More Censorship

DrHoops

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Sep 7, 2001
18,888
5,136
113
From your own link:

Censorship is a word of many meanings. In its broadest sense it refers to suppression of information, ideas, or artistic expression by anyone, whether government officials, church authorities, private pressure groups, or speakers, writers, and artists themselves.​

First, how is Amazon suppressing information? I linked a zillion places where you can buy that book online including Barnes and Noble.

Amazon is not suppressing anything. They simply decided not to carry the book. Further, they are not government officials, church authorities, a pressure group, a speaker, a writer, or an artist.

They are a private online STORE that sells what they want to sell. Good grief.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TommyCracker

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
56,284
29,471
113
Margaritaville
Amazon is not suppressing anything. They simply decided not to carry the book.
These two sentences are mutually incoherent.

For your argument to make any sense, you'd have to argue that the U.S. government banning books would not qualify as censorship so long as someone had the ability to find the book on the black market in Havana.
 

DrHoops

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Sep 7, 2001
18,888
5,136
113
Well, this thread, for one.

For two, with the media. When a radio station won't place an obscene song, that's called censorship. Always has been. Even if the radio station is privately owned, and the decision was made by someone in middle management, and not a government regulator.

Incorrect. A private radio station is not prohibiting people from listening to a song. They made a business decision not to play an obscene song at their station. Gee...why doesn't the local "alternative" channel play Mozart? I think Mozart is alternative (In his day, he was). Censorship!

Odd that you can't understand this concept.
 
Last edited:

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
56,284
29,471
113
Margaritaville
Incorrect. A private radio station is not prohibiting people from listening a song. They have made a business decision not to play an obscene song at their station. Gee...why doesn't the local "alternative" channel play Mozart? I think Mozart is alternative (In his day, he was). Censorship!

Odd that you can't understand this concept.
Alright, you're clearly in one of your moods. If you can't be an adult, I'm not interested. Have a nice night.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: jet812

DrHoops

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Sep 7, 2001
18,888
5,136
113
These two sentences are mutually incoherent.

For your argument to make any sense, you'd have to argue that the U.S. government banning books would not qualify as censorship so long as someone had the ability to find the book on the black market in Havana.

Wrong. If the U.S. Government bans books, that is censorship. Absolutely. The government is controlling information flow (censoring). Amazon isn't doing that. As you can easily see right here. There are many places to buy the book


Your definition is incoherent and incorrect.
 

jet812

All-Big Ten
Feb 28, 2008
3,568
2,217
113
Has the government fined you or arrested you for something that you said and has eliminated all outlets that you have to get your content out?

Answer yes. You were censored.

Answer no. Your speech was rejected by the market and the power players in the market for hurting their business. Get over it snowflake or better yet, organize a protest to hurt Amazon's business to get their attention.

Welcome to being a minority.
Censorship is suppression & prohibition of, by public or private entities. Amazon has chosen to censor certain materials. It is not my definition of the word. Quit being such a partisan idiot And learn how to read...

I have been in the minority my entire life...
 

jet812

All-Big Ten
Feb 28, 2008
3,568
2,217
113
But they're not "censoring" as it's defined. These are private companies that can operate and make business decisions as they see fit. They are not imposing their will on you or anyone else.

If the public doesn't like that they don't carry the Satanic Bible, they can choose to take their business elsewhere and Amazon may lose money. It's a business decision...whether the book is a best seller or not. Amazon has made a business decision/bet that more people would be upset by them carrying the book than people who are upset by them not selling it. If it doesn't work out it's a private business matter.

Censorship is a group imposing their will or opinion onto you. They're not required to sell a book. That's absurd.
Sorry dude, you don’t get to change the definition of the word to suit your narrative. Take your lumps and move on. It’s not like you had built a reputation of someone of intelligence that’s getting damaged because you can’t read a dictionary....
 

TommyCracker

Hall of Famer
Mar 18, 2004
13,169
9,587
113
This seems like a lot of projection on your part. If that was actually Amazon’s intention(I don’t believe it was), then it backfired on them. Just google this story. They’re taking a ton of heat.

Also, it is censorship. It’s the actual definition of censorship.

Put another way, Amazon has the right to carry what it wants unless it's breaking laws.

Which it's not.

Sounds like the right wants government to interfere and force a private company to make products available that they don't want to carry.

