• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

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

631 posts in this topic

Just to summarize

Point 1.
Censorship can occur in libraries. I'm guessing you would agree, yes?
School lists? Bookstore shelves? Does it have to encompass the entire known universe for it to be censorship?
Does it have to be removed at Abe's books and Target, plus everywhere else for it to be censorship. Of course not.
https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/986/book-banning

Point 2.
Censorship has to do with something considered obscene or politically unacceptable.
Refusal to sell potato chips, or the e-book format has nothing to do with censorship. Unless it meets the criteria above.
 


 

 

Edited by Rip
Trying to keep it simple
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Bookery said:

I'm not even calling for eBay to reinstate those 6 books. I can understand why they dropped them.  But the reason I consider it "censorship" (in one of its definitions) is that I believe they did it as a business decision, yes, but only because they feared pressure group backlash.  I can't read the minds of eBay executives, but since they allow the sale of things far more egregious than those, I come to that conclusion that it was from the threat of perceived pressure, and not because they adhere to certain moral standards.  6 books?  No biggie in the scheme of things.  But let's face it... we all know this is just the tip of the iceberg.  The group I went up against had victory after victory just by putting pressure on a single prosecutor in each county.  But as soon as they ran into counter-pressure, even as minimal as ours was, they folded and were never heard from again.

All I've ever meant to suggest in this thread is to be prepared to apply counter-pressure.  Dr. Seuss doesn't have to be your hill to die on.  It actually isn't mine.  But transacting vintage material, I believe, is going to come under assault, because no previous point in history can ever come up to the standards of a present generation.  To bring this all home, then... that will affect our hobby, this industry, the company whose boards we share.  And that is why this thread is here.

Whatever happened to listening to your supporters and not your detractors? Fear of the mob must end. 2c

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the end of the day, it seems like a lot of the concern here on the boards (a niche group within a niche collecting group, which I'd wager a guess is overwhelmingly composed of middle aged white men) is that this means that eventually the "cancel culture" is going to get around to the stuff that you like and collect and/or sell. But if what you like and collect is old racist claptrap, maybe it's not such a loss? Is it cancel culture, or is culture evolving to a point where it says "You know, this stuff...this is not cool anymore"  A lot of the concern seems to be about how it may restrict your access to the stuff you want to buy and sell and collect and/or profit from. It's personal to you. I understand that.

I'm a huge Carl Barks fan, myself. One of the greatest cartoonists who ever put pen to paper. And his early work has a lot of cultural depictions that fly way past "iffy" and into "ooooh, no" territory. They make me cringe, as a fan and reader. And that's me, the aforementioned middle age white guy. Would I feel comfortable showing some of those stories to my black friends, or an indigenous person? Not likely, no. Am I bad for liking his work? I don't think so. Is it worth having a larger conversation about the stuff? Absolutely.

Now, I think Fantagraphics' approach, in which they restore and present the material completely uncut, but ground it with a foreword about cultural depictions at the time, is the RIGHT way to handle stuff like this, FOR ME. Me being another middle aged white dude. Makes sense to these eyes. But maybe other people feel differently, and they're hurt by those depictions. How can I say? I have no idea, I'm not in their shoes.

I'd think Dr. Seuss could be handled in the same way. Song of the South as well. Let the stuff show warts and all, and explain WHY it's wrong, but also why it's still worth cataloging. Would I miss my Duck books if Carl Barks ends up "canceled", and this stuff gets pulled from distribution? Hell yeah I would! But, again, I'm not really the one who is on the wrong side of the ugliness. If they DID yank my Barks' library from publication, I'd be sad to see it go, but I can't come out and say it's wrong to do so, because I'm not the offended party. How can anyone say that anyone else's sense of offense is correct or incorrect? How can you say that someone else is overreacting, when you can't know how they really feel inside? I've not seen may instances of "cancel culture" so much as I've seen "consequence culture." You do some shady stuff, it may eventually catch up with you. Maybe the Dr. Seuss thing is overblown. Maybe it's right on. I can't say. I don't have a dog in the fight.

