Ebay offensive material policy - Just the beginning of censorship, already happening? Whats the scoop? 3 3

[pemart1966]

Requested the Seuss books from our local library - they had all but the Quizzer.  Just picked up McElligot's Pool.  The only thing in that was "Eskimo fish" wearing parkas and folks let me tell you - if you're smart, you DO wear a parka beyond Hudson Bay!

I had to laugh because the first page reads in part:

"Just turn the pages and you'll understand why boys and girls everywhere consider this to be one of their favourite Dr. Seuss books."  So apparently - Damn the kids - it's all about us looking proactive!

They stopped printing McElligot's Pool

That wasn't cricket and that wasn't cool

They stopped printing this book and five others

That'd still be in print if I had my druthers

They stopped printing them without fanfare; without much of a word

It's an action that ranks beyond that of absurd

Can't find them in your library?, can't find them in stores?

Can't find them anywhere any more?

Don't worry, don't fret  - remain calm I say

For there's about ten million and one for sale on eBay

 

 

Edited March 12, 2021 by pemart1966

[ttfitz]

5 hours ago, Rip said:

6 hours ago, ttfitz said:

This is completely false. Let's see if I can find some examples for you - oh, okay, here:

These are all examples of PUBLIC entities banning things. Completely different than a private company deciding not to participate in the sale of an item.

I believe you are confusing The First Amendment's right to free speech with the meaning of censorship.

Nope. Not in the least.

[Prince Namor]

22 hours ago, Bookery said:

By the strict standards Namor and others have put forth about the definition of "censorship", nothing has ever been censored in America. 

Yeah, no hyperbole there. And I haven't put forth any strict definition of censorship. I just don't see THIS as censorship. 

Quote

Yet "Banned Books Week" is a thing highlighting books that have been banned throughout the years.  None of them was banned by the federal government.  At all times these books were available in other places.  But they were censored in specific localities, by certain libraries, by certain school boards, by specific county prosecutors (as what I dealt with, and no, the State of Ohio was not involved at any level, as Namor insinuated).  Yet these books are considered to have been banned / censored nonetheless.

Yes, those books were banned based upon community standards. You have the right to protest those standards in your community as you may not agree with them. If a town in majority agrees it doesn't want 'Lolita' carried in its grade school library, that IS censorship, but are they wrong? When is censorship right? Should there be no movie ratings and anyone can walk in to see any movie they want? Should Hustler be carried at Walmart? What would Jesus do?

Quote

Of course, my entire concerns were sidetracked in this thread.  I never cared specifically about "that one silly book" (we were never told what that book was, btw), nor even the 6 Dr. Seuss books that eBay decided to no longer carry.  If that's all this was about, few would make a deal of it.  I think what bothers me, and Rip, and others... is that we are seeing a sweeping trend in this country in the past few years. 

Last few years? Why you being political? This has been going on for centuries.

And no one is sidetracking your concerns. A business decision not to carry something they still have a RIGHT to carry, isn't the same as burning books. Especially, when any other business has the same RIGHT to still carry it. That's not censorship. They could change their mind tomorrow if they chose to. No one is actually stopping them from selling it.

Quote

Namor ridiculed as hypebole my statement that nearly every week we see another case of some form of "censorship", "pc" pressure, "cancel culture", whatever you may want to call it... and it does indeed take different forms in different instances. 

Every DAY you can find a nut job on the internet complaining about something. Doesn't mean it's a movement. No matter how much some news story labels it as such. 

Quote

Just this week, since I made that statement, there have been several more things added to that list, involving a major entertainment distributor, the nation's largest bookstore, and in other arenas.  But I can't detail them here, because it become too difficult to separate the censorship issues from those that cross back and forth over the politics line.  And I understand that.

If you can't have a discussion without politics then a) you're doing it wrong or b) maybe you're listening to the wrong sources.

The vagueness of statements like these don't add to the discussion - they fan the flames of controversy.

Quote

The reason, then, that this thread gets hung up on the Dr. Seuss thing, is that it is the one that closest aligns to the subjects of this board.  Dr. Seuss books are a form of graphic novel.  They are comics.  If Dr. Seuss' historical publications can come under attack, the vast majority of comic books printed certainly before the 1960s, and probably before the 1990s, can come under the same.

