View Full Version : PayPal sparks furore over limits on "obscene" e-books
IAN 2411
03-08-2012, 01:21 AM
PayPal sparks furore over limits on "obscene" e-books
By Alistair Barr
SAN FRANCISCO | Wed Mar 7, 2012 4:52pm EST
(Reuters) - PayPal, the online payments arm of eBay Inc, has sparked a furore in the publishing world by asking some e-book distributors to ban books that contain "obscene" themes including rape, bestiality or incest.
PayPal sent an email on Feb 18 to Mark Coker, founder of e-book publisher and distributor Smashwords, saying it would "limit" the company's PayPal account unless Smashwords removed from its website e-books "containing themes of rape, incest, bestiality and underage subjects."
PayPal sent similar warnings to online publishers and booksellers including BookStrand.com and eXcessica, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a non-profit that supports free speech, privacy and other individual rights in the digital world.
A PayPal spokesman confirmed that the company sent such notifications to companies but declined to identify specific recipients.
EFF and other groups including the Authors Guild, the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression and the Association of American Publishers are planning to send a letter to PayPal on Wednesday asking the company to reverse its policy.
PayPal "is now holding free speech hostage by clamping down on sales of certain types of erotica," the groups said, according to a draft of the letter sent to Reuters. "We strongly object to PayPal functioning as an enforcer of public morality and inhibiting the right to buy and sell constitutionally protected material."
PayPal said it was acting in part because banks and credit card companies it works with restrict such content, according to an email PayPal sent to Smashwords on February 24. Reuters obtained copies of the emails.
"Our banking partners and credit card associations have taken a very strict stance on this subject matter," PayPal said in the February 24 email. "Our relationships with the banking partners are absolutely critical in order to provide the online and mobile services we (offer) ... to our customers. Therefore, we have to remain in compliance with their rules, which prohibit content involving rape, bestiality or incest."
The move has caused uproar in the publishing world, which is concerned that banks and credit card companies may be exerting too much control over what books can be written, published and read.
"You're dealing with American Express, MasterCard and Visa -- are they making these decisions?" said Albert Greco, a book-industry expert at the business school of Fordham University. "That seems very strange and it could well be a very big issue."
Spokespeople at American Express, MasterCard, Visa and big card-issuing banks JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and Wells Fargo, did not respond to phone calls and emails seeking comment on Wednesday.
"We've had deep concerns about financial payment providers choosing what sorts of transactions they process," said Rainey Reitman, activism director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
"Speech on the Internet relies on companies that are supposed to act neutrally," she added. "When certain chains in this link suddenly decide to become arbiters of what people read, that's a problem. This is now affecting individual book readers' choices."
A PayPal spokesman said the company allows its service to be used for the sale of "erotic" books but added that the company has to draw the line "on certain adult content that is extreme or potentially illegal."
PayPal's decision is based solely on business factors, one of which is the company's agreements with card associations and banks, the spokesman added.
Fordham's Greco said PayPal has a right to choose what type of transactions its payments services will support.
Still, Smashwords founder Coker said that the rise of e-books has shifted more power in the book world to payment processors and banks.
In the past, readers walked into a physical bookstore and could purchase a book with cash, leaving such companies out of the equation.
"Electronic payments have become the oxygen of e-commerce and e-books, so PayPal, banks and credit card companies have enormous power," Coker said. "What right does a financial institution have to censor legal content? Authors are being caught in the middle."
(Editing by Steve Orlofsky)
This is censorship on a grand scale, the credit and debit card issuers are now telling us that we cannot use our cards to buy these items. If we go into a shop however, we can buy anything we damn well want. Next will be sex toys and the like, and forget about Ann Summers she as lost out to the credit card censors.
It is a very slippery road when a person is dictated to and told how they must spend their money. Rape and incest are shown in police movies on television with real people playing the parts. In a book this is all in the writers mind, and there are no real persons involved, which makes it legal.
The same thing in books and stories is erotic writing and legal to be sold in paperback in most of the Christian free world. It is never sold to countries that bar such written material. The thing you have to ask yourselves is where is this all going to stop? PayPal should be informed by the people that they are not to be dictated to by plastic issuers.
I do not write any of the three banned mentioned and I know that my books are not affected, but as a writer I have to shout censorship with my fellow writers to preserve their rights.
The way incest is being used by these people is incorrect. They are stating that first cousins is incest, I know four married couples that are first cousins. They are stating that siblings from four different parents is now incest, how the hell that comes to be I have no idea. This stupidity has got to be stopped now as it is erosion of our rights to write what we want, and for a person to read what they want in the privacy of their own home.
I have already had an e mail from Mark Coker at Smashwords and if anyone wishes to read it I can make it available.
Thank you for listening.
Be well IAN 2411
Yep. Totally. Except this:
The way incest is being used by these people is incorrect. They are stating that first cousins is incest, I know four married couples that are first cousins. They are stating that siblings from four different parents is now incest, how the hell that comes to be I have no idea.