My two cents, devil's advocate, etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bookery said:

By the strict standards Namor and others have put forth about the definition of "censorship", nothing has ever been censored in America.  Yet "Banned Books Week" is a thing highlighting books that have been banned throughout the years.  None of them was banned by the federal government.  At all times these books were available in other places.  But they were censored in specific localities, by certain libraries, by certain school boards, by specific county prosecutors (as what I dealt with, and no, the State of Ohio was not involved at any level, as Namor insinuated).  Yet these books are considered to have been banned / censored nonetheless.

Of course, my entire concerns were sidetracked in this thread.  I never cared specifically about "that one silly book" (we were never told what that book was, btw), nor even the 6 Dr. Seuss books that eBay decided to no longer carry.  If that's all this was about, few would make a deal of it.  I think what bothers me, and Rip, and others... is that we are seeing a sweeping trend in this country in the past few years.  Namor ridiculed as hypebole my statement that nearly every week we see another case of some form of "censorship", "pc" pressure, "cancel culture", whatever you may want to call it... and it does indeed take different forms in different instances.  Just this week, since I made that statement, there have been several more things added to that list, involving a major entertainment distributor, the nation's largest bookstore, and in other arenas.  But I can't detail them here, because it become too difficult to separate the censorship issues from those that cross back and forth over the politics line.  And I understand that.

The reason, then, that this thread gets hung up on the Dr. Seuss thing, is that it is the one that closest aligns to the subjects of this board.  Dr. Seuss books are a form of graphic novel.  They are comics.  If Dr. Seuss' historical publications can come under attack, the vast majority of comic books printed certainly before the 1960s, and probably before the 1990s, can come under the same.

And once again, I do not think the publisher deciding not to continue publishing 6 titles is censorship.  They looked at their backlist and made a business decision.  As far as I know, it was completely internal and was not done to appease outside pressure groups.  But once they made that decision, those pressure groups did arise, and eBay made their decision to head off the tidal wave of derision they felt would be headed their way.  A major bookstore this week pulled a book from their shelves because they were threatened with violence.  That's the public pressure part of the ACLU definition, and that is censorship, despite the fact the book can readily be gotten elsewhere.  

My store once did have an adult back-issue section which included older issues of Hustler, etc.  I haven't had it in years, because I wanted to focus on more collectible type material, and to focus on items that fit in more with the rest of our operation. But I did not get rid of it because of outside pressure.  In fact, I'm stubborn enough that had there been outside pressure, I'd probably still have the section just out of defiance (not necessarily the best business approach, but there you have it):)

I'm not even calling for eBay to reinstate those 6 books. I can understand why they dropped them.  But the reason I consider it "censorship" (in one of its definitions) is that I believe they did it as a business decision, yes, but only because they feared pressure group backlash.  I can't read the minds of eBay executives, but since they allow the sale of things far more egregious than those, I come to that conclusion that it was from the threat of perceived pressure, and not because they adhere to certain moral standards.  6 books?  No biggie in the scheme of things.  But let's face it... we all know this is just the tip of the iceberg.  The group I went up against had victory after victory just by putting pressure on a single prosecutor in each county.  But as soon as they ran into counter-pressure, even as minimal as ours was, they folded and were never heard from again.

All I've ever meant to suggest in this thread is to be prepared to apply counter-pressure.  Dr. Seuss doesn't have to be your hill to die on.  It actually isn't mine.  But transacting vintage material, I believe, is going to come under assault, because no previous point in history can ever come up to the standards of a present generation.  To bring this all home, then... that will affect our hobby, this industry, the company whose boards we share.  And that is why this thread is here.

 

 

Principles be damned.

Let's just wait 'till someone comes for us personally.  Best for all, really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, F For Fake said:

 Is it cancel culture, or is culture evolving to a point where it says "You know, this stuff...this is not cool anymore"  A lot of the concern seems to be about how it may restrict your access to the stuff you want to buy and sell and collect and/or profit from. It's personal to you. I understand that.