Ronald Reagan is spinning in his grave.
 

Hoopsdoc1978

Senior
Apr 13, 2016
2,942
2,197
113
42
Epsom Indiana
Put another way, Amazon has the right to carry what it wants unless it's breaking laws.

Which it's not.

Sounds like the right wants government to interfere and force a private company to make products available that they don't want to carry.

Ronald Reagan is spinning in his grave.
I swear, some of you guys are NPC’s. Just learn the talking points and repeat them over and over and over.

Every single part of that post was addressed about 4 pages ago. And it’s still as incorrect now as it was then.

Geez.
 

TommyCracker

Hall of Famer
Mar 18, 2004
13,169
9,587
113
That’s nice, but I didn’t say it was government censorship.

You said it wasn’t censorship-it quite clearly is.

Ahh got it.

When someone screams censorship and compares their victim hood to Nazi Germany...I'm arguing the standard, governmental serious censorship.

Not the 'hey I got banned from the water cooler for saying fvck too many times' or the 'my mommy says I can't watch that show' kind of censorship.
 

TommyCracker

Hall of Famer
Mar 18, 2004
13,169
9,587
113
Censorship is suppression & prohibition of, by public or private entities. Amazon has chosen to censor certain materials. It is not my definition of the word. Quit being such a partisan idiot And learn how to read...

I have been in the minority my entire life...

That's cool man, but I'm not debating the definition of censorship.

You're smart enough to understand that I hope.
 

DrHoops

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Sep 7, 2001
18,888
5,136
113
Sorry dude, you don’t get to change the definition of the word to suit your narrative. Take your lumps and move on. It’s not like you had built a reputation of someone of intelligence that’s getting damaged because you can’t read a dictionary....

^^^Mr. Dunning-Kruger Effect
 

outside shooter

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Oct 23, 2001
19,478
6,921
113
Bill Maher is occasionally entertaining, but he is also a super-opinionated blowhard who spouts a lot of abject stupidity, such as anti-vaccine paranoia. I used to watch him, but haven't in years, other than when people link his crazy views.

edit: I generally agree with this clip, though!
 

jet812

All-Big Ten
Feb 28, 2008
3,568
2,217
113
It is against Amazon's religious beliefs to carry hate speech in their book section.

:)
So they’re censoring what they deem hate speech. Seems simple enough.

To be clear, I don’t know if it’s hate speech or not, but certainly don’t want Amazon to decide for me.
 

Bulk VanderHuge

All-American
Dec 20, 2017
6,614
8,055
113
The Southern Sun
So they’re censoring what they deem hate speech. Seems simple enough.

To be clear, I don’t know if it’s hate speech or not, but certainly don’t want Amazon to decide for me.
But they aren't deciding for you...they are deciding for Amazon. Right? If they were deciding for you, they would call up their buddies at Borders. Barnes and Noble, Books-a-Million, and 1/2 Price Books and lobby them not to sell you the book either.
Or am I way off base?
 

IU_Hickory

Junior
Aug 29, 2017
1,957
1,821
113
So they’re censoring what they deem hate speech. Seems simple enough.

To be clear, I don’t know if it’s hate speech or not, but certainly don’t want Amazon to decide for me.

They aren't deciding for you. They're deciding for themselves what THEY want to sell. And that is a lot more reasonable than something that conservatives defend - the ability to refuse certain segments of people service based on religious beliefs.

I hate to break it to you, but every business decides what THEY want to put on THEIR shelves or in this case, what they put on THEIR site.

Do you go into a Christian book store and ask them why they don't sell the Quran? or maybe why they aren't selling x rated movies?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: cosmickid

VanPastorMan

Hall of Famer
Mar 21, 2002
15,295
3,099
113
Central Pennsylvania Via Washington Indiana
And that social conscience better not negatively impact the bottom line.
Some companies don't care or they misread the situation. Take the canceling of Gina Carano. Disney has had cancellations to their streaming service because of it. People decided to protest her firing because they disagree with it. Disney seems to be holding the line on this. It is quite strange.
 

IU_Hickory

Junior
Aug 29, 2017
1,957
1,821
113
Some companies don't care or they misread the situation. Take the canceling of Gina Carano. Disney has had cancellations to their streaming service because of it. People decided to protest her firing because they disagree with it. Disney seems to be holding the line on this. It is quite strange.