I wouldn't even start to argue where incest begins and what's still OK. Once you go that path, you actually give your OK to the idea that some stuff should be censored. Imho, it shouldn't. Never. Ever.
Not even pedosexual crap. And if it is, the first book that should have to go down the gutter is the oh-so holy bible.
Who the heck do they think they are???
Thorne
03-08-2012, 07:29 PM
Who the heck do they think they are???
Big Brother? They will tell you what you can think, what you can read, what you can watch. They will regulate who, how and when you can fuck. They will make sure that you abide by their ancient moral code, whether you agree with them or not. Just don't expect them to abide by that code themselves. Anyone care to guess who they are?
denuseri
03-10-2012, 07:04 AM
That is easy.
And its not about religion per say either.
Though I know you will want to make this thread into a bully pulpit for atheism yet again if I don't miss what your implying...yet to do so is to miss the forest for the trees....since religion is only one of those trees the forest of oppression.
It's the same "they" that's always been there...the tyrants, the grossly and inordinately wealthy, the one's who hold all the chips ....those who hold the "actual" power over the rest of us.
Sometimes they rule well. Sometimes they don't.
They have been with us since the beginning. It's well known amongst anthropologists that such things are a byproduct of human group behavior in our dominance hierarchy relationships.
Whether we are aware of such things or not in our day to day lives depends upon how much it affects our own bread and circuses. For the most part the system works but it follows cycles where the one's in power become more and more corrupt over time and a societal reset button eventually gets pressed by the masses if things go too far or some other factors don't come into play to change the precieved inequalities.
It also is shown to transcend religious, philosophical and political afiliations (since it takes place universally regardless of such distinctions world wide in every culture to one extent or another) and is directed by the upper levels of society unto the lower to keep them productive and in line. Which in some cases; as in the example provided by the op, is directed upon one business by another due to fears of the general public's "perceptions" affecting one's profit margin.
Thorne
03-10-2012, 09:38 AM
Actually, I was referring more to conservatives than to any specific religious group, although I do believe that much of the problems that people have with sexuality, especially OTHER people's sexuality, is founded in religious belief. But atheists can be just as "prudish", so no, I'm not trying to make that connection.
There are just some people who are dedicated to making sure that other people not be allowed to do anything that they themselves find offensive, or wrong. In this country those people tend to be conservatives (though by no means exclusively) and yes, many of those conservatives are very religious. But ultimately I agree with you: you don't have to be religious to hold such opinions. But just maybe you have to have been exposed to it somewhere in order to form those opinions? Personally, I don't know why anyone would object to my buying pornography other than for religious reasons, but I'm sure you'll be able to give me reasons.
IAN 2411
03-10-2012, 12:14 PM
Personally, I don't know why anyone would object to my buying pornography.
FULL STOP!!! I do understand that statement above Thorne, and I am in total agreement.
unless for religious reasons.
Why religious reasons, by that you are saying if they say dont shop at TESCO because they are atheists we should do just that.
The OP is not about pornography, it is about the written word. They are erotic writing and because it is all in the mind and fiction it cannot be classed as pornography in either the USA or the UK and Europe. To be pornography there has to be two consenting adults in either film or still pictures, and this is what the furore is about.
Neither is it PayPal in a way, they are just pandering to the plastic people. It is that little piece of plastic we all carry in our wallet. It is they that are telling us how to live our lives without sin, at the same time they rob us blind with their over the top charges. When they start telling you which supermarket to go to because the others dont pay them enough return for the use of plastic, then it will be too late to shout Big Brother.
Be well IAN 2411
Strypi
03-10-2012, 01:53 PM
I used to be conservative...and not once did I think that we needed to censor anything....nor did any other conservatives. They don't want the government involved in their lives to that point. The ones who seem to want to tell others what to think and say are the liberals. On the liberal side was where I ALWAYS seem to hear the phrase, "there ought to be a law" when someone does something that others don't agree with. Just sayin...
The stupidity is continuing. We are now able to be converted to a police state very easily, rights thrown out the window. A law was created so that you can be taken into custody and kept, indefinitely, with no attorney, etc...and it passed! Look up the new laws created this last year. You'll be amazed! Makes this Paypal business PALE in comparison! Censorship is the least of our worries.
Now, Paypal making this statement and choice- well, let's just look at that for a minute. Paypal is not a government entity. They don't get their funding from taxes. I believe that they should be allowed to determine what sorts of transactions that they will support. This has nothing to do with rights. If you walked into my nail salon a few years ago, you'd have to abide by my rules, and that is how it should be. Paypal is saying the same thing. Corporations are not democracies. They get to make the rules, and your rights have nothing to do with it. Your rights come into play when you are dealing with police, or other governmental entities. If you don't like how a company is ran, you have the ability (not the right) to spend your money elsewhere.
