| |||||||||||||
No one was censoredNo one was censoredPosted May 6, 2012 5:40 UTC (Sun) by gowen (guest, #23914)In reply to: No one was censored by tialaramex Parent article: Linux Format censored over 'Learn to Hack' feature (bit-tech)
Read it again. Still don't know who gets to decide what commercial choices constitute unacceptable censorship.
Perhaps you should write it again more carefully.
(Log in to post comments)
No one was censored Posted May 6, 2012 17:18 UTC (Sun) by clump (subscriber, #27801) [Link] However, the global effect of such commercial decisions can effectively add up to censorship. We should pay attention _before_ that happens, because afterwards it can be too late to get it changed without momentous cultural shifts.This is the crux of the argument. I don't read it as suggesting that there be an arbitrator that tells a retailer what's permissible to sell. I read it as a suggestion to be mindful of the size and influence of those we buy things from. I very much agree with this point. Sidestepping political conversation, there are ways to address the issue. As others have noted, you can change the title of the article. You can also apply pressure to the retailer. You can open your own book store. You can work hard to write things that will not offend others. Whether you should have to do those things is another discussion entirely.
No one was censored Posted May 7, 2012 15:39 UTC (Mon) by misiu_mp (guest, #41936) [Link]
Naturally each distributor chooses what titles they want to sell, based on the topic, niche etc.
What happened here is that BnN first agreed to sell the magazine and then pulled a single issue because they didn't like what was written in it. That's much worse than not having the magazine at all in the first place. Once they've promised to sell it, they have an obligation to do it. I would even suspect they were breaching some contracts. It is not the distributors job to arbitrarily censor the content they are distributing. This is wrong in so many ways, I certainly hope it is not allowed by either law or contract. What's next, approving single articles? How about pulling issues that put them in a negative light? This is a plain stupid censorship attempt. I can't believe there are people who would think the magazine has any fault in this for choosing the wrong title.
No one was censored Posted May 7, 2012 17:22 UTC (Mon) by spaetz (subscriber, #32870) [Link]
HELLOOO, does no one read comments or linked articles anymore? According to the Verge (link has been posted), B&N has pulled nothing and the very issue in question is still available in the Nook store. Nothing, repeat, nothing seems to have been pulled.
No one was censored Posted May 18, 2012 20:55 UTC (Fri) by steffen780 (guest, #68142) [Link]
True, but the question of whether private companies are permitted (legally or morally) to engage in blatant censorship is a critical question that needs to be answered sooner rather than later. The moral standards of super-mega-fundamentalists are already applied to mobile appstores, e.g. Apple pulled the mobile version of one of the biggest German print publications because they didn't like German law&morality and decided they have a right to tell people what they are allowed to read/see, and what they aren't. This is as unacceptable as it would've been if B&N had done what they were accused of.
Though you are of course right to point out that B&N has apparently not actually done this - nevertheless, it's still not a "nothing to see, move along" thing. This kinda stuff does happens routinely, maybe not by B&N, but Google&Apple certainly do it as SOP.
|
|||||||||||||