45 ms·

As dis-heartening as this story is, compared to a couple of years ago, it is encouraging to see lots of comments from people beginning to wake up to what is goi

As dis-heartening as this story is, compared to a couple of years ago, it is encouraging to see lots of comments from people beginning to wake up to what is going on with this craziness and not being modded here. Free speech is about protecting the right of the un-popular and views that some may find utterly repugnant. Why? because, as we are seeing with all of the woke craziness, when you don't stand up for everyones ability (including views you do not like) to freely speak, the censorship will end up being turned against you. The key things with all of this, is that if enough people were to collectively have the courage to push back against this craziness it would stop...people recognizing that there is a problem is a good first step.

anonisko 6y ago
Too many people support the development of powerful weapons without considering what happens when their enemies get a hold of them.
- illirik 6y ago
  The “weapon” here is just basic conscientiousness. A publisher decided to stop publishing some books because they denigrate people, and eBay decided that they did not want to be facilitating the sale of books that denigrate people. We are not talking about an H-bomb - there is no power structure wielding a “cancel button” here.
  - stef25 6y ago
    > there is no power structure wielding a “cancel button” here There absolutely is. Ebay is nipping in the bud a potential social media lynching. One misstep nowadays and the CEO spends weeks grovelling about how they're still learning and are determined to do better and thank you Twitter mob for pointing this out. You can't buy Doctor Seuss, but you can buy "The Anarchist Arsenal", hydrogen peroxide, acetone and a few pounds of screws in the same cart. Edited typo by / buy
    - legutierr 6y ago
      I hope the irony isn’t lost on you that you are using the word “lynching”—which in its literal, non-metaphorical usage refers to the terroristic murder of racial minorities in the United States—to refer to the non-violent use of cultural power by members of those same minority groups to demand respect from institutions and powerful individuals. You may think that some of these demands have gone too far, and you may believe that some institutions have been too obsequious in adhering to these demands, but surely you must admit that the use of the word “lynching” in this context is offensive, no?
      - pm90 6y ago
        I can’t help but point out the incredible situation where you are engaging in precisely the kind of behavior that the person you’re replying to seems to have issue against : )
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        legutierr 6y ago
        And what behavior is that, precisely? Pointing out that certain usage of language can be offensive? That we shouldn’t be unintentional when causing offense? That if we cause offense intentionally, we shouldn’t be surprised by the reaction of the party we have purposely insulted?
        moduspol 6y ago
        We haven't seen evidence anyone has been offended yet. Only that you are concerned others might be. A surprisingly common phenomenon.
        legutierr 6y ago
        Perhaps I was offended and was trying to point that out politely. I wasn’t badly offended. I was offended enough to take the time to write these comments. Keep in mind that on HN, rude and offensive comments are down-voted all the time. There is a politeness standard on this website, and perhaps that standard should incorporate the use of language like this!
  - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
    I mean if a message goes across a distributed network and all the different nodes of the network independently decide to change their operation then there is no centralized power structure saying do this, even though it is effectively the same.
    - captainredbeard 6y ago
      In the gospel of wokeness, there must be an oppressing power structure
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - Number157 6y ago
    The weapon is censorship. Dictatorial governments supported by control over information have killed far more people than H-bombs.
    - illirik 6y ago
      What information in these children's books is undermining dictatorial governments? The government isn't censoring e.g. Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States or Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago - these are literally just picture books with racist caricatures in them. You have no right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, and you have no right to denigrate your fellow man.
      - throwawayfrauds 6y ago
        You’re actually wrong about rights in the United States. You have every right to do all of the things you claim you don’t: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...
        illirik 6y ago
        The laws in the United States are pretty convoluted, and I don't think they align with human rights all that well, especially given the treatment of imprisoned folks or asylum seekers. However, I do think that causing mass hysteria for kicks (shouting fire...) is wrong and you should not do it. I'm curious: do you believe that there is anything that one does not have the right to say?
        throwawayfrauds 6y ago
        Nope. And every other country in the world is available for someone to move to if they don’t like the US free speech laws.
        illirik 6y ago
  - inglor_cz 6y ago
    Using the word "denigrate" would be a reason to cancel you for some very conscientious minds. It sounds too similar to, ya know. And you aren't even talking Chinese [1] [1] https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/09/08/professor-suspended-saying-chinese-word-sounds-english-slur https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/09/08/professor-sus...
    - godelski 6y ago
      This one was weird as it's saying that English has ownership over sounds. If it sounds similar to a bad English word then it's also bad, even if context is given.
      - inglor_cz 6y ago
        Magical thinking at its best. The Middle Ages are back. You are not allowed to pronounce anything similar to the powerful incantation, lest the demons emerge. Regardless of context. Of course, in practice, the demons are regular people with stones in their hands ...
        TeMPOraL 6y ago
        So videoconference calls are modern seances ("Is anyone there?", "Can you hear me?"...), you tweet of the Devil and He doth retweets, ... ... we've managed to turn magic and superstition into reality, just not in a way we expected.
        inglor_cz 6y ago
        This is a very funny perspective, thank you :-)
        pineaux 6y ago
        Or, and this might be something to consider: this restructuring of of culture into groups of "good and bad culture" is something that happens each generation. Like the hippies against the old ideals, the 80 kids/punkers against the hippies, the smooth millennials against the 80-kids. Every generation did their own thing. We are getting old and do not subscribe to the new future. We are losing our childhood loves. They will disappear into the fold of history. Just like we will.
  - PontifexMinimus 6y ago
    > there is no power structure wielding a “cancel button” here This is hardly an isolated occurrance, as you well know. So we have all of Big Tech acting in concert to ban what they deem wrongthink -- but, oh no, that's definitely not a power structure! Nothing to see here, folks!
    - pm90 6y ago
      Yes, because it’s certainly plausible that the leadership of Big Tech that are always at each other’s throats to dominate their corner of the digital market would want to put aside any such differences in direction, and decide that this is the one issue that they could show a United front on because this after all is what affects their goals of market dominance. It’s this that dominates the meeting of their leadership, who are always just hanging out with each other, combing through a list of things to cancel, put together a coordinated plan to cancel the thing, and then — in secret, nobody should know! - execute on that. Because what else could they possibly be bothered with?
  - coldtea 6y ago
    >The “weapon” here is just basic conscientiousness No, it's predominantly white-driven top-down (upper 20% income bracket) classism run amok, proping up specialist careers and pretending to be about "caring" and "wokeness". >there is no power structure wielding a “cancel button” here. Yeah, no "power structure", just the mainstream media, the corporate world, ad agencies, governments, government agencies, web-mobs, FAANG - the biggest tech companies in the world plus Clouldflare and others, payment processors, the "good society" class wise and so on, with an increasing number of BS laws on their side too...
    - illirik 6y ago
      > No, it's predominantly white-driven top-down (upper 20% income bracket) classism run amok, proping up specialist careers and pretending to be about "caring" and "wokeness". I'm pretty sure most people are in agreement that racist caricatures are bad. > Yeah, no "power structure", just the mainstream media, the corporate world, ad agencies, governments, government agencies, web-mobs, FAANG - the biggest tech companies in the world plus Clouldflare and others, payment processors, the "good society" class wise and so on, with an increasing number of BS laws on their side too... My wording could have been better, but my meaning was that this "cancellation" (which is really just people acknowledging that something is bad) is not applied by some power structure, and is certainly not a weapon that can be aimed at arbitrary concepts at will. I agree that free speech is important, but hate speech is not.
      - crististm 6y ago
        I find your comment offensive
      - krona 6y ago
        The discussion is not about whether racism occured, but how did it manifest. Unless something is specifically anti-racist, it is bad. Therefore all culture is bad. QED.
        illirik 6y ago
        We're having difficulties getting consensus around the idea that racism is bad, which is a prerequisite for discussion
  - imgabe 6y ago
    Hey, can I come look through your house to make sure there are no books there that offend me? It would be incredibly rude of you to consume any content that random strangers might object to. I'll be over in an hour. This has nothing to do with conscientiousness. Buying a book to read at home by yourself is not the business of anyone else and neither eBay nor anyone else should be dictating what you're allowed to read.
    - spamizbad 6y ago