Who says history has to be "cool"?  Pretending history didn't happen has always been dangerous.  It's not about profits.  History has also never been kind to book-banning... even in limited capacities.  The censors, no matter how major or minor, are never later seen as the "good guys".

55 minutes ago, F For Fake said:

 Is it worth having a larger conversation about the stuff? Absolutely.

Exactly.  History needs to be seen in context... in fact context is what makes it fascinating.  And each generation should add to the conversation.  

55 minutes ago, F For Fake said:

But maybe other people feel differently, and they're hurt by those depictions. How can I say? I have no idea, I'm not in their shoes.

Avoiding someone you personally dislike makes sense.  Banning it for someone else doesn't.  And for that matter, reading something doesn't mean you approve of it.  It means you want to know about it.  

55 minutes ago, F For Fake said:

I'd think Dr. Seuss could be handled in the same way. Song of the South as well. Let the stuff show warts and all, and explain WHY it's wrong, but also why it's still worth cataloging.

Exactly.  Don't restrict stuff.  Add more dialogue to it.  Learn from it.  You can't learn from what you don't know exists.

55 minutes ago, F For Fake said:

 How can anyone say that anyone else's sense of offense is correct or incorrect? How can you say that someone else is overreacting, when you can't know how they really feel inside?

I understand to a point.  But if you go through life offended by historical artifacts, you are going to lead a pretty miserable existence.  It's simply not possible to go through life un-offended.  It's one thing if someone were to write and promote a fresh book today employing these images and texts.  It's another to be able to look at the past and know it for what it was.  Everything about today's culture will eventually offend someone in the future.  If we try to cancel the offensive, entire genres must as a consequence be deleted.  The Horror genre... film, books, comics... is inherently designed to offend.  In fact, today's over-the-top ultra-gore is designed further to be more of an assault on sensibilities.

What television show made, say, before 1990, isn't going to exhibit racism, or sexism, or religious bigotry by today's standards, even unintentionally, somewhere during its run?  The entire Blaxploitation genre of the '70s was designed to give Black audiences heroes they could relate to.  And yet today, despite some of these being made by Black filmmakers, they seem steeped in stereotypes, and are certainly dripping with sexism.  Andy Griffith -- hardly a black person to be seen despite being set in the south, and the women were seen primarily in traditionalist roles... housewives, manicurists, nurses, teachers.  It's certainly not inclusive... but it's still funny, which was all it ever was intended to be.

Comic book collectors especially value the offensive.  Premiums are paid for the most exploitative cover art, the "naughty" panel that had to be pulled and re-issued, the most outrageous Nazi covers.  As human beings we are drawn to the darker aspects of our selves, of history.  It doesn't mean we approve of it.  In fact, we are drawn to it precisely because it in such contrast to the way we see things now.  

55 minutes ago, F For Fake said:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bookery said:

By the strict standards Namor and others have put forth about the definition of "censorship", nothing has ever been censored in America.  Yet "Banned Books Week" is a thing highlighting books that have been banned throughout the years.  None of them was banned by the federal government.  At all times these books were available in other places.  But they were censored in specific localities, by certain libraries, by certain school boards, by specific county prosecutors (as what I dealt with, and no, the State of Ohio was not involved at any level, as Namor insinuated).  Yet these books are considered to have been banned / censored nonetheless.

Exactly. Those are all specific locations that banned/censored books. FeeBay does not represent or control any location.

Ironically, the Seuss books will be less available to people now, not because of censorship (though the cessation of publication obviously doesn't make them any more available), but because of lies and theft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Bookery said:

The censors, no matter how major or minor, are never later seen as the "good guys".

off the top of my head, protocols of elders of Zion even? Good guys are keeping that from disseminating, right? Maybe?  (shrug)

I think it is worthwhile to keep scholarly views of the works in question available but for something like elders of zion I think restricting the actual work might be called for 

(I had a hard time even typing that sentence for what that is worth.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole thing just seems absolutely absurd to me. Not only is eBay missing out on a lot of money ~14% sales for each book, but no-one was even calling them to do this. Heck, I read an op-ed by the LA times about how eBay pulling these books is unnecessary.