Well, certainly if they're available in the local grade schools. I've seen some of today's comic books even, including one with Batman's weiner. Should that be allowed in grade schools? Is that censorship? Is it wrong? Are you going to fight for that as well? 

What WOULDN'T you fight for? Are books demeaning to Christianity ok? Satan worshipping books? AC/DC albums? 

Like it or not, in America, the right to assemble and make your voice heard is the same right shared by either side of an issue. Though I doubt where you seem to be getting your 'news' from feels the same way.

Quote

And once again, I do not think the publisher deciding not to continue publishing 6 titles is censorship. 

That's what I've been saying.

Quote

They looked at their backlist and made a business decision.  As far as I know, it was completely internal and was not done to appease outside pressure groups.  But once they made that decision, those pressure groups did arise, and eBay made their decision to head off the tidal wave of derision they felt would be headed their way.  A major bookstore this week pulled a book from their shelves because they were threatened with violence. 

Link?

Quote

That's the public pressure part of the ACLU definition, and that is censorship, despite the fact the book can readily be gotten elsewhere.

I don't know if it's censorship, but it IS a crime, and they should be arrested. If I tell my local 7-11 that if they continue to carry Slurpees, I'll kill the manager. Is that Slurpee censorship, or is that simply a crime that badly needs to be addressed? Coercion is only a misdemeanor, but I'm all for upping the status of that crime.

Quote

  My store once did have an adult back-issue section which included older issues of Hustler, etc.  I haven't had it in years, because I wanted to focus on more collectible type material, and to focus on items that fit in more with the rest of our operation. But I did not get rid of it because of outside pressure.  In fact, I'm stubborn enough that had there been outside pressure, I'd probably still have the section just out of defiance (not necessarily the best business approach, but there you have it):)

As you should. 

Quote

I'm not even calling for eBay to reinstate those 6 books. I can understand why they dropped them.  But the reason I consider it "censorship" (in one of its definitions) is that I believe they did it as a business decision, yes, but only because they feared pressure group backlash.  I can't read the minds of eBay executives, but since they allow the sale of things far more egregious than those, I come to that conclusion that it was from the threat of perceived pressure, and not because they adhere to certain moral standards.  6 books?  No biggie in the scheme of things.  But let's face it... we all know this is just the tip of the iceberg. 

Been hearing that for decades. 

Quote

The group I went up against had victory after victory just by putting pressure on a single prosecutor in each county.  But as soon as they ran into counter-pressure, even as minimal as ours was, they folded and were never heard from again.

And today's groups have the greatest opposition of all - the internet. 

We have access to almost anything we want. Nothing is really banned.

Quote

All I've ever meant to suggest in this thread is to be prepared to apply counter-pressure.  Dr. Seuss doesn't have to be your hill to die on.  It actually isn't mine.  But transacting vintage material, I believe, is going to come under assault, because no previous point in history can ever come up to the standards of a present generation.  To bring this all home, then... that will affect our hobby, this industry, the company whose boards we share.  And that is why this thread is here.

Will someone complain about a Golden Age cover? Almost certainly. Where are they going to ban it from? Put pressure on eBay not to sell it? Who puts high value GA books like that on eBay? Use an auction house. THEY aren't going to listen. Come to the CGC boards. They only ban books with naked people on the cover. Hey, that's censorship! Where's the outrage? Where's the picket signs? 

You still haven't convinced me you're not over blowing this. 

Edited March 12, 2021 by Prince Namor

[Bookery]

23 minutes ago, Prince Namor said:

Last few years? Why you being political? This has been going on for centuries.

Of course.  It comes in waves every couple of decades or so.  Comic collectors, especially, should know this.  I believe I've made it clear I've argued against this from both sides over time... how is that political?  

23 minutes ago, Prince Namor said:

And no one is sidetracking your concerns. A business decision not to carry something they still have a RIGHT to carry, isn't the same as burning books.

Yes.  Although, burning books is legal also, unless you're burning books that aren't your own.  Heck, I was tempted to burn The Colorado Kid and Gravity's Rainbow just out of spite for the hours of my life they wasted! 

