Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Censorship Books Businesses Your Rights Online

Amazon Censorship Expands 764

Nom du Keyboard writes "Recently word leaked out about Amazon removing titles containing fictional incest. Surprisingly that ban didn't extend to the 10 titles of Science Fiction Grand Master Robert A. Heinlein that incorporate various themes of incest and pedophilia. Now, it seems that the censorship is expanding to m/m gay fiction if it contains the magic word 'rape' in the title. Just how far is this going to be allowed to proceed in relative silence, and who is pushing these sudden decisions on Amazon's part?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Amazon Censorship Expands

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Just wait. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Sonny Yatsen ( 603655 ) * on Thursday December 30, 2010 @09:40AM (#34709790) Journal

    30 Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave. 31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man around here to give us children—as is the custom all over the earth. 32 Let’s get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family line through our father.”

      33 That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and slept with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

      34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, “Last night I slept with my father. Let’s get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him so we can preserve our family line through our father.” 35 So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

      36 So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father. 37 The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab[g]; he is the father of the Moabites of today. 38 The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi[h]; he is the father of the Ammonites[i] of today.

    -- Genesis 19:30-36

  • Re:Just wait. (Score:5, Informative)

    by dogmatixpsych ( 786818 ) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @09:55AM (#34709926) Journal
    That's incorrect about King David. He was called a man after the Lord's heart when he was a young man; however, that does not mean that David remained so. It also doesn't mean that what he did was sanctioned by God (it wasn't). Because David had Uriah murdered and sinned with Bathsheba, he fell from God's favor. He tried to get back in God's favor but was unable to completely.

    Anyway, yes the Bible does contain a lot of stuff in it.
  • Re:Their choice (Score:5, Informative)

    by computational super ( 740265 ) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @10:38AM (#34710384)
    Sigh... for the millionth time, yes, it is censorship, it's just not government censorship and therefore not illegal censorship (in the US). It's still censorship. That's what the fucking word means, for Christ's sake.
  • Re:Go Amazon! (Score:5, Informative)

    by locallyunscene ( 1000523 ) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @10:53AM (#34710558)

    I'm just baffled that Slashdot users would still have such a difficult time distinguishing censorship from private business action. It cheapens the very seriousness of the term "censorship" to use it in such an improper, and frivolous way.

    Maybe you should actually read the definition of a censor before you go proclaiming everyone on /. is using the word incorrectly.

    a person who supervises conduct and morals: as
    a : an official who examines materials (as publications or films) for objectionable matter

    Amazon is acting as a censor in this case, therefore it is censorship. You may agree with the morals of the censor but that doesn't mean it's not censorship.

  • Re:Their choice (Score:5, Informative)

    by hedwards ( 940851 ) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @11:02AM (#34710650)
    I'd recommend reading up on Walmart and the effect that their music buying preferences have had on popular music. They're a huge retailer of music and refuse to carry music which has a warning label on it. It gets bizarre at times like when they refused to carry Nirvana until they changed the names of some of the songs. Didn't actually change the songs, just the names, dropped the warning and were able to be carried. Most artists aren't that lucky and have to compromise their artistic integrity in order to live up to Walmart's rules or release an alternate version.

    Check out the second paragraph []
  • by commodore64_love ( 1445365 ) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @11:11AM (#34710742) Journal

    >>>It's bad when the government does it, but good when corporations do it, yadda yadda.

    NOT what I said.
    You got an F in reading comprehension, I bet. It's bad when either of these organizations do it, but the difference is that corporations don't have the power to suck money from my wallet against my will, throw me in jail for years, send out goons to give me a Rodney King-style beating, or execute me on the electric chair. Only the government holds the monopoly to do that.

This screen intentionally left blank.