      Actually you have the property rights angle all wrong: People who control the publishing rights and the intellectual property behind an ecommerce platform to distribute things have both decided they don't want to sell certain works for whatever reason. A stupid one IMO. But it's within their rights as we currently understand corporate power. Perhaps we shouldn't be so willing to indulge liberal market freedoms as they can be a double-edged sword - property owners can "censor" cultural touchstones thanks to powerful intellectual property laws. To fix your analogy: Someone comes to YOUR house and demands you release a "problematic" work of fiction to the public from your private collection because people are censoring it and people need to see its no big deal. You refuse, because it's yours and you don't feel like it... maybe you agree with the rabble? Either way... you know your rights. If you want to defeat cancel culture you should advocate for LESS property rights, less market "freedom", and strong labor protections. This whole idea that you can somehow defeat a moral panic with some sort of counter moral panic (or backlash) has been tried for over 40 years - it's not working.
      - imgabe 6y ago
        > Someone comes to YOUR house and demands you release a "problematic" work of fiction to the public from your private collection because people are censoring it and people need to see its no big deal. You refuse, because it's yours and you don't feel like it... maybe you agree with the rabble? Either way... you know your rights. Not really. It's more like Person A wants to sell a book. Person B wants to buy a book. Persons C through Z, who are not involved, haven't read the book, have no intention of ever having anything to do with the book, but saw a tweet that said it was bad, interject themselves and decide that persons A and B are not allowed to conduct their transaction.
  - Veen 6y ago
    And yet, eBay does sell a crap load of Mein Kampf editions and gollywogs. The motivation seems to be corporate virtue signalling rather than any commitment to a principle.
    - pm90 6y ago
      This argument seems really silly to me, have you thought this through? It appears to be a “talking point” as a few other right wing sites seem to be making the exact same argument. The flaw in the argument is that Mein Kampf is not a children’s book. If hitler wrote a popular racist book series for kids, eBay would likely delist that too.
    - tibbydudeza 6y ago
      Yep no doubt due to recent CPAC conference and too early for a "War on Xmas " so they needed to focus on the nemesis of "cancel" culture rather than the disaster of Covid-19 deaths.
      - jessaustin 6y ago
        Don't worry, they'll focus on that disaster soon enough. They'll want to blame Biden for the 650k who will die of covid this year, just like they didn't want to blame Trump for the 350k who died of covid last year.
  - bawolff 6y ago
    Ah yes, mein kampf is ok [1], but dr suess is a bridge too far. [Before anyone makes assumptions about my political views, i'm fine with publishers no longer publishing if tastes change, but i can't abide banning the sale of books in general. I don't really care what the content is] [1] https://www.ebay.ca/itm/MEIN-KAMPF-1939-Complete-Unabridged-Annotated-Reynal-Hitchcock/373479460581?hash=item56f51c4ee5:g:NMUAAOSwrAFgPBn3 https://www.ebay.ca/itm/MEIN-KAMPF-1939-Complete-Unabridged-...
    - pineaux 6y ago
      Nobody banned the sale of these books. The only argument any of the people who are crying their eyes out could make here is: we need open source decentralized bookselling to ensure that people who don't care about the bad feelings people have about these books can still buy these books. Every other argument is just weak and quite frankly, herdmentality of the right wing political sphere.
      - morlockabove 6y ago
        When there's one company (due to network effects) that does something, that company's a de facto arm of government for that thing. So yes, we do need distributed everything.
        pineaux 6y ago
        So. You think all the companies in the world are defacto arms of the government? I don't get what you are saying
        morlockabove 6y ago
        Monopolies are de-facto government bodies. It isn't that Ebay is administered by USG (although I'm sure Ebay has an NSA/DHS detachment); it's that it makes no difference to the user whether a government bans the sale of books on online flea markets or the only practical online flea market does. If the only store within a 2-hour drive is walmart, walmart is your equivalent of the soviet centrally-planned economy.
  - erhk 6y ago
    >eBay decided that they did not want to be facilitating the sale of books that denigrate people Objectively false. eBay responded to a headline and will continue to permit the sale of many works of similar nature because it is ultimately apathetic
  - bzbarsky 6y ago
    eBay has no problem facilitating the sale of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", or "Mein Kampf", or "laddie magazines", or cartoons of Muhammad, or any of a variety of other things that "denigrate people". So let's not pretend like this is a principled stand of some sort by eBay. Leaving aside the question of whether the books in question actually denigrate people, what makes this case so special that eBay takes action? eBay is losing money by not allowing sales of the books; presumably they either feel like they would lose even more money if they did allow it or feel that the books are morally repugnant enough to be worth the loss. Any other options? The second option does not seem to hold water given all the other things eBay allows. The first option leaves the question of why they would lose money. Digging into that is where you find the power structure you are refusing to see.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
JKCalhoun 6y ago
I don't really see anything to get excited about. It's just a sign that the pendulum is about to swing back in the other direction.
- inglor_cz 6y ago
  How? So far, the big platforms seem to be digging the hole of censorship deeper, and small platforms like Parler are deplatformed. Unless we find a way to circumvent the tight control that smartphone manufacturers have over devices they sell, the only possible haven of free speech would be web on a Windows PC with some specific browsers. Because Google adding you to a list of dirty webs means that people using Chrome won't get to your website.
  - millstone 6y ago
    The big platforms desperately want to be anodyne. They don't want to censor, they just want you to see a funny cat photo, click Like, and come back in ten seconds for the next one. Deplatforming is an extreme measure when they perceive an existential threat like "abetting an insurrection."
    - inglor_cz 6y ago
      Well, building a massive internet forum to sell ads on is not really a recipe to be anodyne, right? Some users are bound to replay real-world conflicts there. Israelis and Palestinians will scream at each other, Europeans will draw Muhammad cartoons, Rs and Ds will love each other unconditionally as usual... and all this attention sells ads, but also creates uncomfortable side effects. Political outrage drives engagement much more than cute cats.
      - millstone 6y ago
        Yeah, agreed. It's hard to draw the line between a normal political discourse and a dangerous one, and harder at scale, and even worse if your engagement metrics are at stake. So mostly they do nothing until it's too late. AWS pulled the plug on Parler a few days after the Capitol riot, and then justified it with evidence of posts from before the riot. If the riot had not happened, then surely Parler would still be hosted on AWS today. So the big players are not proactively censoring anything; it's all engagement metrics, then CYA when shit hits the fan. But take heart: that means that small platforms really can live under the radar.
m8s 6y ago
Freedom speech as defined in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." What we are seeing here is a consequence of our capitalist society. It is now more profitable for eBay and other companies to pull or ban things that may cause controversy. There's no censorship here. You can find these books at other retailers. In fact, you're likely to see some businesses thrive by specifically carrying the things that other retailers refuse to carry.
- alentist 6y ago
  Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies. And the first amendment is not a definition of freedom of speech. Read it again.
  - m8s 6y ago
    I still don't see how stopping the sale of an item on a private company's platform equates to denying freedom of speech. If we were talking about a government banning the sale of a specific book, author, or topic, then I absolutely agree. If we are talking about that same government banning specific books from schools, then I absolutely agree. But I don't agree that eBay's move here is denying freedom of speech. They're just deciding what they do and don't want on their platform.
    - roenxi 6y ago
      If the free speech argument had anything to do with laws, people would be advocating settling it in court. The kerfuffle is about values and whether moral people have power.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
      You are correct in terms about application of current laws. The issue is more complex though. We tend to associate books with ideas and exchange thereof. Explicit ban of an idea raises all sorts of issues regardless of any other issues that may have been related to it. In simple terms, is it a good idea to ban algebra if a vocal enough community of anti-algebra people convince ebay to not list it?
globular-toast 6y ago
It's not just about it being eventually turned on you. Someone else's freedom of speech is also your freedom to hear what they have to say. Otherwise you accept that someone else is deciding what you can and can't read.
- legutierr 6y ago
  There is a long history in the United States of independent book publishers printing content that the mainstream press wouldn’t touch. It has never been the case in the US that truly controversial material could expect to have access to the biggest platforms. What is the difference now, except that racially-insensitive material has replaced, say, pro-Soviet material as being too controversial for the biggest platforms to want to sully their brands with it?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
minusSeven 6y ago
Thing is there is thin line between moderation/regulation and censorship.
- illirik 6y ago
  The line is rather stark. eBay choosing not to facilitate the sale of books containing racist caricatures is not in the same ballpark as a government suppressing ideas. It’s not even the same sport.
  - DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
    It might be a thinner line than you think: At the end of the day, governments and private companies are both just big entities with strong influence, specially in monopoly situations. Consider this: If ebay and amazon simultaneously ban one specific book, author, genre, etc.; how much would that decrease their reach?
    - berkes 6y ago