Ebay permits the sale of certain pornographic materials on its site, yet McGelligot's Pool is not allowed because it simply uses the word "Eskimo" (a word that completely unbeknownst to me became offensive seemingly overnight). 

I can buy Mein Kampf, Marx's Communist Manifesto, and pornographic material on eBay, but not Dr. Suess. This is absurd.

Edited by HuddyBee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If McGelligot's Pool can be banned from the site for using the word "Eskimo," all that needs to happen is for some self-proclaimed "activist" to see a picture of a book like Captain Marvel Adventures No. 23 and a huge chunk of Golden Age comics will be simply gone from eBay.

cap 23.jpg

Edited by HuddyBee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

it could happen. it would be overreach as it is with seuss but it would be understandable (meaning I see why I just don't agree).

If you asked ebay about the discrepancy I am SURE they would take listings down. Best to keep things quiet when the mob mentality rules, then when things are calm discuss freely and openly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Bird said:

off the top of my head, protocols of elders of Zion even? Good guys are keeping that from disseminating, right? Maybe?  (shrug)

I think it is worthwhile to keep scholarly views of the works in question available but for something like elders of zion I think restricting the actual work might be called for 

(I had a hard time even typing that sentence for what that is worth.)

In a recent BBC documentary about holocaust denial it was found to be available on Amazon.

Appalling drivel, but some groups would take the material at face value.

Edited by Ken Aldred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/7/2021 at 4:48 AM, Prince Namor said:

Heck, Prince had a lot more suggestive stuff than that during most of the same time.

 

I'd pick "Lady Cab Driver" from the 1999 album over "Darling Nikki" from Purple Rain. 

Edited by Ken Aldred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, HuddyBee said:

If McGelligot's Pool can be banned from the site for using the word "Eskimo," all that needs to happen is for some self-proclaimed "activist" to see a picture of a book like Captain Marvel Adventures No. 23 and a huge chunk of Golden Age comics will be simply gone from eBay.

cap 23.jpg

And heritage...and ComicLink and potentially, here as well. Speak up or be spoken for.

Edited by snitzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Rip said:

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.

You asked your questions about my example of Hustler, which clearly might be something considered obscene, but only asked about "politically unacceptable."

And you seem to take each half of the definition and apply it separately, rather than as a whole, to come to your conclusions. But that is neither here nor there, and we are going in circles. Although I will point out that you see the Seuss families actions as "yes of course its censorship. It fits perfectly and historically" while Bookery states it is not, so maybe not as "perfectly" as you seem to think.

For me, to call a business's decision not to support a particular work as censorship only has the effect of diluting the meaning of censorship. And for no good reason - you can be against this decision to exactly the same degree whether it is censorious or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Bookery said:

By the strict standards Namor and others have put forth about the definition of "censorship", nothing has ever been censored in America. 

This is completely false. Let's see if I can find some examples for you - oh, okay, here:

8 hours ago, Bookery said:

Yet "Banned Books Week" is a thing highlighting books that have been banned throughout the years.  None of them was banned by the federal government.  At all times these books were available in other places.  But they were censored in specific localities, by certain libraries, by certain school boards, by specific county prosecutors (as what I dealt with, and no, the State of Ohio was not involved at any level, as Namor insinuated).  Yet these books are considered to have been banned / censored nonetheless.

These are all examples of PUBLIC entities banning things. Completely different than a private company deciding not to participate in the sale of an item.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, ttfitz said:

This is completely false. Let's see if I can find some examples for you - oh, okay, here:

These are all examples of PUBLIC entities banning things. Completely different than a private company deciding not to participate in the sale of an item.

I believe you are confusing The First Amendment's right to free speech with the meaning of censorship.

The First Amendment does not extend to private businesses. But a private business can still engage in corporate censorship. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
3 3