Ebay offensive material policy - Just the beginning of censorship, already happening? Whats the scoop? 3 3

[snitzer]

Someone snapped this photo outside eBay HQ today in California...

[Larryw7]

I'd rather discuss the new Stan Lee book. 

[ttfitz]

7 hours ago, Prince Namor said:

8 hours ago, Bookery said:

It is censorship, by definition, just not by federal government (which has the power of armed force to enact its restrictions, which is why full-out government censorship is unconstitutional).  Censoring something doesn't mean it isn't legal.  We all censor what can be said or displayed in the workplace, what can be brought into our homes, what we allow to be used in education. 

It's NOT censorship. EBay ISN'T an authority, they're a private business. And NO, me deciding to NOT play rap or country music in my bar ISN'T censorship - it's a business decision based upon market. Other bars can still play it - it isn't suppressed - you can buy your own bar or sit at home and play it all day long

I don't want to get in the weeds of the rest of this - partly because I fall somewhere in the middle between the two of you - but I do agree with you here, it is NOT censorship. "By definition", censorship is "the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security." eBay is doing neither, they are just deciding what items they will be involved in selling. I'm sure Bookery doesn't carry every item available, and it isn't censorship that he doesn't. 

Now, if eBay said "You can sell these books if you cut out the offensive pages" THAT would be closer to censorship. But I'm not even sure I would go with that, either.

[Rip]

On 3/9/2021 at 2:19 PM, ttfitz said:

I don't want to get in the weeds of the rest of this - partly because I fall somewhere in the middle between the two of you - but I do agree with you here, it is NOT censorship. "By definition", censorship is "the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security." eBay is doing neither, they are just deciding what items they will be involved in selling. I'm sure Bookery doesn't carry every item available, and it isn't censorship that he doesn't. 

Now, if eBay said "You can sell these books if you cut out the offensive pages" THAT would be closer to censorship. But I'm not even sure I would go with that, either.

ttfitz, why do you think E-bay is "prohibiting" THESE books from being sold?
(They are doing a very poor job of it by the way)

Previously they did have these books  Now they no longer. Why?

It's not like they decided to no longer sell cars or potato chips anymore.

 

Edited March 11, 2021 by Rip

[Prince Namor]

28 minutes ago, Larryw7 said:

I'd rather discuss the new Stan Lee book. 

Start a thread, I’ve finished the book just last week. Would love to discuss it. Kind of a sad story really. 

[ttfitz]

1 minute ago, Rip said:

ttfitz, why do you think E-bay "prohibiting" THESE books from being sold?

Previously they did have these books  Now they no longer. Why?

It doesn't matter why.

[ttfitz]

5 minutes ago, Rip said:

It's not like they decided to no longer sell cars or potato chips anymore.

And, I'm guessing, the reason "why" makes it JUST like deciding that - they think it is better for their business to not sell those items.

[Prince Namor]

They’re not selling it because it’s not worth the bad publicity right now. When the hoopla settles they’ll conveniently forget to scrub those listings.

Its just business.  

[Rip]

Why is it now better not to sell those items? 
Go back to your meaning again.

Edited March 9, 2021 by Rip

[Prince Namor]

4 minutes ago, Rip said:

Why is it now better not to sell those items? 
Go back to your meaning again.

If the money they made off of it was worth the trouble, they’d allow it to be sold. 
They don’t care what the customer makes, it’s about what they make. It’s just not worth it right now. 

[Rip]

Just now, Prince Namor said:

If the money they made off of it was worth the trouble, they’d allow it to be sold. 
They don’t care what the customer makes, it’s about what they make. It’s just not worth it right now. 

True.

Or maybe they are making more by driving up the price with the guise of being "politically responsible" and yet still selling a ton of them.

[Bird]

we can only speculate on the whys of the ebay decision...in the end they believe it to be the correct decision and they have that right for their business

regardless of the why, you can still buy and sell copies of these now out of print books on many other venues and even on ebay

ebay's decision makes it inconvenient perhaps to buy or sell this book but nothing more than that

[jcjames]

On 3/8/2021 at 3:59 PM, ThothAmon said:

Fun for awhile. 