      Isn't there still a big difference between 'decreasing reach' and censorship? I'm not American, and in my country quite some speech is forbidden or can get you jailed (fuck de koning!). So maybe for me such state censorship 'forbidding speech' is clearer distinct from 'decreasing the reach of speech'?
      - ev1 6y ago
        Admittedly this is going to be a really shitty analogy, but in some cases your reach is so decreased that it's effectively gone. If you want to host some incredibly terrible text or blog, and magically no DDoS protection provider at all wants to protect you because you're such a terrible person, your reach is 0%, you are knocked off instantly and down 24/7. The government or state never had to say a thing. In many parts of US, Walmart might be the only store people have access to, it is infeasible to get anywhere else. Having to drive several hours to the nearest city is practically reducing reach to nothing. This obviously doesn't apply to people that can pop on Craigslist and pick up a copy of a book, or order it from eBay, or any of the hundreds of other shops that might have it. But there is a huge amount of the country where you are quite literally down to one or two retailers. Partially due to those one or two retailers completely taking over the area and outpricing every small shop there is.
YuccaGloriosa 6y ago
Nobody if importance is going to stand up. Ask J.K.Rowling
- DanBC 6y ago
  I don't get it. All her books are still in print and being sold. All the films from her books are still being sold. There's work happening right now to create games from her IP. She could have an interview published in any UK media of her choice tomorrow. How is she cancelled?
  - hef19898 6y ago
    There is being "cancelled" (funny enough, most cancelled people really have every opportunity to complain afterwards), and getting headwind for ones statements and controversial opinions.
  - tibbydudeza 6y ago
    She still get's those sweet royalty cheques and her Harry Potter universe is alive, well and expanding but she was smart that she owns it. Probably because of her wealth it allows her to be honest on twitter about how she feels about gender identity , the problem is the platform she chose to express those views i.e twitter , it tends to amplify a certain group think.
- alexilliamson 6y ago
  Quick she's been canceled! Get her a book deal!
helsinkiandrew 6y ago
There's two kinds of freedom: freedom from and freedom to. These are some children's books that contain illustrations that some people find offensive and the publisher (and sellers) are deciding they no longer want to be associated with and sell to children. There are internet forums where the images are available and people can view them without the police knocking your door down, and I'm sure these are available in 2nd hand bookshops. The actions of the publisher and ebay enhance the first (freedom from) without inhibiting the second much (freedom to) for those that really want to view the images. There's a difference between "utterly repugnant" content being available and it being casually given to children, and people and companies being forced to sell it.
- Udik 6y ago
  > "utterly repugnant" You forgot to add: "to someone, probably a minority, possibly entirely wrong".
  - pineaux 6y ago
    I have never understood why people add sentences like: "probably a minority" to their arguments. This is something that weakens your stand. Let me explain: If a minority (nerds/D&D-players,etc) gets bullied in school. Is them being a minority: A) a fact that aggrieves the bullying B) a non-relevant fact C) a fact that absolves the bullies from their wrong-doing? Because it seems like you are implying that it's option C by making this comment.
    - Udik 6y ago
      You went from someone claiming to find something "utterly repugnant" to a minority "being bullied". There's no necessary relation between the two. Because you don't know if the bullying is real, and if the minorities match. The relationship can easily go the other way around, for example a minority can claim to find gay marriage "utterly repugnant".
      - pineaux 6y ago
Shish2k 6y ago
> as we are seeing with all of the woke craziness People (eg, sex workers) have been getting deplatformed (often with the government assisting in - or requiring - the deplatforming!) for decades, and I didn’t hear the free-speech / right-wing types complaining. But now that some private companies don’t want to support racism, it’s a brand new problem we need to fight against? :P (I agree with the overall point that censorship is a two sided blade; just find it funny when some people think that this is new, when in fact it’s been happening for longer than I’ve been alive, it just seems new to them because they’ve never been on the receiving end before)
- crististm 6y ago
  De-platforming for decades?
  - Shish2k 6y ago
    If a TV station broadcast a daytime TV show containing violence, racism, and a female nipple - which aspect would they get in the most legal trouble for? I’m neither a lawyer nor an American (I assume we’re talking about America here), but my reading and experience would suggest that the first is glorified, the second is tolerated, and the third can result in hundreds of millions of dollars of fines even if it’s a fraction of a second by accident (eg the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show being a particularly well-publicised incident. The $550,000 fine was eventually dismissed, but only because “it’s unfair to apply this rule retroactively”, not because there’s anything wrong with the rule...)
    - dudeinjapan 6y ago
      For America, I was going to say: - violence: tolerated - nipple: becoming more accepted, barring antiquated FCC rules that only really impact things like Superbowl. streaming seems to completely allow it. - dirty words (f-bomb, s-bomb, etc.): roughly same as nipple. Yippie kie-yay Mister Falcon. - racism: depictions of historical racism, e.g. History Channel are fine. racial slurs, racialized depictions (Apu on Simpsons) risk randomly getting episodes or entire series effectively banned (delisted and never shown again). applies to actors' and producers' personal lives, twitter feeds, etc. - sexism, other-isms: racism-lite. there is a bigger emphasis on sexism in personal lives vs. racism in the actual show content. Seinfeld wasn't cancelled over Michael Richard's Laugh Factory incident and there are tons of sexist tropes on 80's/90's sitcoms that haven't haven't (yet) resulted in cancellation.
cousin_it 6y ago
I think the problem is also that people don't push back individually, even within their own minds. There's too much receptiveness to morality, and not enough of the stubborn "don't preach at me" attitude.
sildur 6y ago
Virtual book burnings, virtual public shamings... We are stepping closer and closer to virtual middle ages...
- tibbydudeza 6y ago
  A good old pillory in the town square ... some people are just assholes.
  - bzbarsky 6y ago
    > A good old pillory in the town square You mean like Twitter?
    - tibbydudeza 6y ago
      Nope ... real rotten tomatoes ... not virtual ones.
- tubularhells 6y ago
  At this point I'm hoping for the Balkanisation of the internet, so that we Europeans wouldn't have to put up with American opinions on the web anymore.
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    Yet it is inevitably Europeans who complain about the widely-predicted effects of GDPR, a regulation designed to bring about the world for which you hope... Perhaps Europe is also not in complete agreement?
emn13 6y ago
While I agree that it's remarkable and likely not very helpful to so actively move to suppress these books, I think the argument that this matters for free speech is a poor one, deserving debunking. Obviously there's the issue of protection of speech from government (protected by first amendment) vs. corporations (undermined by first amendment); but that's not the point I'm interested in. There is a huge difference in speech that intentionally conveys an unpopular opinion for the sake of discussion, and speech in which that's not the point at all, and instead merely casually includes something toxic, or even accidentally. Essentially: whether the potentially unpopular or toxic message is explicit, vs. implicit. The first category of speech (explicitly controversial) is highly important when it comes to transparency and the ability to think and debate clearly about uncomfortable issues. As far as I know, this is actually the only reason to protect speech in the first place; transparency and healthy debate matter. The second category of speech (implicitly controversial) happens to be protected by the first amendment too; but it's more like collateral damage due to a limitations in the law (including because the distinction isn't always obvious). Ideally, we'd replace the first amendment with something that more strongly protects the explicit category - even from corporate control - and at least tries to avoid protecting the second category, because such protections are easily abused (e.g. they're the reason why it's legal for a few corporations to effectively muzzle speech, and why it's so hard to control fake news). As applied to dr. Seuss books - clearly there's no issue with transparency or debate here; no explicit point is being muzzled. There's no risk to free speech here, even if we happen to disagree on the policy of it's removal. Put it this way: sometimes controlling speech (regardless of who is doing so) is harmful to free and open debate, hence it's worth protecting free speech. But conversely it does not hold that every infringement upon "free speech" necessarily impacts transparent and open debate. Quite the opposite; some forms of control can actually support transparency and open debate, e.g. control over spam and sheer volume (and this is one of the places where our current laws fail). TL;DR: Slapping a "ZOMG free speech is under attack" statement under anything that happens to exercise editorial control misses the point of free speech in the first place. While we may have opinions on the specifics here, there is no question at all that this specific action does not harm the open, transparent debate needed for a healthy democracy. (And on a technical level it's alas the case that free speech is only protected from infringements by the state, not other powerful actors).
pineaux 6y ago
You sound like an old minister in the sixties. So afraid your life and traditions will change. "It's good that people are waking up" and "If enough people push back against this craziness it would stop". But the fact of life is: nothing is stable and everything moves. Panta Rei my friend.
fredgrott 6y ago
every one has free speech, someone else's publishing platform is not part of that
- ironmagma 6y ago
  “Everyone has the right to a night’s sleep, but homeless sleeping on the doorstep of a bank is not part of that.” This attitude falls apart at scale because the big picture is made entirely of smaller pictures.
kweinber 6y ago
