They are within their rights to do so, but they should not take a stand against censorship and then censor their own store. Take one side or the other.
Sure, they did backpedal, but regardless of how they choose to define censorship, it clearly isn't all-inclusive. They aren't selling Hardcore Submissive Supersluts XVIII, either.
Cherrn on
All creature will die and all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai.
They are within their rights to do so, but they should not take a stand against censorship and then censor their own store. Take one side or the other.
Sure, they did backpedal, but regardless of how they choose to define censorship, it clearly isn't all-inclusive. They aren't selling Hardcore Submissive Supersluts XVIII, either.
But is that because they found it too objectionable or because no one has placed it on their market place? Heck you can even stream porn off of their site.
Well, for one, they don't have a pornography tab on their site (though you can sort by rating), and their catalogue doesn't seem to be all that big after a few quick searches. Though I don't know if their search engine sabotages the results.
Either way, considering how deep (ha!) their catalogue goes in all other categories, I'd be surprised if there wasn't some censorship at work here. Unless there are specific rules for listing stuff that most porn publishers don't fulfill.
Cherrn on
All creature will die and all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai.
Well, for one, they don't have a pornography tab on their site (though you can sort by rating), and their catalogue doesn't seem to be all that big after a few quick searches. Though I don't know if their search engine sabotages the results.
Either way, considering how deep (ha!) their catalogue goes in all other categories, I'd be surprised if there wasn't some censorship at work here. Unless there are specific rules for listing stuff that most porn publishers don't fulfill.
I don't necessarily think Amazon is in the wrong here, however we do have an actual example of them self-censoring. You are just guessing about the porn stuff. Not only are your guesses irrelevant, I don't see how they matter anyway. What are you trying to prove? That if they also self-censor porn that it is okay to self-censor this other thing? That's not a logically sound argument either as one could then argue that both forms of self-censorship are wrong.
Amazon also sells some apparently very graphic cartoon sex graphic "novels." The only reason I know this is because while browsing through their comics section with the search limited to their 4-for-3 promotion I saw several titles with very graphic covers.
Judging by the titles and images, I doubt they were primarily novels about adults (though how a cartoon character can actually have a legal age is another discussion).
This was several months ago, so maybe they took them down, but I doubt that.
Well, for one, they don't have a pornography tab on their site (though you can sort by rating), and their catalogue doesn't seem to be all that big after a few quick searches. Though I don't know if their search engine sabotages the results.
Either way, considering how deep (ha!) their catalogue goes in all other categories, I'd be surprised if there wasn't some censorship at work here. Unless there are specific rules for listing stuff that most porn publishers don't fulfill.
I don't necessarily think Amazon is in the wrong here, however we do have an actual example of them self-censoring. You are just guessing about the porn stuff. Not only are your guesses irrelevant, I don't see how they matter anyway. What are you trying to prove? That if they also self-censor porn that it is okay to self-censor this other thing? That's not a logically sound argument either as one could then argue that both forms of self-censorship are wrong.
I never said it was okay, I'm saying there seems to be a rather overt correlation between the two examples, and that their own definition of censorship is clearly busted.
Cherrn on
All creature will die and all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai.
Well, for one, they don't have a pornography tab on their site (though you can sort by rating), and their catalogue doesn't seem to be all that big after a few quick searches. Though I don't know if their search engine sabotages the results.
Either way, considering how deep (ha!) their catalogue goes in all other categories, I'd be surprised if there wasn't some censorship at work here. Unless there are specific rules for listing stuff that most porn publishers don't fulfill.
I don't necessarily think Amazon is in the wrong here, however we do have an actual example of them self-censoring. You are just guessing about the porn stuff. Not only are your guesses irrelevant, I don't see how they matter anyway. What are you trying to prove? That if they also self-censor porn that it is okay to self-censor this other thing? That's not a logically sound argument either as one could then argue that both forms of self-censorship are wrong.
I never said it was okay, I'm saying there seems to be a rather overt correlation between the two examples, and that their own definition of censorship is clearly busted.
How is there an overt correlation? Can you prove that they carry every single book and every single movie in existence? If not, I consider your "observation" the product of bias. You have zilch for proof that they actively shy away from specific pornographic products. You are doing a store search, saying "hmm, not that many hits," and leaping directly to the conclusion that they are self-censoring the porn they vendor. It's not a factual observation, and it has nothing to do with this scenario where we have actual PROOF that they self-censored.
I don't think I ever claimed it as proof? But I do think it's very possible, even likely given that I cannot actually find the types of really disgusting shit that is rampant at any other sort of pornography vendor. I just said I wouldn't be surprised if they did actually censor it. I'm not really in a position to provide anything more than circumstantial evidence, but it was something I noted nonetheless.
Cherrn on
All creature will die and all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai.
Pornography. Pornography, X-rated movies, home porn, hard-core material including magazines that depict graphic sexual acts, amateur porn are prohibited. Unrated erotic videos and DVDs, properly censored erotic artwork and magazines of the type you'd find at a typical bookstore are permitted; product images that contain nudity, graphic titles, and descriptions must be sufficiently concealed with censor strips.
Sorry for the misinformation.
Cherrn on
All creature will die and all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai.
Posts
Sure, they did backpedal, but regardless of how they choose to define censorship, it clearly isn't all-inclusive. They aren't selling Hardcore Submissive Supersluts XVIII, either.
Amazon does sell porn and sex toys.
Either way, considering how deep (ha!) their catalogue goes in all other categories, I'd be surprised if there wasn't some censorship at work here. Unless there are specific rules for listing stuff that most porn publishers don't fulfill.
I don't necessarily think Amazon is in the wrong here, however we do have an actual example of them self-censoring. You are just guessing about the porn stuff. Not only are your guesses irrelevant, I don't see how they matter anyway. What are you trying to prove? That if they also self-censor porn that it is okay to self-censor this other thing? That's not a logically sound argument either as one could then argue that both forms of self-censorship are wrong.
Judging by the titles and images, I doubt they were primarily novels about adults (though how a cartoon character can actually have a legal age is another discussion).
This was several months ago, so maybe they took them down, but I doubt that.
I never said it was okay, I'm saying there seems to be a rather overt correlation between the two examples, and that their own definition of censorship is clearly busted.
How is there an overt correlation? Can you prove that they carry every single book and every single movie in existence? If not, I consider your "observation" the product of bias. You have zilch for proof that they actively shy away from specific pornographic products. You are doing a store search, saying "hmm, not that many hits," and leaping directly to the conclusion that they are self-censoring the porn they vendor. It's not a factual observation, and it has nothing to do with this scenario where we have actual PROOF that they self-censored.
Sorry for the misinformation.