23 minutes ago, Prince Namor said:

 

Every DAY you can find a nut job on the internet complaining about something. Doesn't mean it's a movement.

True.  Time will tell.  But most censorship issues have been local and not movements per se.  (Comics books were one of the few that were nationwide).

23 minutes ago, Prince Namor said:

No matter how much some news story labels it as such. 

If you can't have a discussion without politics then a) you're doing it wrong or b) maybe you're listening to the wrong sources.

I believe you are the one who keeps trying to bring politics into this.  I have owned a bookstore for nearly 40 years.  It is the nature of the business I'm in to keep up on this topic, and I suspect, for that reason, I have more background in it than you would have reason to have.

23 minutes ago, Prince Namor said:

The vagueness of statements like these don't add to the discussion - they fan the flames of controversy.

They are significant stories.  You shouldn't have trouble finding out about them.

23 minutes ago, Prince Namor said:

Well, certainly if they're available in the local grade schools. I've seen some of today's comic books even, including one with Batman's weiner. Should that be allowed in grade schools? Is that censorship? Is it wrong? Are you going to fight for that as well? 

I can't think of an instance where children should be conflated with consenting adults.

23 minutes ago, Prince Namor said:

What WOULDN'T you fight for? Are books demeaning to Christianity ok?

Yes.

23 minutes ago, Prince Namor said:

Satan worshipping books?

Yes.

23 minutes ago, Prince Namor said:

 

AC/DC albums? 

Never listed to them... but I would say yes.  Again... methinks you are trying to edge into the political here by making assumptions about me.  I have been consistent throughout my adult life.  Others who used to fight against this sort of thing but now don't think it's a big deal... not so much.

23 minutes ago, Prince Namor said:

Like it or not, in America, the right to assemble and make your voice heard is the same right shared by either side of an issue.

Yep.  It's called a debate.  That's what I'm having.

23 minutes ago, Prince Namor said:

Though I doubt where you seem to be getting your 'news' from feels the same way.

Wow.  You're doing this more and more as we go along, which is why this will be my last post on this thread.  I don't want to get a warning when I have been playing by the rules.  But it seems like whenever a debate gets rolling along, one side or another (or both) starts insinuating an argument is invalid because "you must be one of 'them'", "them" changing depending upon the accuser.

23 minutes ago, Prince Namor said:

That's what I've been saying.

Link?

I gave enough information that it should be an easy search.  How many "largest bookstore in the nation" are there?

23 minutes ago, Prince Namor said:

And today's groups have the greatest opposition of all - the internet. 

We'll see.  But the internet has the power to be the greatest and most comprehensive censor of all.  It's already happened several times.

23 minutes ago, Prince Namor said:

Put pressure on eBay not to sell it? Who puts high value GA books like that on eBay? Use an auction house. THEY aren't going to listen.

Well... eBay IS an auction house, and they listened.  Heritage, Christie's, Hakes, Sotheby's... they aren't in the public eye as much.  But if they got enough pressure, I'm sure they would "adjust" their policies to accommodate.

23 minutes ago, Prince Namor said:

You still haven't convinced me you're not over blowing this. 

You could be right.  But it's easy to claim I'm over-blowing it, when you insist on seeing Seuss as an isolated incidence.  And yes, these issues are arising nearly every week.  Now some are small, like the Seuss issue, and some are truly frightening.  Some are coming from a few internet nut-jobs as you say, and some have support from various levels of government.  If you care enough about it, you will seek out the information and try to set your political goggles aside as you do so.  If it's not an issue of that much interest to you, then don't.  Maybe it will be of interest to both of us, to revisit the topic in a few months, assuming we haven't been ....

[Rip]

9 hours ago, ttfitz said:

By the strict standards Namor and others have put forth about the definition of "censorship", nothing has ever been censored in America. 

This is completely false. Let's see if I can find some examples for you - oh, okay, here:

   23 hours ago, Bookery said:

Yet "Banned Books Week" is a thing highlighting books that have been banned throughout the years.  None of them was banned by the federal government.  At all times these books were available in other places.  But they were censored in specific localities, by certain libraries, by certain school boards, by specific county prosecutors (as what I dealt with, and no, the State of Ohio was not involved at any level, as Namor insinuated).  Yet these books are considered to have been banned / censored nonetheless.

These are all examples of PUBLIC entities banning things. Completely different than a private company deciding not to participate in the sale of an item.

Rip: I believe you are confusing The First Amendment's right to free speech with the meaning of censorship.

The First Amendment does not extend to private businesses. But a private business can still engage in corporate censorship.

Nope. Not in the least.

Then go ahead and explain why you thought you had some sort of an example here. And why it was somehow completely different because these were private companies. I've attached the conversation above.

And I'll state this again:

The First Amendment does not extend to private businesses. But a private business can still engage in corporate censorship.

Edited March 12, 2021 by Rip

[theCapraAegagrus]

When do you start learning what offends you, yourself, instead of being told what to be offended by?

I don't need an entity - public or private - to tell me what to think or feel. If I cannot decide for myself, then I am not actually learning anything.

[Prince Namor]

33 minutes ago, Bookery said:

Of course.  It comes in waves every couple of decades or so.  Comic collectors, especially, should know this.  I believe I've made it clear I've argued against this from both sides over time... how is that political? 

Because you used the statement: we are seeing a sweeping trend in this country in the past few years. 

This was the first in what made me think you've been influenced by media. Because that's a thought process being pushed right now. I BELIEVE you are truthful in your means, because of your profession and most of what you say - that doesn't mean I don't think you could be directly or indirectly influenced by the talking heads of media.

Realistically - the two times comics really came under fire - in the 50's and in the 90's - one was aimed at 'protecting the children', which is always going to get some traction - though publishers themselves caved in - and the second came because of 'community standards' and the fear the distributors had of legal retribution and the REAL fear that dealers had of getting arrested for carrying a 'dirty' comic. Very real and very scary.

Now, you can find anything you want online. 

33 minutes ago, Bookery said:

I believe you are the one who keeps trying to bring politics into this.  I have owned a bookstore for nearly 40 years.  It is the nature of the business I'm in to keep up on this topic, and I suspect, for that reason, I have more background in it than you would have reason to have.

You said: But I can't detail them here, because it become too difficult to separate the censorship issues from those that cross back and forth over the politics line.

That wasn't ME bringing it into it - that was you. If you think someone being concerned about images of black skinned, big lipped natives from the jungle wrongly influencing children in public schools is 'political', you're on the wrong side of the argument to me.

If you think we as adults should have the right to consume any legal media we want - I agree 100%.

I agree with your desire to fight real censorship. I'm glad there are people like you willing to do it and put themselves out there. It's not easy. We need more people willing to do that when it occurs. I fought against it in the 90's with support for those artists and shops who were targeted. Except for Glen Danzig. I thought he was an a-hole. 

I just don't think THIS is censorship.

33 minutes ago, Bookery said:

They are significant stories.  You shouldn't have trouble finding out about them.

I must read the wrong web sites - not having any luck - maybe PM me some links?

33 minutes ago, Bookery said:

I can't think of an instance where children should be conflated with consenting adults.

Yes.

Yes.

Never listed to them... but I would say yes.  Again... methinks you are trying to edge into the political here by making assumptions about me.  I have been consistent throughout my adult life.  Others who used to fight against this sort of thing but now don't think it's a big deal... not so much.

Not at all here. Just curious on your thoughts. Just asking questions. 

33 minutes ago, Bookery said:

Wow.  You're doing this more and more as we go along, which is why this will be my last post on this thread.  I don't want to get a warning when I have been playing by the rules.  But it seems like whenever a debate gets rolling along, one side or another (or both) starts insinuating an argument is invalid because "you must be one of 'them'", "them" changing depending upon the accuser.

Once again, I think your means are just - doesn't mean I don't think you couldn't be influenced by the media. I certainly don't think you're 'them' - whoever that is. But anyone can be influenced by the media if they watch too much of it.

I don't watch any of it. I NEVER have my TV on the news. EVER. I don't even have local TV. I scroll past Yahoo trying to tell me what the 'news' of the day is. I've gone to 4 small comic book shows this year and never once did I get the feeling that 'censorship' is creeping up around the corner. 