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from responsibility when your speech offends someone. Progressives aren’t stopping you from reading racist books to your children.... just don’t expect most people to want to sell them to you or pat you on the back for making the next generation toxic against fellow citizens.
- DocTomoe 6y ago
  I plan to make my children toxic towards people denying other peoples basic human rights, directly and indirectly (e.g. by limiting access {e.g. by banning or burning} to books).
  - shlant 6y ago
    who's "basic human rights" are being denied here? Are you saying that the publisher of Dr.Seuss is committing human rights abuses by choosing not to publish some of the books THEY own the rights to? Also, maybe teaching your children to be toxic towards anything won't really improve the world they will have to live in?
    - DocTomoe 6y ago
      Surpressing information is wrong. The publisher not publishing is a minor case here, the Karens and SJWs who make existing work disappear by having it banned from libraries and/or public marketplaces are the main enemy here. Also, being tolerant to intolerance breeds autocratic and non free societies. A lesson mankind seems to have to learn over and over and over again. My children will be taught that you do not suffer the Nazi, the Communist, the self-righteous conservative calling for a ban or the SJW.
      - shlant 6y ago
        > the Karens and SJWs who make existing work disappear by having it banned from libraries and/or public marketplaces are the main enemy here. could you provide some examples of what you are referring to here?
Kaze404 6y ago
You realize this was a publishing company deciding, completely unprompted and out of their own volition, that they don't want to publish these books, right? Whose freedom of speech is being violated here?
- jtbayly 6y ago
  No. This was eBay, not a publisher. No. This was not completely unprompted.
  - Kaze404 6y ago
    Right, but what prompted it was the situation I described. Nobody asked for this.
    - jtbayly 6y ago
      Your comment is off topic. There is a reason we are discussing the article about eBay’s decision, not the publisher’s. And do you work for the publisher? Or are you just pretending like you know that Karen never called the publisher?
    - enoughalready 6y ago
      It was prompted by a school district threatening to boycott the publisher because of these books. Why would you make a claim about it not being prompted when you didn't do the research first?
- enoughalready 6y ago
  It was prompted: A school district in Virginia said over the weekend that it had advised schools to de-emphasize Dr. Seuss books on “Read Across America Day,” a national literacy program that takes place each year on March 2, the anniversary of Mr. Geisel’s birth. “Research in recent years has revealed strong racial undertones in many books written/illustrated by Dr. Seuss,” according to the statement by the district, Loudoun County Public Schools. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/02/books/dr-seuss-mulberry-street.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/02/books/dr-seuss-mulberry-s...
cozarp 6y ago
This comment fits the intolerant mindset that seems to have been emboldened over the last few years, just like the 'woke' mindset it encourages people to wake up and push back against. There is nothing crazy about people being vocal for more respectful, inclusive and considerate treatment towards races (or sexualities etc) that have a history of being oppressed. Dr Suess's estate made the decision to change and stop publishing the titles: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/mar/05/dr-seusss-legacy-of-kindness-has-only-been-bolstered-by-his-estates-decision https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/mar/05/dr-seusss-lega... And if a company like eBay wants to get on board with that and stop listing them to either support the change, respond to that market sentiment or even protect their own profits then they have the freedom and right to make that choice. Being vocal for respectful inclusion of groups in society is NOT the same as government sanctioned persecution for heresy from medieval times. So don't conflate the two. Say whatever you want, question authority, just be respectful and constructive towards society and open-minded to changing things that are not respectful to others in modern times. It's not that hard.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
htnsao 6y ago
Yes people need to pushback against the overly politically-correct. I think the pressure to enforce covid lockdowns is as ridiculous as these people wanting to censure Dr Seuss. Where I'm at we're back to lockdowns on Sundays only, so stupid. Basically we need to get on with life and ignore the overly-anxious who want to control/censure everyone.
strathmeyer 6y ago
Forcing someone to publish a book or to list a book for sale on their website is a violation of their free speech. This place is too authoritarian to discuss such nuances.
AshWolfy 6y ago
Free speech doesnt mean an obligation for people to provide you a platform, nobody is obligated to carry my book or let me on tv. You may criticize how that is carried out, but its not anti free speech to say racist cartoons dont need to be published
- loveistheanswer 6y ago
  You've defined what you think free speech isn't, but can you define what free speech is, in your opinion?
  - AshWolfy 6y ago
    Being able to speak without interference from the government. I also think there is a spirit of free speech where the consequences for your speech should not exceed the speech itself, though that is obviously less precise and kinda up to individual judgement
    - loveistheanswer 6y ago
      >Being able to speak without interference from the government. Why should freedom of speech apply only to authorities from the public sector?
      - AshWolfy 6y ago
        Because freedom of association cuts both ways. I also dont like the power that massive corporations have over our lives, but the solution isnt some absurd regulation, its to break them up
        loveistheanswer 6y ago
        >Because freedom of association cuts both ways. What is freedom of association, isn't that different from freedom of speech? >I also dont like the power that massive corporations have over our lives, but the solution isnt some absurd regulation, its to break them up I think you're probably right about that. Maybe another option could be to create a publicly funded, rather than corporate advertising funded, "town square" social media platform as a viable alternative, where all lawful speech could be voiced and protected?
jmull 6y ago
If you believe in liberty as a principle don't you have to support ebay's decision to decide whether or not they want to sell a particular book? I don't understand their decision here, but so what? It's their store, why should you or I tell or anyone else them what to sell? Woke crazies try to impose their ideology on others by complaining and shaming on the Internet. I think you're doing the same thing here. The difference are the specifics of the ideology. If you support liberty only for things you agree with, you don't support liberty. I get worried when people promote the idea that compelling others speech is pro free speech. It's the modern newspeak.
- lodi 6y ago
  > If you believe in liberty as a principle don't you have to support ebay's decision to decide whether or not they want to sell a particular book? Not exactly, no. Even the most laissez faire among us would probably agree that you need to set and enforce some ground rules to prevent monopolies, externalities, information assymetries, and other market failures. Also ebay isn't a bookseller choosing what books to stock; it's just an exchange for buyers and sellers to directly transact with each other.
  - jmull 6y ago
    > Even the most laissez faire among us would probably agree that you need to set and enforce some ground rules to prevent monopolies, externalities, information assymetries, and other market failures. Sure, of course there are ground rules. Things that are illegal are not permitted. But what are you suggesting the rule would be that would apply in this case? And by rule, we're taking about a law, right? Otherwise, it wouldn't be binding and we're right back to where eBay is within its rights to decide not sell (or list, if you prefer) these books. To be clear, I think it's fine to complain about ebay's stance here. I don't agree with it. But you can't do it in the name of free speech or liberty generally as the previous poster is attempting to do.
- Wolfenstein98k 6y ago
  You can support the right to be a Nazi while strongly criticising it. People can say that they really think eBay is doing the wrong thing, and maybe even boycott them, without necessarily saying they should be forced by law to stock children's books that became out of fashion thirty seconds ago.
suifbwish 6y ago
These viewpoints only exist because those who hold them are never held responsible for explaining why the last popularly held view they had is no longer valid and why they didn’t figure it out before it became unpopular.
JeremyNT 6y ago
> The key things with all of this, is that if enough people were to collectively have the courage to push back against this craziness it would stop...people recognizing that there is a problem is a good first step Is that true though? The government is doing nothing here. There's nothing stopping anybody from owning these book or passing them around to somebody else. There's nobody in government stopping somebody from publishing these books. What's happening is that a few megacorporations have acquired so much power they are beyond influencing. Are a few angry people going to vote with their wallets to defeat eBay? Please, there is no recourse - eBay has essentially no competition in its sector and is accountable to nobody but their shareholders. And the publisher? Well, the publishers have lobbied for our politicians to grant them infinite copyright, so now they can do as they wish with our culture. If they choose to bury it and stop publishing, this is the right our politicians have agreed to give to them. This isn't really a free speech issue at its heart, even if it feels like it. This is really a power imbalance where control in all sectors of commerce (and in almost every aspect of our lives) is being distilled into a handful of unassailable monopolists to whom our politicians have gradually ceded their power.
eeZah7Ux 6y ago
> Free speech is about protecting the right of the un-popular and views that some may find utterly repugnant Wrong. From the third paragraph of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech """Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury. Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."[4]""" First, offensive caricatures can fall squarely into "libel" and "slander" and harming someone's dignity. Second, EBay is not being forced to delist the books by the government.