Since Paypal says that I am too obscene to use their service for transactions...I don't need to use them! I have a credit card, I have a debit card, Google checkout...hell, some companies are setting it up so you can charge online purchases to your cell phone...there are many other options for me than to use Paypal.
Thorne
03-10-2012, 02:34 PM
The OP is not about pornography, it is about the written word. They are erotic writing and because it is all in the mind and fiction it cannot be classed as pornography in either the USA or the UK and Europe. To be pornography there has to be two consenting adults in either film or still pictures, and this is what the furore is about.
You say erotica, they say pornography. ANYTHING which doesn't agree with their notion of Right is pornography.
It is they that are telling us how to live our lives without sin, at the same time they rob us blind with their over the top charges.
Be like me, then. Don't pay their charges. Pay cash, or pay off the card when it comes due. No interest payments, no late fees, no annual fees. If they don't like it, don't use them.
When they start telling you which supermarket to go to because the others don’t pay them enough return for the use of plastic, then it will be too late to shout Big Brother.
And when people stop using them because they can't buy what they want, they'll back down or go out of business. I use credit cards because they are convenient. When they stop being convenient, they can keep them. When they tell me I cannot buy something because they deemed it obscene, I will cut up my card. If enough people do that, they will rethink their position. Or go out of business.
Thorne
03-10-2012, 02:45 PM
I used to be conservative...and not once did I think that we needed to censor anything....nor did any other conservatives. They don't want the government involved in their lives to that point. The ones who seem to want to tell others what to think and say are the liberals.
Is it the "liberals" in Texas, Missouri, Oklahoma and elsewhere trying to force creationism back into the schools? Is it the "liberals" who are making it impossible for a woman to make her own health decisions? Is it "liberals" who are behind the anti-blasphemy laws that are starting to pop up all over the place? No, I didn't think so. Just look at the current crop of Republican candidates. Yeah, they want smaller government. Except for those parts that will force others to do as they say, believe as they say, think as they say.
Look up the new laws created this last year. You'll be amazed!
But who made up these laws? The conservative Congress, unless I miss my guess.
Since Paypal says that I am too obscene to use their service for transactions...I don't need to use them! I have a credit card, I have a debit card, Google checkout...hell, some companies are setting it up so you can charge online purchases to your cell phone...there are many other options for me than to use Paypal.
My sentiments exactly. (See my comment above.) Until big business gets to the point where they can legislate what and where we purchase items, we can control them with our wallets. But if the pro-big business Congress has their way, that time may not be so far off.
You're right about Paypal being a privately owned corporation who has the right to set up their own rules. You're wrong about having choices, because Paypal is doing now what plastic money has done already a couple of months ago.
They're not doing this because they don't want to make a buck. They're doing this because they're pissing their pants for being accused to promote nonconsensual sex and violence.
Me, I don't blame religion. I blame American (rather hypocrite) morals. I'm afraid that once again Europeans are daft enough to follow suit.
Strypi
03-10-2012, 03:09 PM
Is it the "liberals" in Texas, Missouri, Oklahoma and elsewhere trying to force creationism back into the schools? Is it the "liberals" who are making it impossible for a woman to make her own health decisions? Is it "liberals" who are behind the anti-blasphemy laws that are starting to pop up all over the place? No, I didn't think so. Just look at the current crop of Republican candidates. Yeah, they want smaller government. Except for those parts that will force others to do as they say, believe as they say, think as they say.
But who made up these laws? The conservative Congress, unless I miss my guess.
My sentiments exactly. (See my comment above.) Until big business gets to the point where they can legislate what and where we purchase items, we can control them with our wallets. But if the pro-big business Congress has their way, that time may not be so far off.
I know it was Obama's camp that set the fire for the ripping away of our rights with the new detention laws.
And yes, I said porn, but I meant that as written/spoken, as well as any other form of expression...
And the conservatives with their school policies...well, it's no different than liberals who made laws all over the US that I can't discipline my children as I choose! Yet,we can kill babies all day long, and I have to pay for another woman's choice to do so with my tax dollars! I have no problem with her making that choice, but I shouldn't have to pay...but I do. Neither side is better than the other, and the evils are greater as the game contiues.
The point is that our rights are only rights in the bill. When dealing with private enterprise, we don't have rights. We have a choice.
Thorne
03-10-2012, 08:21 PM
Yet,we can kill babies all day long,
Oh please. Really? That old hobgoblin? They aren't babies until they're born. They aren't even viable until late into the pregnancy. Before that they are little more than a parasite within the mother. And it's HER right to decide what to do with it.
and I have to pay for another woman's choice to do so with my tax dollars! I have no problem with her making that choice, but I shouldn't have to pay...but I do.
No, you don't! Federal law prohibits using tax dollars for abortions. Nationwide. What you DO have to pay your tax dollars for is for those women who are unable to have abortions, because of draconian laws, having to go on welfare and food stamps to feed those kids they really don't want. Costs one HELL of a lot more, per kid, than an abortion, too.
Neither side is better than the other, and the evils are greater as the game contiues.
Agreed, both sides are equally bad. The evils come from a totally different direction, in my view.
Actually, I was referring more to conservatives than to any specific religious group, although I do believe that much of the problems that people have with sexuality, especially OTHER people's sexuality, is founded in religious belief. But atheists can be just as "prudish", so no, I'm not trying to make that connection.
There are just some people who are dedicated to making sure that other people not be allowed to do anything that they themselves find offensive, or wrong. In this country those people tend to be conservatives (though by no means exclusively) and yes, many of those conservatives are very religious. But ultimately I agree with you: you don't have to be religious to hold such opinions. But just maybe you have to have been exposed to it somewhere in order to form those opinions? Personally, I don't know why anyone would object to my buying pornography other than for religious reasons, but I'm sure you'll be able to give me reasons.
I agree the idea of what other people do seems to be on the forefront of many radical group's minds. But I am sure that one's own sexual problems or limits (if any) come from religious ideas, whether or not one is religious or not. We carry the inheritance from religious ideals whether we like it or not. Hence the puritanism even in non-religious people which you mention.
I also think there may be an element of 'if I have to go without, by god so must they'. I mean for all groups. I saw this for instance in a job I had where you were supposed to go to union meetings, and I did not. They were all over me, and the most offered argument was not about unions, but about how they too thought it was difficult to find the time, but they did, and so must I. I believe that the more you want something (in this case more time) but cannot have, or deny yourself, the angrier you become at people who have it or take it.
I also personally believe that one reason why especially so many women are subs, is because they need/want to be freed from sexual shames and exhibitions.
In short, I think the more freedom for everyone, the less people in general feel like interfeering with other's peoples' business. Happy people rarely make trouble for others - without a very good reason which concerns themselves directly.
It's the same "they" that's always been there...the tyrants, the grossly and inordinately wealthy, the one's who hold all the chips ....those who hold the "actual" power over the rest of us.
Sometimes they rule well. Sometimes they don't.
They have been with us since the beginning. It's well known amongst anthropologists that such things are a byproduct of human group behavior in our dominance hierarchy relationships.
I think it neccesary to point out that anthropologists are by no means in agreement on any such thing, nor is there any proof of it. It is this new age wave of 'evolutionary' this-or-other that throws out ideas by the bucket loads with little concern of facts or proof.
I think it is important to draw attention to this, because it means that we do not neccesarily have to put up with firms such as pay pal - or the banks they work with - because we think it is some sort of divine or natural order, and we can do nothing about it. Democracy was thought of for a reason, and it means influence on our own lives and fighting people who for reasons of simply greed try to bully us.
Whether we are aware of such things or not in our day to day lives depends upon how much it affects our own bread and circuses.
Too true, unfortunately.
For the most part the system works but it follows cycles where the one's in power become more and more corrupt over time and a societal reset button eventually gets pressed by the masses if things go too far or some other factors don't come into play to change the precieved inequalities.
My thought is that it that were true, we would have seen this reset button in function years ago.
It also is shown to transcend religious, philosophical and political afiliations (since it takes place universally regardless of such distinctions world wide in every culture to one extent or another) and is directed by the upper levels of society unto the lower to keep them productive and in line. Which in some cases; as in the example provided by the op, is directed upon one business by another due to fears of the general public's "perceptions" affecting one's profit margin.
Greed is indeed the by-word of our times! But the reason these greedy people fear for their profit margin is the percieved ideas of how the public thinks, which, in this case, is directly related to religious ideas regarding sexual matters.
Thorne
03-11-2012, 07:26 AM
I agree the idea of what other people do seems to be on the forefront of many radical group's minds. But I am sure that one's own sexual problems or limits (if any) come from religious ideas, whether or not one is religious or not. We carry the inheritance from religious ideals whether we like it or not. Hence the puritanism even in non-religious people which you mention.
I agree. We are still trying to get out from under almost 2000 years of Christian "leadership", and it's impossible to ignore the effects of religion in our society, language, history, etc.
I also think there may be an element of 'if I have to go without, by god so must they'. I mean for all groups. I saw this for instance in a job I had where you were supposed to go to union meetings, and I did not. They were all over me, and the most offered argument was not about unions, but about how they too thought it was difficult to find the time, but they did, and so must I. I believe that the more you want something (in this case more time) but cannot have, or deny yourself, the angrier you become at people who have it or take it.
Yeah, I've seen this kind of thing, too. I've always gotten a bit of a kick out of pushing against the flow with these people.
I also personally believe that one reason why especially so many women are subs, is because they need/want to be freed from sexual shames and exhibitions.
I've noticed that quite a lot of the subs I've encountered were raised Catholic. I've read postings by people who have tried to explain the reasons for this, but most of them seem to boil down to just what you've said. Interesting.
In short, I think the more freedom for everyone, the less people in general feel like interfeering with other's peoples' business. Happy people rarely make trouble for others - without a very good reason which concerns themselves directly.
Well, some people are only happy when they ARE making trouble for others. Politicians, especially, seem to have a built in need to interfere with other people's lives. And again, a lot of that seems to hark back to religion. They tend to see themselves having a divine mandate to rule, and it's important to them that they make others feel the same thing.
denuseri
03-11-2012, 12:22 PM
I think it neccesary to point out that anthropologists are by no means in agreement on any such thing, nor is there any proof of it. It is this new age wave of 'evolutionary' this-or-other that throws out ideas by the bucket loads with little concern of facts or proof.
Proof that human physiology functions the way it does in relationship dynamics (both group and individual) as part of a dominance hierarchy is not by any means a new development in the field. It is actually very commonly accepted amongst the peerage in anthropology outside of a small very recent group of new ager's who try to paint all behavior with rose colored glasses. Its the standard model.
I think it is important to draw attention to this, because it means that we do not neccesarily have to put up with firms such as pay pal - or the banks they work with - because we think it is some sort of divine or natural order, and we can do nothing about it. Democracy was thought of for a reason, and it means influence on our own lives and fighting people who for reasons of simply greed try to bully us.
I said nothing about anything being divine or that because something has been working the way it has in the past through all of known human history that it by default must be accepted. Things evolve.
My thought is that it that were true, we would have seen this reset button in function years ago.
Blinks...crack a history book...we have seen it over and over and over...so much so entire multi- volume works have been written about sociological cycles in history. Group comes to power with enlightened intentions, becomes corrupt, gets overthrown or modified, becomes intolerably corrupt and declines again and again over and over.
Greed is indeed the by-word of our times!
It is actually the by word of ALL times when you get down too it.
But the reason these greedy people fear for their profit margin is the percieved ideas of how the public thinks, which, in this case, is directly related to religious ideas regarding sexual matters.
Focus on religion alone however is tantamount too missing the rest of the forest for that one tree.
denuseri
03-11-2012, 12:28 PM
I also personally believe that one reason why especially so many women are subs, is because they need/want to be freed from sexual shames and exhibitions.
As wishful as this type of thinking is it doesn't take into account that all of our desires have real solid biochemical instigators IE: its more part of our natural physiological response to certain stimuli than anything else.
Strypi
03-11-2012, 12:55 PM
Thorne, I pay taxes that go into Medicaid. Medicaid is used to pay for abortions in cases of rape, incest, or endangerment to the life of the mother. Yes, I believe (no matter what science or Jesus says) that a baby is a baby from the time of conception. So yes, it is killing babies to me. However, I don't have to agree with the choices of others. I believe that a woman has a right to choose what to do with her body, but there will always be a price to pay for every choice. She who makes choices that cost money should pay her own damn bills. Sorry if she didn't choose to have a medical issue, but that's how it goes. That's what charity is for. Entitlements BLOW!
Here's a story for you that has to do with our wonderful entitlements--my son-in-law had to go to the hospital last week. They diagnosed him with gall stones. Told him that it would cost $10,000 for the surgery, and he had to have like $800 up front. He applied for medicaid because he just moved here and had no job yet. They told him that if he were here illegally, then he would be covered. But since he is a citizen, he was denied! Oh, and he's found two jobs in two weeks and is working with some illness that turned out NOT to be the stones.
I don't go out asking others to pay for anything that I may need, choice or not. I cowgirl up and go to work, in pain, sick, tired as hell, just like everyone else should! There are very few people who can actually say that they are incapable of doing a darned thing to earn some money.
And as far as the word "porn" goes, it's all porn. Doesn't matter if you're reading Danielle Steele (simply because I can't think of the author of the last paperback I read 17 years ago) or looking at naked people. In today's society, porn = nudity. Simple as that. Erotica = Nudity. And Nudity = porn. Half the jokes on TV are about looking at porn...it's quite the blanket word these days. Yes, it's bullshit that Paypal is doing this, but it is their prerogative. I don't have to agree with their business practices, just like I don't have to agree with a woman having an abortion. I have nothing to say about them not accepting transactions for whatever they deem unacceptable, just like I don't want anyone telling me what I can or cannot do in my own business.
Thorne
03-11-2012, 01:45 PM
Focus on religion alone however is tantamount too missing the rest of the forest for that one tree.
True, as far as it goes. But you have to remember that the vast majority of those trees have religious roots, which affect not only the trees but the flowers which are forced to try to grow beneath them. By removing the religious forest we will be able to see the secular garden which is hidden beneath them.
Thorne
03-11-2012, 01:47 PM
As wishful as this type of thinking is it doesn't take into account that all of our desires have real solid biochemical instigators IE: its more part of our natural physiological response to certain stimuli than anything else.
While there are indeed natural physiological responses, there are also learned, or psychological responses. These can be more compelling than the natural responses. And more dangerous, as well.
@Strypi: My husband pays a shitload of taxes to the IRS even when he doesn't earn a fucking cent in the US of A. Just because he's American and America's the only country in the world which taxes its expatriates.
Yet, even if he doesn't get anything in return and most likely never will, he doesn't whine about it all the time. So, instead of whining, how about making sure your money is spent on something you want it to be spent on? (Starting another war in Iran comes easily to mind, as some Reps seem to be so keen about. Maybe this time they've got an idea on how to pull out before they go in ....)
However, whether abortions are paid with your (and mine, too, coz half of that dough was mine) tax money or not has got fuck all to do with Paypal forcing their fucking morals down our throats.
Well, some people are only happy when they ARE making trouble for others. Politicians, especially, seem to have a built in need to interfere with other people's lives.
So it seems! But still, if they had a happy life, would they bother? Or is it some sort of genetic disorder that makes them like this?
As wishful as this type of thinking is it doesn't take into account that all of our desires have real solid biochemical instigators IE: its more part of our natural physiological response to certain stimuli than anything else.
I would get too much off topic here if I continued this discussion. But you know what I think - we both know what the other thinks. If we want another round, we should start a new thread, ok?
IAN 2411
03-12-2012, 12:36 PM
However, whether abortions are paid with your (and mine, too, coz half of that dough was mine) tax money or not has got fuck all to do with Paypal forcing their fucking morals down our throats.
Finally someone on topic...and i do so agree with you lucy.
Be well IAN 2411
IAN 2411
03-13-2012, 02:56 PM
PayPal backtracks on "obscene" e-book policy
Reuters – 21.52hrs/13 Mar 2012
By Alistair Barr
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - PayPal, the online payment service owned by eBay Inc (EBAY.O), is backtracking on its policy against processing sales of e-books containing themes of rape, bestiality or incest after protests from authors and anti-censorship activist groups.
PayPal's new policy will focus only on e-books that contain potentially illegal images, not e-books that are limited to just text, spokesman Anuj Nayar said on Tuesday. The service will still refuse, however, to process payments for text-only e-books containing child pornography themes.
The revised policy will also focus on individual books, rather than entire classes of books, he added. E-book sellers will be notified if specific books violate PayPal's policy, and the company is working on a process through which authors and distributors can challenge such notifications, the spokesman said.
"This is going to be a major victory for writers, readers and free speech," said Mark Coker, founder of e-book distributor Smashwords. "They are going to build a protective moat around legal fiction."
PayPal warned Smashwords and some other e-book publishers and distributors earlier this year that it would "limit" their PayPal accounts unless they removed e-books "containing themes of rape, incest, bestiality and underage subjects."
PayPal's original policy was criticized by groups, including the Authors Guild and the National Coalition Against Censorship, which voiced concern that banks and payment companies may be exerting too much control over what books can be written, published and read.
PayPal is relaxing the policy after the main credit card companies made a distinction between extreme pornographic images and e-books that explore such topics with only the written word.
PayPal told e-book distributors earlier this year that the original policy was in place partly because the banks and credit card companies it works with restrict such content.
However, Doug Michelman, global head of corporate relations for Visa Inc (V.N), suggested that the company would not crack down on e-books that explore such topics, according to a letter he wrote that was posted on the blog Banned Writers. A Visa spokesperson confirmed that the letter was real.
"The sale of a limited category of extreme imagery depicting rape, bestiality and child pornography is or is very likely to be unlawful in many places and would be prohibited on the Visa system whether or not the images have formally been held to be illegal in any particular country," Michelman wrote. "Visa would take no action regarding lawful material that seeks to explore erotica in a fictional or educational manner."
A MasterCard (MA.N) spokesman drew a similar distinction on Tuesday, saying that the company "would not take action regarding the use of its cards and systems for the sale of lawful materials that seek to explore erotica content of this nature."
PayPal's new policy will still prohibit the use of its service for sale of e-books that contain child pornography, or e-books with text and obscene images of rape, bestiality or incest, the spokesman said.
PayPal has not shut down the accounts of any e-books publishers involved in this debate, he added.
PayPal's continued limit on child pornography is consistent with Smashwords' existing policies and those of the retailers it works with, Coker said. He met with top PayPal legal representatives on Monday.
"Child exploitation is at the center of their concerns -- no erotic content for fiction involving underage people," Coker said.
However, Joan Bertin, executive director of the National Coalition Against Censorship, was still concerned about PayPal's approach.
"Verbal descriptions of child pornography are not illegal. "That's why we can read Lolita." she said. "Actual images of child pornography are a different situation all together -- if they are photos of actual children."
"I'm glad they're moving in the right direction, but I hope they continue to consider potential problems they are creating for themselves and their customers by getting involved in such policing," Bertin added. "I don't think we need another quasi police force trolling the Internet."
......................................
Authors won....PayPal lost....the status quo upheld
Be well IAN 2411
Very good and thanks for posting, Ian.
Now, Paypal making this statement and choice- well, let's just look at that for a minute. Paypal is not a government entity. They don't get their funding from taxes. I believe that they should be allowed to determine what sorts of transactions that they will support. This has nothing to do with rights. If you walked into my nail salon a few years ago, you'd have to abide by my rules, and that is how it should be. Paypal is saying the same thing. Corporations are not democracies. They get to make the rules, and your rights have nothing to do with it. Your rights come into play when you are dealing with police, or other governmental entities. If you don't like how a company is ran, you have the ability (not the right) to spend your money elsewhere.
I've thinking about this...and I believe there are several issues here. One: A business is not a state in the state, and there is a limit to what you can decide. A business has its own rules, but must also abide by the rules of the state. For instance, if you have an amusement park, you cannot decide what the people should wear who are using it, unless it were a safety issue. If you have a nail salon, you cannot say for instance that you will only serve customers if they are over 1.65 m tall, because that would be discriminating.
The second issue is whether or not it is reasonable to take the role of thought police because you have a business. Would it, for instance, be reasonable if a baker demanded that people say a short prayer upon entering his shop? Would it be reasonable if a hair-dresser wanted every customer to swear that they had never voted for the republicans? If you import stuff from China, should you only sell to customers who are pro-life/free-choice, in favour of lower taxes/more taxes, or want more military/less military?
As I see it, and as a general principle, if you sell a service or goods, your are in the busines of selling service or goods, you are not in the busness of converting people to your ideas.
Thorne
03-14-2012, 05:38 AM
As I see it, and as a general principle, if you sell a service or goods, your are in the busines of selling service or goods, you are not in the busness of converting people to your ideas.
I would have to say that it depends on whether you are a publicly owned corporation or a privately owned company. A publicly owned company has many more restrictions on it, naturally, since anyone can purchase stock in it. But a privately owned company? I think they have a little more leeway. And of course, any company can refuse to do business with someone if they have a valid reason for doing so. Forcing your morals down someone else's throat, though, is NOT a valid reason.
As I see it, and as a general principle, if you sell a service or goods, your are in the busines of selling service or goods, you are not in the busness of converting people to your ideas.
Now that's just plain wrong. Every privately owned business is free to sell or not sell a service or product, provided they abide the corresponding laws.
I work in the publishing business. The main topic of the journal we produce is human powered mobility. The fact that we don't publish articles about Porsche's newest version of the Cayenne has nothing to do with wanting to convert anyone to our ideas of how traffic in modern cities should work, but it has a lot to do with what we chose to write about.
And in that choice we are (almost) completely free.
Paypal has this choice, too, of course. They also have to take into account that people won't like their decision, which apparently they didn't.
Now that's just plain wrong. Every privately owned business is free to sell or not sell a service or product, provided they abide the corresponding laws.
Sure. That is what I said.
I work in the publishing business. The main topic of the journal we produce is human powered mobility. The fact that we don't publish articles about Porsche's newest version of the Cayenne has nothing to do with wanting to convert anyone to our ideas of how traffic in modern cities should work, but it has a lot to do with what we chose to write about.
And in that choice we are (almost) completely free.
You publish magazines, which people can choose to buy or not. But you do not, if I understand you correctly, use your publishing business to try to impose othernon-related ideas on people, for example, if they buy your magazine they must refrain from/adhere to something completely different. As I understand it, you sell your mag with no strings attached.
What pay pal did was to sell a service - how to pay for things to buy - while at the same time trying to use this service to interfere with what you can buy, which is none of their business.
Yeah, sorry thir, I misunderstood you there.
Still, it's Paypal's business if they want people to use their service to buy, say, my book "kunt", which is non-consensual through and through and full of rape. Nobody can force them to co-operate with a company who sells such gruesome books. It is also their legal right to say we don't want people to use our service to buy sunflower seeds online, because, simply, sunflowers suck. They got every right to do that. And if they don't, they should have.
Also, Paypal finds itself between hammer and anvil, with the banks and credit card companies being the hammer and the writers, publishers and readers of smut like mine being the anvil. In a way I can understand that they're wetting their pants at the prospect of being connected to such stories. But I can even better understand the outcry from the other side.
However, putting pressure on the cc-companies and the banks to cut down on the moral bullshit would be even better (after all, they don't have the slightest fucking problem with financing arms deals and stuff) than accusing Paypal of censorship. The way to put pressure on them would of course be the threat of not using their service anymore. I don't think accusing them of censorship bothers them much. Bankers are used to much worse. Threatening to hurt their profits will, though.