The only time it even becomes aware to me is when people who have obviously been influenced by a planted idea say something to me like: we are seeing a sweeping trend in this country in the past few years. 

So when this Dr. Seuss controversy hits - THEY go all up in arms, while I shrug and say, "Whatever". When something real happens, I'll know.

 

We ARE seeing a sweeping trend in this country. TWO of them.

1. The internet, which gives a voice to pretty much anyone in the WORLD - including bots - is being used to try and manipulate information.

and 2. A real desire to try and be inclusive as a society.

In CHOOSING...Is that taking a side? Or a decision to be the best human being I can?

33 minutes ago, Bookery said:

We'll see.  But the internet has the power to be the greatest and most comprehensive censor of all.  It's already happened several times.

Private business on the Internet can, but in general there's very little you can't see or read on the internet. This generation is growing up with the greatest level of information available to them EVER. If they would just skip over that damn Yahoo News and what Kim Kardashian is up to.

33 minutes ago, Bookery said:

Well... eBay IS an auction house, and they listened.  Heritage, Christie's, Hakes, Sotheby's... they aren't in the public eye as much.  But if they got enough pressure, I'm sure they would "adjust" their policies to accommodate.

No way. That's a private business aimed at a specific target audience. The average housewife boycotting Heritage would cause them ZERO loss of revenue.

33 minutes ago, Bookery said:

You could be right.  But it's easy to claim I'm over-blowing it, when you insist on seeing Seuss as an isolated incidence. 

I don't see it as isolated. Just a rational business decision that was long over due.

33 minutes ago, Bookery said:

And yes, these issues are arising nearly every week.  Now some are small, like the Seuss issue, and some are truly frightening.  Some are coming from a few internet nut-jobs as you say, and some have support from various levels of government.  If you care enough about it, you will seek out the information and try to set your political goggles aside as you do so.  If it's not an issue of that much interest to you, then don't.  Maybe it will be of interest to both of us, to revisit the topic in a few months, assuming we haven't been ....

I live in an area where the local football team can no longer use their name. I could care less. Really, in the scope of things, does it make that much of a difference? Is it really censorship, or society trying to right itself? People have always fought for things that history proved them wrong on - Women shouldn't be allowed to vote! Smoking doesn't cause cancer! Black athletes can't play quarterback! Seat Belts are unnecessary! 

The thought process was: we are seeing a sweeping trend in this country in the past few years. 

We survived it. Most of it worked out for the better.

Do I really miss Red Dye #2? Asbestos? The grinning Cleveland Indian? Smoking on an Airplane (Wtf?), Pay Toilets? Corduroy Pants? Aunt Jemima? Song of the South?, etc. Times change. Anytime I want to 'remember' the past, it's all right there on the internet.

[NewWorldOrder]

I always believe bad press is bad press!

Ebay only cares about $$$$$$$$ only

eBay doesn't want the hassle so they will ban for it for a while but in the near future I am sure no one will care and mob will be onto the next topic to cancel.  Bet you in 2023 you can log on and buy all those DR Seuss books anytime you want again.

These CGC boards arent free so if the powers that be want to make a rule no one here can talk about Dr Seuss books that is their right as a private company.  Its not rocket science here gang, pretty much 1st grade business stuff here.  You always have the option to start your own business and allow what you deem fit, till then stop complaining.  

Edited March 12, 2021 by NewWorldOrder

[HuddyBee]

The reality is that sure this isn't the same censorship as government banning books and making it illegal to buy/possess them. But to say this isn't at all a form of censorship seems pretty foolish to me.

Ebay is the largest platform to sell books and collectibles like these Dr Seuss books, and when they decide to ban all selling of these books, yes it is a form of censorship. Sure it's not illegal, but censorship doesn't have to just occur with a government or authority. And just because you can find a pdf of these books on the internet doesn't mean it isn't a form censorship. Pdfs of books, and physical books aren't the same thing, and the physical media in this case is being subject to a form of censorship.

Definition from google: "the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security."

Edited March 12, 2021 by HuddyBee

[HuddyBee]

Also I would like to point out that the posited idea that eBay pulled the books because of negative press and/or potential boycotts is rather unfounded. Amazon has kept all 6 books available on their site via sellers selling used copies and have garnered very little if any negative press.

