: laughably ridiculous.

How do you justify your anti-freedom stance?

It has to do with the number of thinking hours under my belt about what constitutes "freedom". To wit: you are perfectly free, and as are as free as you were before (withstanding arguments about antitrust, as you and I appear to both agree upon). You can still get the book you like, and Amazon can still not carry it. Both parties are "free". There is no "anti-freedom stance" here.

C//

Re:We're supposed to be concerned?!?!

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

While I did not RTFA, I am quite confident in the summary. It referred to "m/m rape". Now, as someone with more than 20 years of experience with both porn and the internet, if the subject is not as I say, the error is certainly in the summary. Please do not blame me.

The summary refers to "m/m gay fiction" with "rape" in the title. It does not refer to pornography, that was your own assumption. The books in question were, in fact, serious literature that happened to have homosexuality and had "rape" in the title. One was about a man trying to find justice for his family member who had been raped in prison and the difficulties of dealing with a prison and legal system that normalizes and condones rape as a means of punishment.

And I do blame you for making assumptions, not RTFA, and for not reading the other posts in this thread discussing in detail the types of books banned.

Your statement would hold equal merit if you accused Disney of the same thing by deciding not to carry films about the subject in its film inventory.

Not at all. If you can't see the difference between deciding what type of artistic work to create and intentionally removing existing artistic works from a store because you don't believe others should have the choice of reading them, then you fundamentally misunderstand the whole topic.

How do you justify your anti-freedom stance?

It has to do with the number of thinking hours under my belt about what constitutes "freedom".

"Freedom" isn't subject to your redefinition. Buy a dictionary. Freedom is me being able to make the choice about what book to buy without anyone interfering. In this case, Amazon is interfering by removing some of my choices (within a limited venue). Frankly, your lack of appreciation for individuals being able to choose for themselves is more than a little repugnant to me. You are what is wrong with this nation, people who don't see any harm in removing persona choices from others because they seem to think they "know better".

Re:What are we supposed to discuss?

[mcgrew]

We never were a democracy. We're a republic, just like the old USSR was.

Re:We're supposed to be concerned?!?!

[Courageous]

The summary refers to "m/m gay fiction" with "rape" in the title. It does not refer to pornography, that was your own assumption...

"m/m" is a special code word on the internet. If the summarizer lacked internet lingo skills, this is hardly my problem.

"Freedom" isn't subject to your redefinition. Buy a dictionary.

Perhaps you should try this yourself.

If you can't see the difference between deciding what type of artistic work to create and intentionally removing existing artistic works from a store...

I said "decided not to carry," not create. Amazon decided not to carry the product. Disney has also decided not to carry such products. Both decisions are the same.

Frankly, your lack of appreciation for individuals being able to choose for themselves is more than a little repugnant to me.

Your insistence that Amazon have obligations to carry something in order to cater to your notion of "freedom" is repugnant to ME. You are arguing, like a child, that Amazon should be LESS FREE in order to enhance your personal sense of entitlement, and having a temper tantrum about it.

C//

Re:We're supposed to be concerned?!?!

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The summary refers to "m/m gay fiction" with "rape" in the title. It does not refer to pornography, that was your own assumption...

"m/m" is a special code word on the internet. If the summarizer lacked internet lingo skills, this is hardly my problem.

I see your beliefs about personal responsibility run hand in hand with your beliefs about personal freedom. Blaming someone else for your ignorance because of your interpretation of a Slashdot summary and consequent failure to do any research on a topic before spouting is the hight of irresponsibility. Oh poor you, it was the summary writer's fault that you're ignorant, also your high school teachers, parents, and society in general. Certainly not you though, huh? Pathetic.

If you can't see the difference between deciding what type of artistic work to create and intentionally removing existing artistic works from a store...

I said "decided not to carry," not create.

Except you're talking about a media creator that sells their own works, not those of others. Fail.

Frankly, your lack of appreciation for individuals being able to choose for themselves is more than a little repugnant to me.

Your insistence that Amazon have obligations to carry something in order to cater to your notion of "freedom" is repugnant to ME.

They do have an ethical obligation to support individual choice. As do all people who value freedom. I certainly hope you have long since given up singing the Star Spangled Banner. All that freedom it talks about is dangerous. People might be able to choose to read fiction about our messed up legal system and how it encourages rape.

You are arguing, like a child, that Amazon should be LESS FREE in order to enhance your personal sense of entitlement, and having a temper tantrum about it.

Your reading comprehension certainly seems childish. I've stated no less than three times now that I believe Amazon should have the right to not carry certain products and that they should have the freedom to censor. Why do you insist on believing otherwise? Are you a moron?

I further insist that they have an ethical responsibility to support personal freedom and all freedom loving people should try to avoid doing business with them until they start supporting our individual right to make choices for ourselves about the type of literature we should read. I further believe this is important regardless of the type of material they are refusing to carry because that is irrelevant if you believe in the concept of Freedom.

Here's a crazy concept, I think people should be free to tell everyone "whites are a superior race and blacks are evil and we should vote to prevent them from having the right to vote". And guess what, while I support their right to say what they want, I still think they are freedom hating cocks and won't do business with them or vote for them or buy their lousy literature. Believing people are wrong and have a responsibility to promote freedom instead of lessen it is not mutually exclusive with protecting the rights and freedoms of those I'm criticizing. Try to wrap your tiny mind around that idea.

Enough, go live in your fantasy land and believe what you want, that companies have no responsibility to protect personal freedom and that you have no responsibility to actually research what you're talking about before shooting your mouth off. You sir, are ignorant, irresponsible, and un-american.

Re:We're supposed to be concerned?!?!

[Courageous]

Using the marker "m/m" on the internet is the same as saying gay porn, and has been for 20 years. No, I do not read every FA. But if the summarizer has it wrong, expect bad results.

Out of curiosity, does the definition matter? Suppose the article summary were correct. Are you "less free" if Amazon decides to not carry gay rape porn? The actual subject doesn't matter, as I don't think you are "less free" if Amazon decides to not carry ANY subject.

Disney has a content distribution network, the Disney Channel. They elect to not carry a wide variety of works on their channels. So goes with anyone making any decision to carry or not carry a product, consistent with their corporate branding.

In saying that Amazon "has a responsibility," you are foisting upon them an action. The action that you insist that they have (to carry inventory they don't want to carry, in order to give you the warm fuzzy feeling that if they did so your personal definition of "freedom" would increase) is a faulty sentiment.

Jump up and down, stomp your feet, pound your fists on the floor: this behavior will change nothing.

C//

Re:What are we supposed to discuss?

[camperdave]

Republics and Democracies are not mutually exclusive. A democracy is a system where the authority to rule is derived from the people, from the consent of the governed. The words "We the People" is a declaration of democracy.

A republic is a system in which power is exercised through elected representatives; people chosen by the people from among the people.

Canada is a republic. Power is exercised through elected representatives. However, that power is derived from a monarch, making it a monarchy. The US is a republic. Power is exercised through elected representatives. However, that power is derived from the people, making it a democracy.