Smashwords and Erotica

Al Stevens · Mar 30, 2012

GodOfABF said:
That's pretty much the point, isn't it?

Depends on whether the answer is yes or no.

GodOfABF · Mar 30, 2012

Al Stevens said:
So should we conclude that Paypal et al are exercising censorship of somthing of which we approve, and Rush Limbaugh's former sponsors are not exercising censorship of something of which we disapprove?

Hardly.

I am expressing neither (necessarily) approval or disapproval of any of the examples mentioned, although for the record I would not -- if I were involved in risk management at Smashwords (not Paypal! that's the whole point of the discussion here!) -- be favorably inclined to recommend acceptance of material that could plausibly be considered illegal within the U.S. (and most other Western countries, though the exact criteria differ from place to place), that is, material clearly advocating (note another very important distinction here, namely, "advocating" is different from "depicting" -- hence the difference between true child pornography and, say, Nabokov's Lolita) pedophilia, bestiality and some of the other universally-illegal topics that (presumably) got the whole ball rolling here. There would be clear legal liability involved in stocking, never mind advertising or promoting, this kind of material, and no responsible business would knowingly involve itself in its manufacture or distribution.

The point here is that the decision is Smashwords' -- and Smashwords' alone -- to make; it is not appropriate for Smashwords' editorial decisions to be usurped by entities such as their Web hosting company, their payment processor, the municipal government where their headquarters resides, or their ISP.

Now I will admit that there could be marginal or problematic cases where the principles aren't so clear (example : I run a "discount pharma" on-line store whose "products" are advertised purely by spam, and my Web hosting provider informs me that my behavior violates their Terms of Service), but in this case, I can but repeat : "payment processors are unsuited to be content censors". I stand on that assertion.

Al Stevens · Mar 30, 2012

GodOfABF said:
The point here is that the decision is Smashwords' -- and Smashwords' alone -- to make; it is not appropriate for Smashwords' editorial decisions to be usurped by entities such as their Web hosting company, their payment processor, the municipal government where their headquarters resides, or their ISP.

And if it should turn out that Smashwords, for example, is distributing an illegal product, could not all parties involved in the completion of the transaction, the transmission of the material, and the satisfaction of payment be held liable as accessories? As such, would it be understandable that they would refuse to knowingly participate in such a transaction? Could you blame them?

It is my belief that none of this is censorship in a literal sense. None of these actions suppresses anyone's freedom of expression. They simply decline to provide a platform for such expression or a financial conduit to support such a platform. They are not required to do so. It is, as you said, their decision to make.

One can make all the analogies one wants to support either side of that issue. "It's like the bank not honoring your check you wrote to your dope dealer." Then we can argue about the analogies all night.

Authors have no right to be published by Smashwords or anyone else. It is no different than a publisher refusing to publish works in specific genres.

We are too quick to yell "Censorship!" when it does not really apply.