Book Burning in America (2 Viewers)

[Roofgardener]

Well, OK.. not really.. no books have actually been BURN.. yet. But.....

Doctor Seuss Enterprises has withdrawn six Dr Seuss books from sale, on the grounds that they where 'racially insensitive imagery'.
Yup.. the Cat in the Hat was a White Nationalist Trumpist Quanon supporter all along !

Well, they have the legal right to do that. However, what happened NEXT is VERY interesting.
The value of those six books skyrocketed on Ebay. So Ebay finally responded by... delisting the books.
It is no longer possible to list any of the six books for sale in the USA. If you try more than once, your account can be penalised.

Now think about this. You can buy Mein Kampf, and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion on Ebay in the USA no problem.
But you aren't ALLOWED to buy "If I ran the zoo".

OK.. this is only six out of the many dozens of books by Dr Seuss.
At the moment.

Is it just me that finds this incredibly authoritarian ?

 

[Xeno]

I'll dive into it and get back to you, but I have a quick 'on the surface' question, do you think it is right? By your theory, Comcast can refuse service even though they are the only one where I live, and don't forget the internet is the new town square.

Comcast absolutely can refuse service to whomever they want. Do I think it's right? No, but not for 1st amendment reasons. Internet should be classified as a utility and we've been giving telecoms billions in tax breaks to provide high speed fiber across the country for decades. They pocketed the money and never did the work.

 

[Xeno]

Would be interesting to see if there is any correlation in the IP addresses of these posters that come in and flare out in a matter of days.

Andrus said in another thread that there hasn't been so far. They all just have the exact same talking points and lack of evidence.

 

[SystemShock]

Mind that cushion! Ebay is not selling anything, they are a platform for others to sell stuff, easy.

Yeah, that's what is commonly known as a marketplace.

Who are they to decide?

It's their floor space. Their house, their rules.

you leftists

LOL
In the words of that great accidental philosopher... I am not left-wing, I am not right-wing, I am the opposite of both.

being the people of freedom of speech, freedom to associate, freedom of religion, not this ridiculous word play.

Word play?
This may come as a surprise to you, but freedom of speech - or better said, protected speech - works for the things you don't want to say as the ones you want to say.

Who's a bitterclinger now? Who's clutching her pearls? OPEN BIDEN!!!

That don't work 'round here.

Again, how is this any different than a lunch counter?

I don't know if explaining it to you, yet again, as others have done in previous posts, is going to make any sort of dent.

For ebay to target books or statements, for facebook or twitter to ban, for amazon to not host parler... well there amazon has a right,

So why Amazon has it right and not the others?
In any case, Amazon, Twitter, Facebook, eBay, they are all private corporations, and people too. As long as they don't break any laws, they can do whatever they want to in their house.

but the others are no different than the lunch counter.

did you come up with this one all by yourself? Really...

Those companies are a platform that whole business model is based on people using their freedom of speech,

Again, protected speech, and no, that's not really their platform... it's communication, not freedom of speech, and communication is not the same as freedom of/protected speech.

and they use favored business status with the US government to make money because they are immune to publisher accountibility.

Huh? LOL

By your standards,

You have no idea what my standards are.

and shame this site for editing my words.

Not loss at all, believe me.

JFK would be right of Ted Cruz today, ironic that Bumbling Biden has his brothers bust in the Oval office.

No one is to the right of Ted Cruz. Or the left. Or in front. Or even behind.

 

[SystemShock]

By your theory, Comcast can refuse service even though they are the only one where I live,

They can now, because they were declassified as a utility.

 

[SystemShock]

Would be interesting to see if there is any correlation in the IP addresses of these posters that come in and flare out in a matter of days.

I wouldn't bother with the IP, VPNs and all that... but patterns of speech... those are easy to recognize.

 

[MT15]

Let’s try a different tack for Roof and French:

Let’s say you owned a storefront, and rented out space for sellers. It was identified with your name, and you were well known as the proprietor. