[Austin_Briggs]

Since censorship is defined as excluding books found to be objectionable, and you're advocating that books you find objectionable 'shouldn't appear in print', then you're in favor of censorship. For the most part, books that would fall under your 'compatible with being human' criteria would probably never require protection from censorship.

There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with what's in a book, or criticizing someone for writing something, or advocating the humanity of books. But when you enter into the 'shouldn't appear in print' area, you're advocating censorship, and attempting to make decisions for others about what they can read.

And no, those pictures aren't the consequences of hateful speech. They're the consequences of hateful actions.

Those hateful actions began with hateful speech, my friend. I accept that I missed a step in my argument. Speech => Actions => Consequences. And in that context, we even know exactly the people who started telling harmful stories in the first place, and how those stories led to actions.

And I see your point on censorship. I'm still thinking about that.

 

[swolf]

Those hateful actions began with hateful speech, my friend. I accept that I missed a step in my argument. Speech => Actions => Consequences. And in that context, we even know exactly the people who started telling harmful stories in the first place, and how those stories led to actions.

You're entering a very slippery slope when attempting to hold the words of one accountable for the actions of others. Even books 'compatible with being human' can inspire people to do bad things, as long as they believe their motives are pure. One has to look no further than the Bible for an example of that.

Getting back to this example, there's no evidence to prove that reading about things like violent rape actually causes the reader to go out and commit that crime.

Also, I'm curious why you're singling out violent porn, and not fictional violence in general.

 

[Nathan Elliott]

Sidebar: But the often forgotten fact about this incident is that the coffee WAS hotter than was drinkable. The coffee in question was served at between 180 to 190 degrees, a temperature that would cause 3rd degree burns in 2 seconds. Most experts say coffee should be served at around 150-160 degrees to avoid potential injury, because it would take longer skin contact to actually cause real injury. I only bring this up because people often use this case as an example of a frivolous lawsuit, but the facts of the case were actually rather interesting.

This.

McD's had been repeatedly warned about this and chose to do nothing differently. In fact, many others had already been injured by their coffee. McD's needed to learn a lesson in order to change their behavior. Printing a snarky warning that "oh, by the way, coffee is hot" on the cup doesn't quite cut it when you are effectively giving people napalm rather than something they can consume. The lady (who was *not* driving, but rather was a passenger in a parked car) required skin grafts and had been willing to settle for $20k to cover that and her lost wages. But the jury was so incensed by what they learned about McD's corporate attitude that they clobbered them with punitive damages well beyond.

An interesting read on the case can be found at https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts.

 

[B. Justin Shier]

But I do take issue seeing some of those Thoughts of the Beast (haha) in print. Rape for pleasure? Girls violated by animals? Children violated? Hatred against people? Texts like these shouldn't appear in print, in my opinion.

It is easy to argue for the death of poverty. It is harder to argue for the redistribute wealth. Whenever an advocate argues that something should not be permitted to exist, it is the duty of that advocate to define how the naughting will be achieved. Only then can we begin to weigh the costs of their prescribed actions versus inaction.

Freedom guarantees pain. There is no denying that. Some will abuse their liberties. Some will be harmed by their acts. But if my reading of history has taught me anything, it is that each society must choose to pay freedom's toll or experience the wonders of compounding interest. Creeping tyranny benumbs the senses first, then it steals the breath.*

B.

*I be poaching frome Dryden's Sigismonda here

 

[JRTomlin]

Sidebar: But the often forgotten fact about this incident is that the coffee WAS hotter than was drinkable. The coffee in question was served at between 180 to 190 degrees, a temperature that would cause 3rd degree burns in 2 seconds. Most experts say coffee should be served at around 150-160 degrees to avoid potential injury, because it would take longer skin contact to actually cause real injury. I only bring this up because people often use this case as an example of a frivolous lawsuit, but the facts of the case were actually rather interesting.

What made the jury so angry in this case, other than the general inhumanity of a huge corporation having refused to pay fairly minor damages which was what she originally asked, was that there had been hundreds of complaints recorded already about the level of heat the corporation required the coffee to be kept at, which they knew was dangerous and was routinely taken into moving vehicles (although that one wasn't) which increased the chances of spills. But McDonalds preferred to have customers injured than risk having customers complain because their coffee might cool off too fast.

I have to say that McDonalds did a textbook job of PR in turning a horrendous corporate attitude into a PR win. Really amazing how they managed to convince the public that THEY were mistreated rather than a woman who had her genitals severely burned.

 

[Terrence OBrien]

Okay… and who is going to decide what exactly is compatible with being human?

I decide.

I decide for myself and the small sliver of the world I control. If I am incompetent, I still decide. I answer to nobody for my standards.

Each individual decides.

If he is a distributor or retailer, he decides for himself what to carry based on his own standards.

If he is a writer, he decides for himself what to write based on his own standards.

If he is a reader, he decides for himself what to read based on his own standards.

If he is a publisher, he decides for himself what to publish based on his own standards.

If he is an advocate, he decides for himself what to advocate for or against based on his own standards.

If he is a preacher, he decides for himself the standard he will encourage others to adopt.

Someone else can make a different decision. Freedom of Speech allows for many different individual standards.

And if I am selling coffee, I decide for myself to make weak, wimpy, tepid drool because of the McDonald's case.

I applaud the fact that people can and do make their own standards and their own decisions. (Except for the coffee, of course.)

Ain't this a great country?

 

[Debbie Bennett]

I'm still missing all 4 of my smashwords titles from kobo. Including a YA Fantasy where the most erotic thing that happens is one very chaste boy/girl kiss.

Kobo was my second best-seller after amazon, although not in Patty's league by any means.

 

[Eltanin Publishing]

And if I am selling coffee, I decide for myself to make weak, wimpy, tepid drool because of the McDonald's case.

Must see: http://www.upworthy.com/ever-hear-about-the-lady-that-spilled-coffee-on-herself-at-mcdonalds-then-sued-for-millions

I totally just came upon this video by coincidence today, after reading this thread earlier.

 

[Austin_Briggs]

I decide.

I decide for myself and the small sliver of the world I control. If I am incompetent, I still decide. I answer to nobody for my standards.

Each individual decides.

If he is a distributor or retailer, he decides for himself what to carry based on his own standards.

If he is a writer, he decides for himself what to write based on his own standards.

If he is a reader, he decides for himself what to read based on his own standards.

If he is a publisher, he decides for himself what to publish based on his own standards.

If he is an advocate, he decides for himself what to advocate for or against based on his own standards.

If he is a preacher, he decides for himself the standard he will encourage others to adopt.

Someone else can make a different decision. Freedom of Speech allows for many different individual standards.

And if I am selling coffee, I decide for myself to make weak, wimpy, tepid drool because of the McDonald's case.

I applaud the fact that people can and do make their own standards and their own decisions. (Except for the coffee, of course.)

Ain't this a great country?

Perfect!

One correction, if I may: countries, lol. We decide in Europe, too (well, in most of it, anyway).

 

[CoraBuhlert]

My Smashwords titles have been reinstated a few days ago.

I have huge catalogue issues with the rest of my books (via KWL). When they changed the site, all my books lost their categories. They have since put most of them back, but have also shunted my bestsellers into "Religious Fiction". Making any changes to this takes the book offline, and still keeps the d*mn religious category. The books also no longer have ratings, and my books had a lot of those (ratings = books are being read).

My sales have gone from 5-10 a day to 2 a week. I could cry.

Kobo is 70% of my income.

I'm awfully sorry to hear this, Patty, especially since you were doing so well at Kobo.

I'm having books miscategorized as religious fiction (usually books that don't have three categories) and books with missing star ratings as well. The Kobo rankings, which were always a mess, now seem messier than usual. And like yours, my Kobo sales have been dead since early October. Though Kobo usually makes up only between 10 and 20% of my monthly sales.