anonisko 6y ago

Too many people support the development of powerful weapons without considering what happens when their enemies get a hold of them.

illirik 6y ago
The “weapon” here is just basic conscientiousness. A publisher decided to stop publishing some books because they denigrate people, and eBay decided that they did not want to be facilitating the sale of books that denigrate people. We are not talking about an H-bomb - there is no power structure wielding a “cancel button” here.
- stef25 6y ago
  > there is no power structure wielding a “cancel button” here There absolutely is. Ebay is nipping in the bud a potential social media lynching. One misstep nowadays and the CEO spends weeks grovelling about how they're still learning and are determined to do better and thank you Twitter mob for pointing this out. You can't buy Doctor Seuss, but you can buy "The Anarchist Arsenal", hydrogen peroxide, acetone and a few pounds of screws in the same cart. Edited typo by / buy
  - legutierr 6y ago
    I hope the irony isn’t lost on you that you are using the word “lynching”—which in its literal, non-metaphorical usage refers to the terroristic murder of racial minorities in the United States—to refer to the non-violent use of cultural power by members of those same minority groups to demand respect from institutions and powerful individuals. You may think that some of these demands have gone too far, and you may believe that some institutions have been too obsequious in adhering to these demands, but surely you must admit that the use of the word “lynching” in this context is offensive, no?
    - pm90 6y ago
      I can’t help but point out the incredible situation where you are engaging in precisely the kind of behavior that the person you’re replying to seems to have issue against : )
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - legutierr 6y ago
        And what behavior is that, precisely? Pointing out that certain usage of language can be offensive? That we shouldn’t be unintentional when causing offense? That if we cause offense intentionally, we shouldn’t be surprised by the reaction of the party we have purposely insulted?
        moduspol 6y ago
        We haven't seen evidence anyone has been offended yet. Only that you are concerned others might be. A surprisingly common phenomenon.
        legutierr 6y ago
        Perhaps I was offended and was trying to point that out politely. I wasn’t badly offended. I was offended enough to take the time to write these comments. Keep in mind that on HN, rude and offensive comments are down-voted all the time. There is a politeness standard on this website, and perhaps that standard should incorporate the use of language like this!
- bryanrasmussen 6y ago
  I mean if a message goes across a distributed network and all the different nodes of the network independently decide to change their operation then there is no centralized power structure saying do this, even though it is effectively the same.
  - captainredbeard 6y ago
    In the gospel of wokeness, there must be an oppressing power structure
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Number157 6y ago
  The weapon is censorship. Dictatorial governments supported by control over information have killed far more people than H-bombs.
  - illirik 6y ago
    What information in these children's books is undermining dictatorial governments? The government isn't censoring e.g. Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States or Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago - these are literally just picture books with racist caricatures in them. You have no right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, and you have no right to denigrate your fellow man.
    - throwawayfrauds 6y ago
      You’re actually wrong about rights in the United States. You have every right to do all of the things you claim you don’t: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...
      - illirik 6y ago
        The laws in the United States are pretty convoluted, and I don't think they align with human rights all that well, especially given the treatment of imprisoned folks or asylum seekers. However, I do think that causing mass hysteria for kicks (shouting fire...) is wrong and you should not do it. I'm curious: do you believe that there is anything that one does not have the right to say?
        throwawayfrauds 6y ago
        Nope. And every other country in the world is available for someone to move to if they don’t like the US free speech laws.
        illirik 6y ago
- inglor_cz 6y ago
  Using the word "denigrate" would be a reason to cancel you for some very conscientious minds. It sounds too similar to, ya know. And you aren't even talking Chinese [1] [1] https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/09/08/professor-suspended-saying-chinese-word-sounds-english-slur https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/09/08/professor-sus...
  - godelski 6y ago
    This one was weird as it's saying that English has ownership over sounds. If it sounds similar to a bad English word then it's also bad, even if context is given.
    - inglor_cz 6y ago
      Magical thinking at its best. The Middle Ages are back. You are not allowed to pronounce anything similar to the powerful incantation, lest the demons emerge. Regardless of context. Of course, in practice, the demons are regular people with stones in their hands ...
      - TeMPOraL 6y ago
        So videoconference calls are modern seances ("Is anyone there?", "Can you hear me?"...), you tweet of the Devil and He doth retweets, ... ... we've managed to turn magic and superstition into reality, just not in a way we expected.
        inglor_cz 6y ago
        This is a very funny perspective, thank you :-)
      - pineaux 6y ago
        Or, and this might be something to consider: this restructuring of of culture into groups of "good and bad culture" is something that happens each generation. Like the hippies against the old ideals, the 80 kids/punkers against the hippies, the smooth millennials against the 80-kids. Every generation did their own thing. We are getting old and do not subscribe to the new future. We are losing our childhood loves. They will disappear into the fold of history. Just like we will.
- PontifexMinimus 6y ago
  > there is no power structure wielding a “cancel button” here This is hardly an isolated occurrance, as you well know. So we have all of Big Tech acting in concert to ban what they deem wrongthink -- but, oh no, that's definitely not a power structure! Nothing to see here, folks!
  - pm90 6y ago
    Yes, because it’s certainly plausible that the leadership of Big Tech that are always at each other’s throats to dominate their corner of the digital market would want to put aside any such differences in direction, and decide that this is the one issue that they could show a United front on because this after all is what affects their goals of market dominance. It’s this that dominates the meeting of their leadership, who are always just hanging out with each other, combing through a list of things to cancel, put together a coordinated plan to cancel the thing, and then — in secret, nobody should know! - execute on that. Because what else could they possibly be bothered with?
- coldtea 6y ago
  >The “weapon” here is just basic conscientiousness No, it's predominantly white-driven top-down (upper 20% income bracket) classism run amok, proping up specialist careers and pretending to be about "caring" and "wokeness". >there is no power structure wielding a “cancel button” here. Yeah, no "power structure", just the mainstream media, the corporate world, ad agencies, governments, government agencies, web-mobs, FAANG - the biggest tech companies in the world plus Clouldflare and others, payment processors, the "good society" class wise and so on, with an increasing number of BS laws on their side too...
  - illirik 6y ago
    > No, it's predominantly white-driven top-down (upper 20% income bracket) classism run amok, proping up specialist careers and pretending to be about "caring" and "wokeness". I'm pretty sure most people are in agreement that racist caricatures are bad. > Yeah, no "power structure", just the mainstream media, the corporate world, ad agencies, governments, government agencies, web-mobs, FAANG - the biggest tech companies in the world plus Clouldflare and others, payment processors, the "good society" class wise and so on, with an increasing number of BS laws on their side too... My wording could have been better, but my meaning was that this "cancellation" (which is really just people acknowledging that something is bad) is not applied by some power structure, and is certainly not a weapon that can be aimed at arbitrary concepts at will. I agree that free speech is important, but hate speech is not.
    - crististm 6y ago
      I find your comment offensive
    - krona 6y ago
      The discussion is not about whether racism occured, but how did it manifest. Unless something is specifically anti-racist, it is bad. Therefore all culture is bad. QED.
      - illirik 6y ago
        We're having difficulties getting consensus around the idea that racism is bad, which is a prerequisite for discussion
- imgabe 6y ago
  Hey, can I come look through your house to make sure there are no books there that offend me? It would be incredibly rude of you to consume any content that random strangers might object to. I'll be over in an hour. This has nothing to do with conscientiousness. Buying a book to read at home by yourself is not the business of anyone else and neither eBay nor anyone else should be dictating what you're allowed to read.
  - spamizbad 6y ago
    Actually you have the property rights angle all wrong: People who control the publishing rights and the intellectual property behind an ecommerce platform to distribute things have both decided they don't want to sell certain works for whatever reason. A stupid one IMO. But it's within their rights as we currently understand corporate power. Perhaps we shouldn't be so willing to indulge liberal market freedoms as they can be a double-edged sword - property owners can "censor" cultural touchstones thanks to powerful intellectual property laws. To fix your analogy: Someone comes to YOUR house and demands you release a "problematic" work of fiction to the public from your private collection because people are censoring it and people need to see its no big deal. You refuse, because it's yours and you don't feel like it... maybe you agree with the rabble? Either way... you know your rights. If you want to defeat cancel culture you should advocate for LESS property rights, less market "freedom", and strong labor protections. This whole idea that you can somehow defeat a moral panic with some sort of counter moral panic (or backlash) has been tried for over 40 years - it's not working.
    - imgabe 6y ago
      > Someone comes to YOUR house and demands you release a "problematic" work of fiction to the public from your private collection because people are censoring it and people need to see its no big deal. You refuse, because it's yours and you don't feel like it... maybe you agree with the rabble? Either way... you know your rights. Not really. It's more like Person A wants to sell a book. Person B wants to buy a book. Persons C through Z, who are not involved, haven't read the book, have no intention of ever having anything to do with the book, but saw a tweet that said it was bad, interject themselves and decide that persons A and B are not allowed to conduct their transaction.
- Veen 6y ago
  And yet, eBay does sell a crap load of Mein Kampf editions and gollywogs. The motivation seems to be corporate virtue signalling rather than any commitment to a principle.
  - pm90 6y ago
    This argument seems really silly to me, have you thought this through? It appears to be a “talking point” as a few other right wing sites seem to be making the exact same argument. The flaw in the argument is that Mein Kampf is not a children’s book. If hitler wrote a popular racist book series for kids, eBay would likely delist that too.
  - tibbydudeza 6y ago
    Yep no doubt due to recent CPAC conference and too early for a "War on Xmas " so they needed to focus on the nemesis of "cancel" culture rather than the disaster of Covid-19 deaths.
    - jessaustin 6y ago
      Don't worry, they'll focus on that disaster soon enough. They'll want to blame Biden for the 650k who will die of covid this year, just like they didn't want to blame Trump for the 350k who died of covid last year.
- bawolff 6y ago
  Ah yes, mein kampf is ok [1], but dr suess is a bridge too far. [Before anyone makes assumptions about my political views, i'm fine with publishers no longer publishing if tastes change, but i can't abide banning the sale of books in general. I don't really care what the content is] [1] https://www.ebay.ca/itm/MEIN-KAMPF-1939-Complete-Unabridged-Annotated-Reynal-Hitchcock/373479460581?hash=item56f51c4ee5:g:NMUAAOSwrAFgPBn3 https://www.ebay.ca/itm/MEIN-KAMPF-1939-Complete-Unabridged-...
  - pineaux 6y ago
    Nobody banned the sale of these books. The only argument any of the people who are crying their eyes out could make here is: we need open source decentralized bookselling to ensure that people who don't care about the bad feelings people have about these books can still buy these books. Every other argument is just weak and quite frankly, herdmentality of the right wing political sphere.
    - morlockabove 6y ago
      When there's one company (due to network effects) that does something, that company's a de facto arm of government for that thing. So yes, we do need distributed everything.
      - pineaux 6y ago
        So. You think all the companies in the world are defacto arms of the government? I don't get what you are saying
        morlockabove 6y ago
        Monopolies are de-facto government bodies. It isn't that Ebay is administered by USG (although I'm sure Ebay has an NSA/DHS detachment); it's that it makes no difference to the user whether a government bans the sale of books on online flea markets or the only practical online flea market does. If the only store within a 2-hour drive is walmart, walmart is your equivalent of the soviet centrally-planned economy.
- erhk 6y ago
  >eBay decided that they did not want to be facilitating the sale of books that denigrate people Objectively false. eBay responded to a headline and will continue to permit the sale of many works of similar nature because it is ultimately apathetic
- bzbarsky 6y ago
  eBay has no problem facilitating the sale of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", or "Mein Kampf", or "laddie magazines", or cartoons of Muhammad, or any of a variety of other things that "denigrate people". So let's not pretend like this is a principled stand of some sort by eBay. Leaving aside the question of whether the books in question actually denigrate people, what makes this case so special that eBay takes action? eBay is losing money by not allowing sales of the books; presumably they either feel like they would lose even more money if they did allow it or feel that the books are morally repugnant enough to be worth the loss. Any other options? The second option does not seem to hold water given all the other things eBay allows. The first option leaves the question of why they would lose money. Digging into that is where you find the power structure you are refusing to see.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