I just learned that Zappa died at 52, 3 years after diagnosed with stage 4 cancer. So young. 

[Bookery]

22 hours ago, Prince Namor said:

It's NOT censorship. EBay ISN'T an authority, they're a private business. 

ACLU:

"Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.

In contrast, when private individuals or groups organize boycotts against stores that sell magazines of which they disapprove, their actions are protected by the First Amendment, although they can become dangerous in the extreme. Private pressure groups, not the government, promulgated and enforced the infamous Hollywood blacklists during the McCarthy period. But these private censorship campaigns are best countered by groups and individuals speaking out and organizing in defense of the threatened expression." 

(This last highlighted part is all that is going on here.  It's what I've done in the past.  It's what I'll do in the future.)

[ttfitz]

9 hours ago, Bookery said:

ACLU:

"Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.

In contrast, when private individuals or groups organize boycotts against stores that sell magazines of which they disapprove, their actions are protected by the First Amendment, although they can become dangerous in the extreme. Private pressure groups, not the government, promulgated and enforced the infamous Hollywood blacklists during the McCarthy period. But these private censorship campaigns are best countered by groups and individuals speaking out and organizing in defense of the threatened expression." 

(This last highlighted part is all that is going on here.  It's what I've done in the past.  It's what I'll do in the future.)

Nothing you've said here applies to eBay - they aren't a "private pressure group", and they are not "imposing" ANYTHING on ANYONE. They are a business who has decided not to take part in selling of certain items. It's not censorship, even from the definition you yourself have provided.

(And once again, I'm not getting into the part that you highlighted at the end. Speaking out is a good thing. But calling this something it isn't really doesn't seem helpful.)

[Rip]

6 hours ago, ttfitz said:

 "By definition", censorship is "the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security."

Nothing you've said here applies to eBay - they aren't a "private pressure group", and they are not "imposing" ANYTHING on ANYONE. They are a business who has decided not to take part in selling of certain items. It's not censorship, even from the definition you yourself have provided.

(And once again, I'm not getting into the part that you highlighted at the end. Speaking out is a good thing. But calling this something it isn't really doesn't seem helpful.)

You don't think it has anything to do with prohibiting or suppressing anything politically unacceptable?

A business prohibiting politically unaccepting material IS an great example of censorship. They even sent people a reason under the "Offensive Matericals policy" 

Just like a library or a school. They think it is better for their business /institution etc to not sell those items because its considered politically unacceptable.

Books have also been challenged/censored at more local community levels as well. The author/artist themselves can also self censor.

It's certainly their right, and censorship isn't always wrong either.

I see a lot of misconceptions, also just because I can purchase the deemed offensive item elsewhere is moot.

Edited March 11, 2021 by Rip

[ttfitz]

1 hour ago, Rip said:

You don't think it has anything to do with prohibiting or suppressing anything politically unacceptable?

Choosing not to participate in the sales of an item is not "prohibiting" ANYTHING. A business can choose what items it wants to deal with, that's choice, not censorship.

I'm just guessing, but I would imagine Bookery doesn't sell Hustler in his store. Is that censorship? Or is it just a business decision on what items to carry? I was just reading an article that Amazon, the publisher, does not sell ebooks to libraries. Is that censorship?

While I might not think eBay or Amazon is right to do these things, and I fully support those who disagree with those actions to speak up in protest to them, they just don't qualify as censorship.

1 hour ago, Rip said:

I see a lot of misconceptions, also just because I can purchase the deemed offensive item elsewhere is moot.

It is, in fact, the exact opposite of moot. It's the entire point as to why this isn't even close to being an example of censorship.

[Rip]

17 minutes ago, ttfitz said:

Choosing not to participate in the sales of an item is not "prohibiting" ANYTHING. A business can choose what items it wants to deal with, that's choice, not censorship.

I'm just guessing, but I would imagine Bookery doesn't sell Hustler in his store. Is that censorship? Or is it just a business decision on what items to carry? I was just reading an article that Amazon, the publisher, does not sell ebooks to libraries. Is that censorship?

While I might not think eBay or Amazon is right to do these things, and I fully support those who disagree with those actions to speak up in protest to them, they just don't qualify as censorship.

