Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Amazon Censorship Expands

Posted by samzenpus on from the seven-words-you-can-never-read dept.

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?"

16 of 764 comments (clear)

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

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

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

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

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

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

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    2. Re:Just wait. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      "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

    3. Re:Just wait. by BobMcD · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

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

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

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

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

    4. Re:Just wait. by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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."

  2. Meanwhile, on amazon: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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....

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

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

  3. How about this one? by Haedrian · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Cooking with Rapeseed oil"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  5. Re:Their choice by msauve · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  6. Re:What are we supposed to discuss? by mcgrew · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

    --
    Free Martian Whores!
  7. Re:Go Amazon! by locallyunscene · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

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

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

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

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

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

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

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

  9. Re:Warning: libertardian prattle above by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Informative

    >>>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.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  10. Re:Warning: libertardian prattle above by mikechant · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

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