JKCalhoun 6y ago

I don't really see anything to get excited about. It's just a sign that the pendulum is about to swing back in the other direction.

inglor_cz 6y ago
How? So far, the big platforms seem to be digging the hole of censorship deeper, and small platforms like Parler are deplatformed. Unless we find a way to circumvent the tight control that smartphone manufacturers have over devices they sell, the only possible haven of free speech would be web on a Windows PC with some specific browsers. Because Google adding you to a list of dirty webs means that people using Chrome won't get to your website.
- millstone 6y ago
  The big platforms desperately want to be anodyne. They don't want to censor, they just want you to see a funny cat photo, click Like, and come back in ten seconds for the next one. Deplatforming is an extreme measure when they perceive an existential threat like "abetting an insurrection."
  - inglor_cz 6y ago
    Well, building a massive internet forum to sell ads on is not really a recipe to be anodyne, right? Some users are bound to replay real-world conflicts there. Israelis and Palestinians will scream at each other, Europeans will draw Muhammad cartoons, Rs and Ds will love each other unconditionally as usual... and all this attention sells ads, but also creates uncomfortable side effects. Political outrage drives engagement much more than cute cats.
    - millstone 6y ago
      Yeah, agreed. It's hard to draw the line between a normal political discourse and a dangerous one, and harder at scale, and even worse if your engagement metrics are at stake. So mostly they do nothing until it's too late. AWS pulled the plug on Parler a few days after the Capitol riot, and then justified it with evidence of posts from before the riot. If the riot had not happened, then surely Parler would still be hosted on AWS today. So the big players are not proactively censoring anything; it's all engagement metrics, then CYA when shit hits the fan. But take heart: that means that small platforms really can live under the radar.

m8s 6y ago

Freedom speech as defined in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." What we are seeing here is a consequence of our capitalist society. It is now more profitable for eBay and other companies to pull or ban things that may cause controversy. There's no censorship here. You can find these books at other retailers. In fact, you're likely to see some businesses thrive by specifically carrying the things that other retailers refuse to carry.

alentist 6y ago
Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies. And the first amendment is not a definition of freedom of speech. Read it again.
- m8s 6y ago
  I still don't see how stopping the sale of an item on a private company's platform equates to denying freedom of speech. If we were talking about a government banning the sale of a specific book, author, or topic, then I absolutely agree. If we are talking about that same government banning specific books from schools, then I absolutely agree. But I don't agree that eBay's move here is denying freedom of speech. They're just deciding what they do and don't want on their platform.
  - roenxi 6y ago
    If the free speech argument had anything to do with laws, people would be advocating settling it in court. The kerfuffle is about values and whether moral people have power.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
    You are correct in terms about application of current laws. The issue is more complex though. We tend to associate books with ideas and exchange thereof. Explicit ban of an idea raises all sorts of issues regardless of any other issues that may have been related to it. In simple terms, is it a good idea to ban algebra if a vocal enough community of anti-algebra people convince ebay to not list it?

globular-toast 6y ago

It's not just about it being eventually turned on you. Someone else's freedom of speech is also your freedom to hear what they have to say. Otherwise you accept that someone else is deciding what you can and can't read.

legutierr 6y ago
There is a long history in the United States of independent book publishers printing content that the mainstream press wouldn’t touch. It has never been the case in the US that truly controversial material could expect to have access to the biggest platforms. What is the difference now, except that racially-insensitive material has replaced, say, pro-Soviet material as being too controversial for the biggest platforms to want to sully their brands with it?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

minusSeven 6y ago

Thing is there is thin line between moderation/regulation and censorship.

illirik 6y ago
The line is rather stark. eBay choosing not to facilitate the sale of books containing racist caricatures is not in the same ballpark as a government suppressing ideas. It’s not even the same sport.
- DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
  It might be a thinner line than you think: At the end of the day, governments and private companies are both just big entities with strong influence, specially in monopoly situations. Consider this: If ebay and amazon simultaneously ban one specific book, author, genre, etc.; how much would that decrease their reach?
  - berkes 6y ago
    Isn't there still a big difference between 'decreasing reach' and censorship? I'm not American, and in my country quite some speech is forbidden or can get you jailed (fuck de koning!). So maybe for me such state censorship 'forbidding speech' is clearer distinct from 'decreasing the reach of speech'?
    - ev1 6y ago
      Admittedly this is going to be a really shitty analogy, but in some cases your reach is so decreased that it's effectively gone. If you want to host some incredibly terrible text or blog, and magically no DDoS protection provider at all wants to protect you because you're such a terrible person, your reach is 0%, you are knocked off instantly and down 24/7. The government or state never had to say a thing. In many parts of US, Walmart might be the only store people have access to, it is infeasible to get anywhere else. Having to drive several hours to the nearest city is practically reducing reach to nothing. This obviously doesn't apply to people that can pop on Craigslist and pick up a copy of a book, or order it from eBay, or any of the hundreds of other shops that might have it. But there is a huge amount of the country where you are quite literally down to one or two retailers. Partially due to those one or two retailers completely taking over the area and outpricing every small shop there is.

