6 ms·

It's still censorship, and some would prefer not to support businesses that arbitrarily censor speech.

by nopal 16y ago

middlegeek 16y ago
"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." It's not censorship.
- nopal 16y ago
  I read that before I posted. Amazon's the controlling body in this case. The controlling body need not have authority over the censored, e.g. media outlet. People have been complaining about Walmart censoring media for years. I don't see how this is any different.
  - middlegeek 16y ago
    They are a media outlet but it is not suppression. They are not stopping him from publishing that work and they are not stopping him from writing it. They are simply not taking part in the distribution.
    - nopal 16y ago
      I don't think we're going to agree on this, but one of the definitions of suppression is, "the act of withholding or withdrawing some book or writing from publication or circulation; 'a suppression of the newspaper'." Amazon is withdrawing these items from circulation.
      - middlegeek 16y ago
        "Amazon is withdrawing these items from circulation." They are not withdrawing it from circulation. THEY are choosing to not circulate it themselves. The author can circulate it where ever he likes as long as it is not Amazon. If Amazon was the only place that sold books I would be with you.
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  > media outlet
  - middlegeek 16y ago
    (As previously posted) They are a media outlet but it is not suppression. They are not stopping him from publishing that work and they are not stopping him from writing it. They are simply not taking part in the distribution.
- jerf 16y ago
  You're not playing the "cite a definition" game correctly. You neglected to include the reference to the presumably-a-dictionary you used. How am I supposed to go back to the same work, cite another subdefinition that has about a 50-50 chance of actually applying, and then argue that I'm correct while simultaneously invoking some half-assed "Amazon is really a newspaper, or maybe something involving cars" metaphor? The Internet has a well defined protocol for this dance! Anyhow, trying to shut things down by definition only works in mathematics. Redefining away what Amazon as "not censorship" won't mollify anybody, as they can still choose to be legitimately annoyed at the perfectly legal and arguably perfectly ethical actions Amazon have taken. Acting legally and even ethically doesn't mean you have the right to not be criticized. And, seeing as how if this is "not censorship" we don't actually have an English word for what it is... yeah, it's censorship. It's not government censorship, but it's censorship. It's also a sufficiently different kind of censorship that simply knee-jerk applying our attitudes towards government censorship may not be relevant, but English simply doesn't have the granularity to deal with this. That's OK. Everything works that way anyhow.
  - CodeMage 16y ago
    Okay, we don't have an English word for it, we have to use two words instead: quality control. Just because someone decided to publish a book, it doesn't mean Amazon must sell it. You can address that issue the same way author did it, by stating that Amazon sells stuff like "Hostel 2". Frankly, I haven't read the guys book and I haven't read Amazon's quality control policy (or whatever it's called) either, so I can't say whether the book fails the test. My point here is that most people commenting here can't say that either, for the same reasons. So why are some people so quick to side with the author and cry "censorship", when it might just be that his book is crap?
  - middlegeek 16y ago
    The first result on a Google search, but feel free to pick your favorite as the test still stands: http://www.google.com/search?q=censorship&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a http://www.google.com/search?q=censorship&ie=utf-8&o... Amazon is a media outlet but they are not suppressing his speech. They are not stopping him from publishing the work or even stopping him from writing it. They are choosing not to distribute it. Thus the suppression test fails and it is not censorship.
nopal 16y ago
I wanted to post an addendum. While I still hold that Amazon's actions are censorship, I do agree that they're within their rights to censor certain content and I believe they have to do so at certain times in order to maintain their image and appeal. From the description of the books given by the author, I don't think Amazon should have removed these books, but I understand why they did. Amazon needs to fight the perception that it's a purveyor of sickening material. Amazon could choose to take a stand for the First Amendment without regard to the loss of business, it could do so in hopes that it's position would attract new customers, or it can do what it's doing now. Each option has a valid argument. Ultimately Amazon has to do what it thinks is right, and as a business, that generally means doing what will have the least negative impact on profits. Fair enough. If Amazon's actions aren't acceptable to some, then those people can shop elsewhere or band together to give Amazon incentive to shift their policy.