And the best would be to have a Paypal which isn't based in America or owned by an American company with the morals of the so-callel moral majority. But then again, I'm having a hard time right now thinking of a country which would be better suited ...
PS: Of course sunflowers don't suck. I love sunflowers, mostly because they're nice to look at but also because so far I haven't met one which wanted to force its morals upon me. Just wanted to clarify :)
The anti porn creed comes from both the left and the right. From the left it is phrased as not denigrating women, from the right it is phrased as upholding morality. Either way, I think they are wrong. I am a leftist on some issues, but on the porn/ freedom of buying/selling writing it I'm squarely on the side of .... Who? I guess the libertarians. Or the perverts.
Strypi
03-16-2012, 10:00 PM
@Strypi: My husband pays a shitload of taxes to the IRS even when he doesn't earn a fucking cent in the US of A. Just because he's American and America's the only country in the world which taxes its expatriates.
Yet, even if he doesn't get anything in return and most likely never will, he doesn't whine about it all the time. So, instead of whining, how about making sure your money is spent on something you want it to be spent on? (Starting another war in Iran comes easily to mind, as some Reps seem to be so keen about. Maybe this time they've got an idea on how to pull out before they go in ....)
However, whether abortions are paid with your (and mine, too, coz half of that dough was mine) tax money or not has got fuck all to do with Paypal forcing their fucking morals down our throats.
Thanks, Lucy, for that. I had no idea that my talking about a side issue while in the main topic of conversation was any different than your rant, about how you have to pay US taxes. I didn't vote for that, by the way. And yes, I would LOVE it if you could pay for the abortions and leave me the hell out of it. Wanna buy me out?? And I would also LOVE to have more say in where my money goes...but having a vote doesn't always mean that you get your way.
Now, This thread is all about how "they" should stop trying to make "us" think like "them". Or is it all about "us" trying to make "them" think like "us"? Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
I am not arguing that Paypal is in the right here. I think that bigotry of any kind is deplorable. And I believe that pressure on other companies should be grounds for the public caning of the CEO of Paypal, as well as any MVPs of companies that fall in with that whole idea. Just for starters, anyway. And yes, if a shop owner asks that you pray before entering, then you should, or leave. Their property. Their turf. Their wishes. They're not gonna make any money that way, but hey, maybe they just want to go through the motions of owning the business, and don't need to make money as well. None of my business. I'll go where the customer service is better, again and again.
Yeah, sorry thir, I misunderstood you there.
No offence, some times I have trouble explaining myself properly.
Still, it's Paypal's business if they want people to use their service to buy, say, my book "kunt", which is non-consensual through and through and full of rape. Nobody can force them to co-operate with a company who sells such gruesome books.
This is exactly what I do not understand. Why should selling a service to people give anyone the right to try to force moral/religious/political or any other ideas on them? One thing has nothing whatsoever to do with the other. If anyone wants to promote their convictions, there are plenty of media where this can be done. But I cannot for the life of me see how my personal reading or personal life has anything what so ever to do with my baker or my dentist, or my pay pal servicer.
It is also their legal right to say we don't want people to use our service to buy sunflower seeds online, because, simply, sunflowers suck. They got every right to do that. And if they don't, they should have.
But why?
Also, Paypal finds itself between hammer and anvil, with the banks and credit card companies being the hammer and the writers, publishers and readers of smut like mine being the anvil. In a way I can understand that they're wetting their pants at the prospect of being connected to such stories. But I can even better understand the outcry from the other side.
I agree with the hammer and anvil picture. Buy maybe, if everybody told the banks to stay out of other people's business, these things would not happen. I haven't heard of a bank in UK or DK which tried to interfere with people's reading or any other thing. If I am wrong, will someone please correct me, but so far I haven't.
However, putting pressure on the cc-companies and the banks to cut down on the moral bullshit would be even better (after all, they don't have the slightest fucking problem with financing arms deals and stuff) than accusing Paypal of censorship. The way to put pressure on them would of course be the threat of not using their service anymore. I don't think accusing them of censorship bothers them much. Bankers are used to much worse. Threatening to hurt their profits will, though.
I agree, but how in this case? Pay pal gets the heat because they are the ones to make conditions.
And the best would be to have a Pay
pal which isn't based in America or owned by an American company with the morals of the so-callel moral majority. But then again, I'm having a hard time right now thinking of a country which would be better suited ...
If it is a majority..?
PS: Of course sunflowers don't suck. I love sunflowers, mostly because they're nice to look at but also because so far I haven't met one which wanted to force its morals upon me. Just wanted to clarify :)
And they always turn themselves towards the sun :-)
thir, Paypal doesn't want to force their morals down our throats. At least that's what I believe.
Why they feel the need to do that I don't know. The only reason I can think of is that the political and social climate in one of their key markets leads them to believe that it's possible their business might get harmed or even shut down because of their enabling smut to be purchased.
As to which key market that might be: Your guess is probably as good as mine.