YuccaGloriosa 6y ago

Nobody if importance is going to stand up. Ask J.K.Rowling

DanBC 6y ago
I don't get it. All her books are still in print and being sold. All the films from her books are still being sold. There's work happening right now to create games from her IP. She could have an interview published in any UK media of her choice tomorrow. How is she cancelled?
- hef19898 6y ago
  There is being "cancelled" (funny enough, most cancelled people really have every opportunity to complain afterwards), and getting headwind for ones statements and controversial opinions.
- tibbydudeza 6y ago
  She still get's those sweet royalty cheques and her Harry Potter universe is alive, well and expanding but she was smart that she owns it. Probably because of her wealth it allows her to be honest on twitter about how she feels about gender identity , the problem is the platform she chose to express those views i.e twitter , it tends to amplify a certain group think.
alexilliamson 6y ago
Quick she's been canceled! Get her a book deal!

helsinkiandrew 6y ago

There's two kinds of freedom: freedom from and freedom to. These are some children's books that contain illustrations that some people find offensive and the publisher (and sellers) are deciding they no longer want to be associated with and sell to children. There are internet forums where the images are available and people can view them without the police knocking your door down, and I'm sure these are available in 2nd hand bookshops. The actions of the publisher and ebay enhance the first (freedom from) without inhibiting the second much (freedom to) for those that really want to view the images. There's a difference between "utterly repugnant" content being available and it being casually given to children, and people and companies being forced to sell it.

Udik 6y ago
> "utterly repugnant" You forgot to add: "to someone, probably a minority, possibly entirely wrong".
- pineaux 6y ago
  I have never understood why people add sentences like: "probably a minority" to their arguments. This is something that weakens your stand. Let me explain: If a minority (nerds/D&D-players,etc) gets bullied in school. Is them being a minority: A) a fact that aggrieves the bullying B) a non-relevant fact C) a fact that absolves the bullies from their wrong-doing? Because it seems like you are implying that it's option C by making this comment.
  - Udik 6y ago
    You went from someone claiming to find something "utterly repugnant" to a minority "being bullied". There's no necessary relation between the two. Because you don't know if the bullying is real, and if the minorities match. The relationship can easily go the other way around, for example a minority can claim to find gay marriage "utterly repugnant".
    - pineaux 6y ago

Shish2k 6y ago

> as we are seeing with all of the woke craziness People (eg, sex workers) have been getting deplatformed (often with the government assisting in - or requiring - the deplatforming!) for decades, and I didn’t hear the free-speech / right-wing types complaining. But now that some private companies don’t want to support racism, it’s a brand new problem we need to fight against? :P (I agree with the overall point that censorship is a two sided blade; just find it funny when some people think that this is new, when in fact it’s been happening for longer than I’ve been alive, it just seems new to them because they’ve never been on the receiving end before)

crististm 6y ago
De-platforming for decades?
- Shish2k 6y ago
  If a TV station broadcast a daytime TV show containing violence, racism, and a female nipple - which aspect would they get in the most legal trouble for? I’m neither a lawyer nor an American (I assume we’re talking about America here), but my reading and experience would suggest that the first is glorified, the second is tolerated, and the third can result in hundreds of millions of dollars of fines even if it’s a fraction of a second by accident (eg the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show being a particularly well-publicised incident. The $550,000 fine was eventually dismissed, but only because “it’s unfair to apply this rule retroactively”, not because there’s anything wrong with the rule...)
  - dudeinjapan 6y ago
    For America, I was going to say: - violence: tolerated - nipple: becoming more accepted, barring antiquated FCC rules that only really impact things like Superbowl. streaming seems to completely allow it. - dirty words (f-bomb, s-bomb, etc.): roughly same as nipple. Yippie kie-yay Mister Falcon. - racism: depictions of historical racism, e.g. History Channel are fine. racial slurs, racialized depictions (Apu on Simpsons) risk randomly getting episodes or entire series effectively banned (delisted and never shown again). applies to actors' and producers' personal lives, twitter feeds, etc. - sexism, other-isms: racism-lite. there is a bigger emphasis on sexism in personal lives vs. racism in the actual show content. Seinfeld wasn't cancelled over Michael Richard's Laugh Factory incident and there are tons of sexist tropes on 80's/90's sitcoms that haven't haven't (yet) resulted in cancellation.

cousin_it 6y ago

I think the problem is also that people don't push back individually, even within their own minds. There's too much receptiveness to morality, and not enough of the stubborn "don't preach at me" attitude.

sildur 6y ago

Virtual book burnings, virtual public shamings... We are stepping closer and closer to virtual middle ages...

tibbydudeza 6y ago
A good old pillory in the town square ... some people are just assholes.
- bzbarsky 6y ago
  > A good old pillory in the town square You mean like Twitter?
  - tibbydudeza 6y ago
    Nope ... real rotten tomatoes ... not virtual ones.
tubularhells 6y ago
At this point I'm hoping for the Balkanisation of the internet, so that we Europeans wouldn't have to put up with American opinions on the web anymore.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  Yet it is inevitably Europeans who complain about the widely-predicted effects of GDPR, a regulation designed to bring about the world for which you hope... Perhaps Europe is also not in complete agreement?

emn13 6y ago

While I agree that it's remarkable and likely not very helpful to so actively move to suppress these books, I think the argument that this matters for free speech is a poor one, deserving debunking. Obviously there's the issue of protection of speech from government (protected by first amendment) vs. corporations (undermined by first amendment); but that's not the point I'm interested in. There is a huge difference in speech that intentionally conveys an unpopular opinion for the sake of discussion, and speech in which that's not the point at all, and instead merely casually includes something toxic, or even accidentally. Essentially: whether the potentially unpopular or toxic message is explicit, vs. implicit. The first category of speech (explicitly controversial) is highly important when it comes to transparency and the ability to think and debate clearly about uncomfortable issues. As far as I know, this is actually the only reason to protect speech in the first place; transparency and healthy debate matter. The second category of speech (implicitly controversial) happens to be protected by the first amendment too; but it's more like collateral damage due to a limitations in the law (including because the distinction isn't always obvious). Ideally, we'd replace the first amendment with something that more strongly protects the explicit category - even from corporate control - and at least tries to avoid protecting the second category, because such protections are easily abused (e.g. they're the reason why it's legal for a few corporations to effectively muzzle speech, and why it's so hard to control fake news). As applied to dr. Seuss books - clearly there's no issue with transparency or debate here; no explicit point is being muzzled. There's no risk to free speech here, even if we happen to disagree on the policy of it's removal. Put it this way: sometimes controlling speech (regardless of who is doing so) is harmful to free and open debate, hence it's worth protecting free speech. But conversely it does not hold that every infringement upon "free speech" necessarily impacts transparent and open debate. Quite the opposite; some forms of control can actually support transparency and open debate, e.g. control over spam and sheer volume (and this is one of the places where our current laws fail). TL;DR: Slapping a "ZOMG free speech is under attack" statement under anything that happens to exercise editorial control misses the point of free speech in the first place. While we may have opinions on the specifics here, there is no question at all that this specific action does not harm the open, transparent debate needed for a healthy democracy. (And on a technical level it's alas the case that free speech is only protected from infringements by the state, not other powerful actors).

pineaux 6y ago

You sound like an old minister in the sixties. So afraid your life and traditions will change. "It's good that people are waking up" and "If enough people push back against this craziness it would stop". But the fact of life is: nothing is stable and everything moves. Panta Rei my friend.

fredgrott 6y ago

every one has free speech, someone else's publishing platform is not part of that

ironmagma 6y ago
“Everyone has the right to a night’s sleep, but homeless sleeping on the doorstep of a bank is not part of that.” This attitude falls apart at scale because the big picture is made entirely of smaller pictures.

kweinber 6y ago

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from responsibility when your speech offends someone. Progressives aren’t stopping you from reading racist books to your children.... just don’t expect most people to want to sell them to you or pat you on the back for making the next generation toxic against fellow citizens.

DocTomoe 6y ago
I plan to make my children toxic towards people denying other peoples basic human rights, directly and indirectly (e.g. by limiting access {e.g. by banning or burning} to books).
- shlant 6y ago
  who's "basic human rights" are being denied here? Are you saying that the publisher of Dr.Seuss is committing human rights abuses by choosing not to publish some of the books THEY own the rights to? Also, maybe teaching your children to be toxic towards anything won't really improve the world they will have to live in?
  - DocTomoe 6y ago
    Surpressing information is wrong. The publisher not publishing is a minor case here, the Karens and SJWs who make existing work disappear by having it banned from libraries and/or public marketplaces are the main enemy here. Also, being tolerant to intolerance breeds autocratic and non free societies. A lesson mankind seems to have to learn over and over and over again. My children will be taught that you do not suffer the Nazi, the Communist, the self-righteous conservative calling for a ban or the SJW.
    - shlant 6y ago
      > the Karens and SJWs who make existing work disappear by having it banned from libraries and/or public marketplaces are the main enemy here. could you provide some examples of what you are referring to here?

Kaze404 6y ago

You realize this was a publishing company deciding, completely unprompted and out of their own volition, that they don't want to publish these books, right? Whose freedom of speech is being violated here?

jtbayly 6y ago
No. This was eBay, not a publisher. No. This was not completely unprompted.
- Kaze404 6y ago
  Right, but what prompted it was the situation I described. Nobody asked for this.
  - jtbayly 6y ago
    Your comment is off topic. There is a reason we are discussing the article about eBay’s decision, not the publisher’s. And do you work for the publisher? Or are you just pretending like you know that Karen never called the publisher?
  - enoughalready 6y ago
    It was prompted by a school district threatening to boycott the publisher because of these books. Why would you make a claim about it not being prompted when you didn't do the research first?
enoughalready 6y ago
It was prompted: A school district in Virginia said over the weekend that it had advised schools to de-emphasize Dr. Seuss books on “Read Across America Day,” a national literacy program that takes place each year on March 2, the anniversary of Mr. Geisel’s birth. “Research in recent years has revealed strong racial undertones in many books written/illustrated by Dr. Seuss,” according to the statement by the district, Loudoun County Public Schools. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/02/books/dr-seuss-mulberry-street.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/02/books/dr-seuss-mulberry-s...

cozarp 6y ago

This comment fits the intolerant mindset that seems to have been emboldened over the last few years, just like the 'woke' mindset it encourages people to wake up and push back against. There is nothing crazy about people being vocal for more respectful, inclusive and considerate treatment towards races (or sexualities etc) that have a history of being oppressed. Dr Suess's estate made the decision to change and stop publishing the titles: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/mar/05/dr-seusss-legacy-of-kindness-has-only-been-bolstered-by-his-estates-decision https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/mar/05/dr-seusss-lega... And if a company like eBay wants to get on board with that and stop listing them to either support the change, respond to that market sentiment or even protect their own profits then they have the freedom and right to make that choice. Being vocal for respectful inclusion of groups in society is NOT the same as government sanctioned persecution for heresy from medieval times. So don't conflate the two. Say whatever you want, question authority, just be respectful and constructive towards society and open-minded to changing things that are not respectful to others in modern times. It's not that hard.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

htnsao 6y ago

Yes people need to pushback against the overly politically-correct. I think the pressure to enforce covid lockdowns is as ridiculous as these people wanting to censure Dr Seuss. Where I'm at we're back to lockdowns on Sundays only, so stupid. Basically we need to get on with life and ignore the overly-anxious who want to control/censure everyone.

strathmeyer 6y ago

Forcing someone to publish a book or to list a book for sale on their website is a violation of their free speech. This place is too authoritarian to discuss such nuances.

AshWolfy 6y ago

Free speech doesnt mean an obligation for people to provide you a platform, nobody is obligated to carry my book or let me on tv. You may criticize how that is carried out, but its not anti free speech to say racist cartoons dont need to be published

loveistheanswer 6y ago
You've defined what you think free speech isn't, but can you define what free speech is, in your opinion?
- AshWolfy 6y ago
  Being able to speak without interference from the government. I also think there is a spirit of free speech where the consequences for your speech should not exceed the speech itself, though that is obviously less precise and kinda up to individual judgement
  - loveistheanswer 6y ago
    >Being able to speak without interference from the government. Why should freedom of speech apply only to authorities from the public sector?
    - AshWolfy 6y ago
      Because freedom of association cuts both ways. I also dont like the power that massive corporations have over our lives, but the solution isnt some absurd regulation, its to break them up
      - loveistheanswer 6y ago
        >Because freedom of association cuts both ways. What is freedom of association, isn't that different from freedom of speech? >I also dont like the power that massive corporations have over our lives, but the solution isnt some absurd regulation, its to break them up I think you're probably right about that. Maybe another option could be to create a publicly funded, rather than corporate advertising funded, "town square" social media platform as a viable alternative, where all lawful speech could be voiced and protected?

jmull 6y ago

If you believe in liberty as a principle don't you have to support ebay's decision to decide whether or not they want to sell a particular book? I don't understand their decision here, but so what? It's their store, why should you or I tell or anyone else them what to sell? Woke crazies try to impose their ideology on others by complaining and shaming on the Internet. I think you're doing the same thing here. The difference are the specifics of the ideology. If you support liberty only for things you agree with, you don't support liberty. I get worried when people promote the idea that compelling others speech is pro free speech. It's the modern newspeak.

lodi 6y ago
> If you believe in liberty as a principle don't you have to support ebay's decision to decide whether or not they want to sell a particular book? Not exactly, no. Even the most laissez faire among us would probably agree that you need to set and enforce some ground rules to prevent monopolies, externalities, information assymetries, and other market failures. Also ebay isn't a bookseller choosing what books to stock; it's just an exchange for buyers and sellers to directly transact with each other.
- jmull 6y ago
  > Even the most laissez faire among us would probably agree that you need to set and enforce some ground rules to prevent monopolies, externalities, information assymetries, and other market failures. Sure, of course there are ground rules. Things that are illegal are not permitted. But what are you suggesting the rule would be that would apply in this case? And by rule, we're taking about a law, right? Otherwise, it wouldn't be binding and we're right back to where eBay is within its rights to decide not sell (or list, if you prefer) these books. To be clear, I think it's fine to complain about ebay's stance here. I don't agree with it. But you can't do it in the name of free speech or liberty generally as the previous poster is attempting to do.
Wolfenstein98k 6y ago
You can support the right to be a Nazi while strongly criticising it. People can say that they really think eBay is doing the wrong thing, and maybe even boycott them, without necessarily saying they should be forced by law to stock children's books that became out of fashion thirty seconds ago.

suifbwish 6y ago

These viewpoints only exist because those who hold them are never held responsible for explaining why the last popularly held view they had is no longer valid and why they didn’t figure it out before it became unpopular.

JeremyNT 6y ago

> The key things with all of this, is that if enough people were to collectively have the courage to push back against this craziness it would stop...people recognizing that there is a problem is a good first step Is that true though? The government is doing nothing here. There's nothing stopping anybody from owning these book or passing them around to somebody else. There's nobody in government stopping somebody from publishing these books. What's happening is that a few megacorporations have acquired so much power they are beyond influencing. Are a few angry people going to vote with their wallets to defeat eBay? Please, there is no recourse - eBay has essentially no competition in its sector and is accountable to nobody but their shareholders. And the publisher? Well, the publishers have lobbied for our politicians to grant them infinite copyright, so now they can do as they wish with our culture. If they choose to bury it and stop publishing, this is the right our politicians have agreed to give to them. This isn't really a free speech issue at its heart, even if it feels like it. This is really a power imbalance where control in all sectors of commerce (and in almost every aspect of our lives) is being distilled into a handful of unassailable monopolists to whom our politicians have gradually ceded their power.

eeZah7Ux 6y ago

> Free speech is about protecting the right of the un-popular and views that some may find utterly repugnant Wrong. From the third paragraph of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech """Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury. Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."[4]""" First, offensive caricatures can fall squarely into "libel" and "slander" and harming someone's dignity. Second, EBay is not being forced to delist the books by the government.