| |||||||||||||
No one was censoredNo one was censoredPosted May 7, 2012 15:39 UTC (Mon) by misiu_mp (guest, #41936)In reply to: No one was censored by gowen Parent article: Linux Format censored over 'Learn to Hack' feature (bit-tech)
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.
(Log in to post comments)
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.
|
|||||||||||||