[theCapraAegagrus]

18 minutes ago, HuddyBee said:

Also I would like to point out that the posited idea that eBay pulled the books because of negative press and/or potential boycotts is rather unfounded. Amazon has kept all 6 books available on their site via sellers selling used copies and have garnered very little if any negative press.

Some people have said, "get woke go broke". Now eBay won't go broke, but it's certainly their loss, and Amazon's gain.

[ttfitz]

6 hours ago, Rip said:

Then go ahead and explain why you thought you had some sort of an example here. And why it was somehow completely different because these were private companies. I've attached the conversation above.

And I'll state this again:

The First Amendment does not extend to private businesses. But a private business can still engage in corporate censorship.

I cannot for the life of me figure out what you are getting at here. In the stuff you quoted, Bookery stated that by the definitions given by others, NOTHING had ever been censored in the United States. And then he proceeded to list numerous examples of things that had been - all of which were by PUBLIC entities, which fell under almost any definition of censorship.

As for your last statement, I'd thank you if you could point out where I said this was a First Amendment issue, or even that a private business couldn't engage in censorship. I could list numerous examples of THAT, too, all I have said is that a business like eBay deciding what items they will and will not take part in the sale of is not one of them.

[Beige]

Still going huh?

WC please.

[Prince Namor]

7 hours ago, HuddyBee said:

The reality is that sure this isn't the same censorship as government banning books and making it illegal to buy/possess them. But to say this isn't at all a form of censorship seems pretty foolish to me.

Ebay is the largest platform to sell books and collectibles like these Dr Seuss books, and when they decide to ban all selling of these books, yes it is a form of censorship. Sure it's not illegal, but censorship doesn't have to just occur with a government or authority. And just because you can find a pdf of these books on the internet doesn't mean it isn't a form censorship. Pdfs of books, and physical books aren't the same thing, and the physical media in this case is being subject to a form of censorship.

Definition from google: "the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security."

Suppression is used to shield people from something - to keep them from it. eBay isn’t doing that. 
 

They could care less if you read it or wipe your butt with it. They just choose not to be caught up in the hoopla. And even with that they’re doing a half azzd job of it as there are 3 COPIES currently available on the site. 
 

Guess it’s not so ‘censored’.

[Rip]

4 hours ago, ttfitz said:

I cannot for the life of me figure out what you are getting at here. In the stuff you quoted, Bookery stated that by the definitions given by others, NOTHING had ever been censored in the United States. And then he proceeded to list numerous examples of things that had been - all of which were by PUBLIC entities, which fell under almost any definition of censorship.

As for your last statement, I'd thank you if you could point out where I said this was a First Amendment issue, or even that a private business couldn't engage in censorship. I could list numerous examples of THAT, too, all I have said is that a business like eBay deciding what items they will and will not take part in the sale of is not one of them.

i bring this up because you wrote this

"These are all examples of PUBLIC entities banning things. Completely different than a private company deciding not to participate in the sale of an item."

So again why write this? Why make the distinction between public vs private. What IS this complete difference you speak of?

 

 

Edited March 13, 2021 by Rip

[snitzer]

So the book is still for sale on eBay and they didn’t stop racism? Huh. Don’t feed the mob 

[Lazyboy]

4 minutes ago, snitzer said:

So the book is still for sale on eBay and they didn’t stop racism? Huh. Don’t feed the mob 

What mob?

[snitzer]

10 minutes ago, Lazyboy said:

What mob?

In this case the SPLC, Twitter and a few school boards here in the US.

edit: clarification: it was Learning for Justice, an affiliate of the SPLC.

Edited March 13, 2021 by snitzer

[Lazyboy]

20 minutes ago, Rip said:

i bring this up because you wrote this

"These are all examples of PUBLIC entities banning things. Completely different than a private company deciding not to participate in the sale of an item."

So again why write this? Why make the distinction between public vs private. What IS this complete difference you speak of?

 

 

Difference marked. The same as my point here.

[snitzer]

On a positive note, I picked up my niece today at school (yeah, I did a Friday favor) and a teacher leaving the building was wearing an awesome, bright red Dr Seuss shirt...and yeah, she knew what she was doing.