4 ms·
> A particular bookseller choosing not to sell incest erotica does not constitute a book being "banned" or "censored", which only apply when the government forc
by abhaga 16y ago
> A particular bookseller choosing not to sell incest erotica does not constitute a book being "banned" or "censored", which only apply when the government forcibly prevents every bookseller from selling particular material.
Going by that logic, to "effectively" ban the book while not "technically" banning it, the govt just needs to pursue the top few channels to stop carrying it. Book will be effectively unavailable and everyone's conscience will be clean.
> I wouldn't sell incest erotica either, and that doesn't mean I ban or censor books.
But you would make that clear to everyone before starting to do business with them, right? Or if you decided to change your stand one day (which is quite plausible since things do change with time), you would perhaps offer a better reason then "Because I can"?
- m_eiman 16y agoGoing by that logic, to "effectively" ban the book while not "technically" banning it, the govt just needs to pursue the top few channels to stop carrying it. Book will be effectively unavailable and everyone's conscience will be clean. Hey, that sounds familiar. Say, for example, that some organization releases a bunch of more or less secret stuff, and you want to prevent them from getting donations to continue releasing stuff, you could just lean a bit on VISA and Mastercard…
- javert 16y ago> Going by that logic... The government didn't tell Amazon to stop carrying the book, so your point is irrelevant. > But you would... Well I haven't really thought about that, because in reading the post, I was just distracted by the exaggeration that I pointed out in my original comment.