It's still censorship, and some would prefer not to support businesses that arbitrarily censor speech.

by nopal 16y ago

It's still censorship, and some would prefer not to support businesses that arbitrarily censor speech.

"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." It's not censorship.

nopal 16y ago
I read that before I posted. Amazon's the controlling body in this case. The controlling body need not have authority over the censored, e.g. media outlet. People have been complaining about Walmart censoring media for years. I don't see how this is any different.
- middlegeek 16y ago
  They are a media outlet but it is not suppression. They are not stopping him from publishing that work and they are not stopping him from writing it. They are simply not taking part in the distribution.
  - nopal 16y ago
    I don't think we're going to agree on this, but one of the definitions of suppression is, "the act of withholding or withdrawing some book or writing from publication or circulation; 'a suppression of the newspaper'." Amazon is withdrawing these items from circulation.
    - middlegeek 16y ago
      "Amazon is withdrawing these items from circulation." They are not withdrawing it from circulation. THEY are choosing to not circulate it themselves. The author can circulate it where ever he likes as long as it is not Amazon. If Amazon was the only place that sold books I would be with you.
steveklabnik 16y ago
> media outlet
- middlegeek 16y ago
  (As previously posted) They are a media outlet but it is not suppression. They are not stopping him from publishing that work and they are not stopping him from writing it. They are simply not taking part in the distribution.
jerf 16y ago
You're not playing the "cite a definition" game correctly. You neglected to include the reference to the presumably-a-dictionary you used. How am I supposed to go back to the same work, cite another subdefinition that has about a 50-50 chance of actually applying, and then argue that I'm correct while simultaneously invoking some half-assed "Amazon is really a newspaper, or maybe something involving cars" metaphor? The Internet has a well defined protocol for this dance! Anyhow, trying to shut things down by definition only works in mathematics. Redefining away what Amazon as "not censorship" won't mollify anybody, as they can still choose to be legitimately annoyed at the perfectly legal and arguably perfectly ethical actions Amazon have taken. Acting legally and even ethically doesn't mean you have the right to not be criticized. And, seeing as how if this is "not censorship" we don't actually have an English word for what it is... yeah, it's censorship. It's not government censorship, but it's censorship. It's also a sufficiently different kind of censorship that simply knee-jerk applying our attitudes towards government censorship may not be relevant, but English simply doesn't have the granularity to deal with this. That's OK. Everything works that way anyhow.
- CodeMage 16y ago
  Okay, we don't have an English word for it, we have to use two words instead: quality control. Just because someone decided to publish a book, it doesn't mean Amazon must sell it. You can address that issue the same way author did it, by stating that Amazon sells stuff like "Hostel 2". Frankly, I haven't read the guys book and I haven't read Amazon's quality control policy (or whatever it's called) either, so I can't say whether the book fails the test. My point here is that most people commenting here can't say that either, for the same reasons. So why are some people so quick to side with the author and cry "censorship", when it might just be that his book is crap?
- middlegeek 16y ago
  The first result on a Google search, but feel free to pick your favorite as the test still stands: http://www.google.com/search?q=censorship&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a http://www.google.com/search?q=censorship&ie=utf-8&o... Amazon is a media outlet but they are not suppressing his speech. They are not stopping him from publishing the work or even stopping him from writing it. They are choosing not to distribute it. Thus the suppression test fails and it is not censorship.

nopal 16y ago

I wanted to post an addendum. While I still hold that Amazon's actions are censorship, I do agree that they're within their rights to censor certain content and I believe they have to do so at certain times in order to maintain their image and appeal. From the description of the books given by the author, I don't think Amazon should have removed these books, but I understand why they did. Amazon needs to fight the perception that it's a purveyor of sickening material. Amazon could choose to take a stand for the First Amendment without regard to the loss of business, it could do so in hopes that it's position would attract new customers, or it can do what it's doing now. Each option has a valid argument. Ultimately Amazon has to do what it thinks is right, and as a business, that generally means doing what will have the least negative impact on profits. Fair enough. If Amazon's actions aren't acceptable to some, then those people can shop elsewhere or band together to give Amazon incentive to shift their policy.