I highly doubt cancelations are even negating the people signing up, let alone putting a dent in their profit machine.
 

jet812

All-Big Ten
Feb 28, 2008
3,568
2,217
113
So they’re censoring what they deem hate speech. Seems simple enough.

To be clear, I don’t know if it’s hate speech or not, but certainly don’t want Amazon to decide for me.
Amazon is not giving me the choice, other retailers are. Amazon has taken that choice away from me for anything they see as hate speech. That is censorship. There are many other books sold by Amazon that suggest this was not simply a business decision.
If all other retailers cease to offer it, does it become censorship in your mind, even if the decisions were made independently? Again, I’m not attempting to apply some interpretation of the word to fit an agenda, just reading the definition of the word.
 

Bulk VanderHuge

All-American
Dec 20, 2017
6,614
8,055
113
The Southern Sun
Amazon is not giving me the choice, other retailers are. Amazon has taken that choice away from me for anything they see as hate speech. That is censorship. There are many other books sold by Amazon that suggest this was not simply a business decision.
If all other retailers cease to offer it, does it become censorship in your mind, even if the decisions were made independently? Again, I’m not attempting to apply some interpretation of the word to fit an agenda, just reading the definition of the word.
And it's equally your decision to go to another source and buy the book, right?
I'm not going to argue that Amazon isn't practicing "censorship", as defined by mcm and others. That kind of "censorship" is ubiquitous. They are not, however, practicing "CENSORSHIP", which the OP is trying to assert in an effort to tug at the feelings of Righties.
JMHO
 

Marvin the Martian

Hall of Famer
Sep 4, 2001
28,773
12,247
113
Well, this thread, for one.

For two, with the media. When a radio station won't place an obscene song, that's called censorship. Always has been. Even if the radio station is privately owned, and the decision was made by someone in middle management, and not a government regulator.

Thinking about it, you are right. When radio stations refused to air Dixie Chicks songs, that was censorship. Or the people way back when protesting the cinema showing Life of Brian. Would the people that boycotted Disney because the allowed same sex employee benefits count?

In other words, some are not mad that cancel culture exists, they are mad liberals got better at it.

Amazon should sell the book. I did not see a change.org petition. It seems someone somewhere upset should have created one. Or maybe people just want the issue and do not care about the book.
 

mcmurtry66

All-American
Mar 14, 2019
7,435
5,569
113
And it's equally your decision to go to another source and buy the book, right?
I'm not going to argue that Amazon isn't practicing "censorship", as defined by mcm and others. That kind of "censorship" is ubiquitous. They are not, however, practicing "CENSORSHIP", which the OP is trying to assert in an effort to tug at the feelings of Righties.
JMHO
I think we're all confusing ourselves bulk. I personally think this is a clear example of private censorship. Amazon sells nearly 85% of all books. They are refusing to sell a book that comports with conservative ideology based on content. They even cite their reason as offensive content. Given our current milieu it's not a stretch to deem same political content. This is clearly censorship. Personally i don't give a shit. it's a private business and as such they can do whatever they like. Just like if i wanted to sell Q shirts to make money that's my prerogative. what's becoming troubling is the size of some of these players. facebook. twitter. amazon (who sells nearly 85% of all books) and the ramifications and implications of what content they do and don't like
 

Bulk VanderHuge

All-American
Dec 20, 2017
6,614
8,055
113
The Southern Sun
I think we're all confusing ourselves bulk. I personally think this is a clear example of private censorship. Amazon sells nearly 85% of all books. They are refusing to sell a book that comports with conservative ideology based on content. They even cite their reason as offensive content. Given our current milieu it's not a stretch to deem same political content. This is clearly censorship. Personally i don't give a shit. it's a private business and as such they can do whatever they like. Just like if i wanted to sell Q shirts to make money that's my prerogative. what's becoming troubling is the size of some of these players. facebook. twitter. amazon (who sells nearly 85% of all books) and the ramifications and implications of what content they do and don't like
So, size does matter? :oops:

Regardless of size, there is a difference between "censorship" (a corporation making a decision based on what they figure may be financial concerns), and "CENSORSHIP", which conjures up images of Nazi book burnings (which your legal guru COH even alluded to on the first page of this thread).
Stoll (your financial guru) is trying to whip up the emotions of the second by starting a thread about the first.
Sincerely,
Bulk (your comedic guru)
 

mcmurtry66

All-American
Mar 14, 2019
7,435
5,569
113
So, size does matter? :oops:

Regardless of size, there is a difference between "censorship" (a corporation making a decision based on what they figure may be financial concerns), and "CENSORSHIP", which conjures up images of Nazi book burnings (which your legal guru COH even alluded to on the first page of this thread).
Stoll (your financial guru) is trying to whip up the emotions of the second by starting a thread about the first.
Sincerely,
Bulk (your comedic guru)
LOL size only matters as to the impact. size doesn't have anything to do with censorship - that's always content based

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.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jet812

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
36,479
7,332
113
So, size does matter? :oops:

Regardless of size, there is a difference between "censorship" (a corporation making a decision based on what they figure may be financial concerns), and "CENSORSHIP", which conjures up images of Nazi book burnings (which your legal guru COH even alluded to on the first page of this thread).
Stoll (your financial guru) is trying to whip up the emotions of the second by starting a thread about the first.
Sincerely,
Bulk (your comedic guru)

Censorship necessarily includes elements of discrimination. A bookstore devoted to a vegan lifestyle is not engaged in censorship if it does not carry books about the best way to grill meat.
 

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
56,284
29,471
113
Margaritaville
And it's equally your decision to go to another source and buy the book, right?
I'm not going to argue that Amazon isn't practicing "censorship", as defined by mcm and others. That kind of "censorship" is ubiquitous. They are not, however, practicing "CENSORSHIP", which the OP is trying to assert in an effort to tug at the feelings of Righties.
JMHO
Thinking about it, you are right. When radio stations refused to air Dixie Chicks songs, that was censorship. Or the people way back when protesting the cinema showing Life of Brian. Would the people that boycotted Disney because the allowed same sex employee benefits count?

In other words, some are not mad that cancel culture exists, they are mad liberals got better at it.

Amazon should sell the book. I did not see a change.org petition. It seems someone somewhere upset should have created one. Or maybe people just want the issue and do not care about the book.
Combine these two posts and you can pretty much ignore the pages of squabbling. You guys got it pretty spot on.
 

salient43

Recruit
Dec 1, 2011
67
34
18
They think it is fine for a baker to refuse a cake for a gay marriage but appalled that hate speech is taken off amazon

These people are wacko
Here's the linkage as I see it:
1) I don't believe the baker "refused" to serve the gay couple. I don't have specifics on this case, but I believe they offered and would have been happy to bake a traditional wedding cake (or just about any other cake for that matter) for the gay couple or for any couple. The same cakes they normally serve on their "menu" of products to the public. What they refused was to bake a "non-traditional" wedding cake, something not on their "menu" and against their religious beliefs. They refused to bake those for anyone, therefore they aren't discriminating.
2) Amazon refuses to sell "When Harry became Sally". They are happy to sell any other book to a customer looking for book, just not that one. Not just to one group, but to all groups. This is becuase it is against their internal "hate code" policy. They also do not discriminate.

Does that line of reasoning make it seem less "wacko"?
 

IU_Hickory

Junior
Aug 29, 2017
1,957
1,821
113
Here's the linkage as I see it:
1) I don't believe the baker "refused" to serve the gay couple. I don't have specifics on this case, but I believe they offered and would have been happy to bake a traditional wedding cake (or just about any other cake for that matter) for the gay couple or for any couple. The same cakes they normally serve on their "menu" of products to the public. What they refused was to bake a "non-traditional" wedding cake, something not on their "menu" and against their religious beliefs. They refused to bake those for anyone, therefore they aren't discriminating.
2) Amazon refuses to sell "When Harry became Sally". They are happy to sell any other book to a customer looking for book, just not that one. Not just to one group, but to all groups. This is becuase it is against their internal "hate code" policy. They also do not discriminate.

Does that line of reasoning make it seem less "wacko"?

Wedding cakes are on their menu. They refused to make one for a non-traditional couple.

Masterpiece's owner Jack Phillips, who is a Christian, declined their cake request, informing the couple that he did not create wedding cakes for marriages of gay couples owing to his Christian religious beliefs, although the couple could purchase other baked goods in the store.

If you don't want to sell wedding cakes for everyone having a wedding then you shouldn't be in the business of making wedding cakes. I wouldn't have issue if they took wedding cakes off their menu.

So no, still wacko.
 
Last edited: