The meaning of censorship

[DeYaKen]

When I opened the Kobo thread I used the word Censorship in a post . A couple of posters chose to muddy the waters by insisting their own very narrow interpretation of the word was the only one that could be used.

I open this thread to give these people the chance to air their views without confusing it with the rights and wrongs of the Kobo issue.

I will kick it off with some definitions from some esteemed US people and publications.

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. It may take place at any point in time, whether before an utterance occurs, prior to its widespread circulation, or by punishment of communicators after dissemination of their messages, so as to deter others from like expression. In its narrower, more legalistic sense, censorship means only the prevention by official government action of the circulation of messages already produced. Thus writers who "censor" themselves before putting words on paper, for fear of failing to sell their work, are not engaging in censorship in this narrower sense, nor are those who boycott sponsors of disliked television shows.
--Academic American Encyclopedia

Censorship: the cyclical suppression, banning, expurgation, or editing by an individual, institution, group or government that enforce or influence its decision against members of the public -- of any written or pictorial materials which that individual, institution, group or government deems obscene and "utterly" without redeeming social value," as determined by "contemporary community standards."
--Chuck Stone, Professor of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of North Carolina

Censorship - the prevention of publication, transmission, or exhibition of material considered undesirable for the general public to possess or be exposed to.
--Fast Times' Political Dictionary

Censorship
1. The denial of freedom of speech or freedom of the press.
2. The review of books, movies, etc., to prohibit publication and distribution, usually for reasons of morality or state security.
--Oran's Dictionary of Law

There you go guys. Remember, you are not arguing with me but with the people and publications cited.

You might also like to check out

http://gilc.org/speech/osistudy/censorship/

http://media.okstate.edu/faculty/jsenat/censorship/defining.htm

Go ahead knock your selves out

 

[lovecraft68]

Uh-oh now you have done it!

Lits living breathing expert on everything , the law maker himself, Pilot will be here to take you to task.

Personally I agree with you on the other thread, but am not going to go round and round with anyone here on it

I know what it means and what it is. No cyber fool here is going to change that.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Try prior restraint.

 

[lovecraft68]

Try prior restraint.

Pilot wants to know if you can cite your source on that.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Pilot wants to know if you can cite your source on that.

Me. Tell PILOT I said FO! with sugar on it.

 

[sr71plt]

The narrow sense, of course, is also known as the legal sense.

Again, anyone wanting to run off into the irrelevant in railing against businesses exercising their rights to make business decisions is welcome to do so. They were just wanting to whine about it anyway.

DaYaKen and LC have proven to be champion whiners on Literotica anyway.

 

[SecondCircle]

All of the references provided are accurate descriptions and definitions of censorship. So they are technically censoring stuff.

But legally, they have the right to do so. If I opened up an ice cream parlor (dunno why the hell I'd do that) and I decided I wouldn't serve strawberry ice cream because I think it sucks, I have the right to sell what I wanna sell. If someone came along saying I was censoring his taste buds, he'd be right I guess, but legally he can't make me sell shitty strawberry ice cream.

So yes they are censoring you. Because they can. That's legal, regardless of what is moral. They are a business first.

 

[PennLady]

The problem here is that while Amazon may be telling people they will not carry certain books, or that they have to be titled a certain way, they are not doing anything illegal. Cheesy, perhaps, but not illegal.

Amazon is not preventing you from getting your stories out. They are only saying you can't use them as an outlet, which is fine. You can still go to other outlets, Lit not least among them, to publish stories like this. If you don't like the way Amazon handles this, then you can complain; start a petition; take your business elsewhere; start your own sale site like RRichard did.

The real problem here, it seems to me, is Amazon's inconsistent (to say the least) application and enforcement of their policies.

As I pointed out in the other thread, Amazon's self-publishing guidelines state clearly that they can pull books that they deem in violation of their policies. When you self-publish with them, you sign on for that.

 

[SecondCircle]

The problem here is that while Amazon may be telling people they will not carry certain books, or that they have to be titled a certain way, they are not doing anything illegal. Cheesy, perhaps, but not illegal.

Amazon is not preventing you from getting your stories out. They are only saying you can't use them as an outlet, which is fine. You can still go to other outlets, Lit not least among them, to publish stories like this. If you don't like the way Amazon handles this, then you can complain; start a petition; take your business elsewhere; start your own sale site like RRichard did.

The real problem here, it seems to me, is Amazon's inconsistent (to say the least) application and enforcement of their policies.

As I pointed out in the other thread, Amazon's self-publishing guidelines state clearly that they can pull books that they deem in violation of their policies. When you self-publish with them, you sign on for that.

Precisely. Nothing illegal is happening, and Amazon has the right to sell what they want as they please, as does any other site. I do agree that the "obscurities" need to be cleared up, and that it causes a lot of confusion and contempt. That's reasonable to be upset about.

But I don't think censorship "fits" here. They aren't book burning, they are just selling the stuff they want to sell, as anyone who has that right will do. It's fine to protest this, to an extent, but I can say that even if my rules are obscure, if you want strawberry ice cream, look elsewhere. My imaginary shop ain't gotta sell it.

 

[JKendallDane]

I purposely kept from commenting in the other thread simply because the "censorship" issue was off topic in my not so humble opinion. Censorship most certainly does occur outside of government involvement or influence.

I see this...umm...discussion as little more than a few people taking parsing to a whole new level over the "acceptable" definition of the word "censorship."

It's kind of like arguing over whether "cum" and "come" are interchangable or if you are required to use only one or the other. In the grand scheme of things; much like the definition of censorship; you can accept either based on what has become standard use, or you can be so anal that you could star in a Preparation H commercial.

 

[sr71plt]

The primary problem with taking a broad definition of censorship in this issue is that it leads you down the path of believing you are entitled to be serviced--those espousing a broad definition have have gone down that path--to the point of talking civil suit and moral wrongs. At which point they become totally irrelevant to the issue and negate any hope of getting "redress" for the "wrong" they have been done. At the most, Amazon and Kobo have been giving them privileges they have no right to by turning their eyes away for years.

Instead of the wounded privileged, they then become the ungrateful ignorant.

 

[lovecraft68]

The primary problem with taking a broad definition of censorship in this issue is that it leads you down the path of believing you are entitled to be serviced--those espousing a broad definition have have gone down that path--to the point of talking civil suit and moral wrongs. At which point they become totally irrelevant to the issue and negate any hope of getting "redress" for the "wrong" they have been done. At the most, Amazon and Kobo have been giving them privileges they have no right to by turning their eyes away for years.

Instead of the wounded privileged, they then become the ungrateful ignorant.

Interesting, well do go tell Selena, your publisher, that she is ungrateful and ignorant because she is threatening amazon with legal action.

The ironic thing is that you call that ignorant and ungrateful, but she is not only doing it on her behalf, but the behalf of the authors she publishes and indy authors in general.

But to you she is ignorant,

maybe the word ungrateful should apply to you.

As for ignorant we all know that more than certainly applies to you.

 

[JKendallDane]

The primary problem with taking a broad definition of censorship in this issue is that it leads you down the path of believing you are entitled to be serviced...

No, I don't see that being the point. I don't like the idea of using the term "censorship" in this instance because it DOES lead to casting a light on a term that shouldn't be, even though technically the useage is correct.

I do NOT believe that Amazon, or Pilot's Grocery, or Second Circle's ice cream shop, or even Literotica are REQUIRED to stock everything the public wants, do anything or offer everything submited or not be able to censor as they see fit. I agree that it is a free market and that free market ideal also includes saying "No we don't want to publish this or that."

Whether it is right or wrong legally and whether damage can be proven is what keeps a lot of attorneys smiling. Idiots feed them something else stupid to sue over every day.

As far as the original idea, if "censorship in business decisions" were truly actionable, then Larry Flynt could have made another small fortune by suing every Bible bookstore in America for not carrying Hustler.

 

[SamScribble]

As far as the original idea, if "censorship in business decisions" were truly actionable, then Larry Flynt could have made another small fortune by suing every Bible bookstore in America for not carrying Hustler.

No. I think that private businesses can make their own rules, chose their own customers, chose their own suppliers.

 

[ishtat]

1. The concise Oxford Dictionary agrees with Pilots limited definition of Censor.

2. However, the two volume Shorter Oxford Dictionary goes into more detail stating that the first definition of censor is an official who may suppress various materials publications,performances etc to 'preserve public morals' etc.
It also clearly states that an equally valid definition of censor is any person who is a 'critic or fault finder.' (and quotes that usage as dating from 1599)

3. The most modern dictionary I have (Macquarie), clearly supports the wider definition. It agrees the definition as stated by Pilot but in its second definition says a censor is 'any person who supervises the manners or morality of others, - an adverse critic a fault finder.'

Without boring you with any further detail I checked Websters and another American source and both agreed with Pilot's limited definition. However, two British sources supported DoYaKen equally clearly.

Pilot is American, DoYaKen is a Brit; the argument it seems to me, is about yet another difference between British and American English.

 

[PennLady]

No. I think that private businesses can make their own rules, chose their own customers, chose their own suppliers.

Exactly, and this is what a few of us have been saying. Even Barnes & Noble, or Chapters up in Canada, can't stock every single book. When they make their choices, no one is crying censorship -- although of course the self-published print book market is pretty small, I'd imagine. Still, they decide what to carry and not carry.

The problem here is that Amazon and Kobo had rules/guidelines for self-publishing, but did not apply them from the start or consistently. And Kobo apparently never checked the books in the first place as they went up. So now they are retroactively, and again not consistently, trying to cull these books. Which is lousy for the authors involved, but not illegal, and is something the authors took a risk with, given at least Amazon's stated, and vague, guidelines.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

With respect to PILOT I say censure is when yo mama or uncle sam or anyone stops the press.

 

[DeYaKen]

nothing to do with US v UK English

1. The concise Oxford Dictionary agrees with Pilots limited definition of Censor.

2. However, the two volume Shorter Oxford Dictionary goes into more detail stating that the first definition of censor is an official who may suppress various materials publications,performances etc to 'preserve public morals' etc.
It also clearly states that an equally valid definition of censor is any person who is a 'critic or fault finder.' (and quotes that usage as dating from 1599)

3. The most modern dictionary I have (Macquarie), clearly supports the wider definition. It agrees the definition as stated by Pilot but in its second definition says a censor is 'any person who supervises the manners or morality of others, - an adverse critic a fault finder.'

Without boring you with any further detail I checked Websters and another American source and both agreed with Pilot's limited definition. However, two British sources supported DoYaKen equally clearly.

Pilot is American, DoYaKen is a Brit; the argument it seems to me, is about yet another difference between British and American English.

In order to avoid just this comment, all the references in my original post were from US publications, or, in one case, a professor of media studies from a US college/university.

In starting this thread I was trying to take the pedantry away fro the Kobo argument but it seems to have transferred anyway.

Just to be clear, in saying that Kobo were practicing censorship, I did not say or imply that they were doing anything illegal. Distasteful, in my view, but not illegal.

Definitions change. They are changed by us, the users of the language. Dictionaries by their very nature will always be behind. In the nineteen seventies and even eighties the dictionary definition of "gay" would have been "happy, bright, cheerful" there would have been no mention of homosexuality even though that had already become a generally accepted meaning of the word.

 

[TxRad]

In order to avoid just this comment, all the references in my original post were from US publications, or, in one case, a professor of media studies from a US college/university.

In starting this thread I was trying to take the pedantry away fro the Kobo argument but it seems to have transferred anyway.

Just to be clear, in saying that Kobo were practicing censorship, I did not say or imply that they were doing anything illegal. Distasteful, in my view, but not illegal.

Definitions change. They are changed by us, the users of the language. Dictionaries by their very nature will always be behind. In the nineteen seventies and even eighties the dictionary definition of "gay" would have been "happy, bright, cheerful" there would have been no mention of homosexuality even though that had already become a generally accepted meaning of the word.

Censorship was thrown out the window when you signed the terms policy of the website. That is the simple truth of the matter.

 

[sr71plt]

I think the discussion on censorship as it regards Amazon and Kobo policies can just be dropped, because it's irrelevant to affecting whatever Amazon and Kobo do--and they know it and don't care if the blusterers are off on some erroneous trail.