It is, in fact, the exact opposite of moot. It's the entire point as to why this isn't even close to being an example of censorship.

prohibit

verb (used with object)

to forbid (an action, activity, etc.) by authority or law:Smoking is prohibited here.

to forbid the action of (a person).

to prevent; hinder.

So yes e-bay is prohibiting sales of the books.

Censorship is often a choice.

 

Is selling /not selling Hustler suppressing anything politically unacceptable?
Or was his business decision pressured or altered due to anything?

Are the E-books politically unacceptable?

Just because I can get the items elsewhere doesn't matter, anymore than if it matters that I can pick up a book that may be banned by local Library, town, etc.

Edited March 11, 2021 by Rip

[ttfitz]

2 hours ago, Rip said:

So yes e-bay is prohibiting sales of the books.

I would guess that would be a big surprise to Amazon and Target and Abe Books and ... well, the list goes on and on. eBay has chosen to not carry a particular item. It's really quite simple.

 

2 hours ago, Rip said:

Is selling /not selling Hustler suppressing anything politically unacceptable?
Or was his business decision pressured or altered due to anything?

Are the E-books politically unacceptable?

I note that you do not answer the questions.

Let me ask you this - the Seuss rights holders have decided to no longer sell the books in question. Is this censorship? If so, are you saying that everyone should be required to publish everything they are legally entitled to or be guilty of censorship? If not, why is their decision to not sell these books different than the same decision by eBay.

And I feel compelled to once again note, I am not saying this was an action I agreed with, or that it wasn't a bad decision. I am simply saying it doesn't fall under the category of censorship. Well, unless you want to stretch the definition to the point where it has no meaning.

[Rip]

1 hour ago, ttfitz said:

I would guess that would be a big surprise to Amazon and Target and Abe Books and ... well, the list goes on and on. eBay has chosen to not carry a particular item. It's really quite simple.

 

I note that you do not answer the questions.

Let me ask you this - the Seuss rights holders have decided to no longer sell the books in question. Is this censorship? If so, are you saying that everyone should be required to publish everything they are legally entitled to or be guilty of censorship? If not, why is their decision to not sell these books different than the same decision by eBay.

And I feel compelled to once again note, I am not saying this was an action I agreed with, or that it wasn't a bad decision. I am simply saying it doesn't fall under the category of censorship. Well, unless you want to stretch the definition to the point where it has no meaning.

Again, doesn't matter what Target and Abe books is doing. Censorship need not be absolute. With the digital age I can also read "If I Ran a Zoo" for free by just googling.
Warner Brothers will no longer will show the "Censored Eleven". They will not make DVD's of these, yet I can watch them on You Tube.
Warner Brothers and HBONow censors those videos on their streaming platforms. I don't have a problem with this.

You said I didn't answer your questions. That's because it depends. My questions determine the answer.
You keep forgetting censorship has to do with something considered obscene or politically unacceptable.
YOU even posted it earlier yet continued to make the same error.

So with regards to e-books, it depends on what's on the e-book in question. If its all e-books then NO its not censorship. 
With regards to Hustler that's a bit different, is there some self censorship, possibly?

With regards to Seuss rights holders..., yes of course its censorship. It fits perfectly and historically.

They are no longer selling it because its deemed offensive. It's politically unacceptable. 
The Seuss foundation should not be required to publish the book.

Should everyone be required to publish everything or be guilty of censorship?

Some publishers simply do not publish books that have unacceptable material to censor. Some self censor. The Seuss foundation however did have what they deemed offensive so we know they are censoring the books. They've also made edits to books in the past.

I would also like to post this below.

I hope this helps.

https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/986/book-banning

Book banning is the most widespread form of censorship in the United States

Book banning is the most widespread form of censorship in the United States, with children’s literature being the primary target. Advocates for banning a book or certain books fear that children will be swayed by its contents, which they regard as potentially dangerous. They commonly fear that these publications will present ideas, raise questions, and incite critical inquiry among children that parents, political groups, or religious organizations are not ready to address or that they find inappropriate.

 

 

Edited March 11, 2021 by Rip
Simplfied a bit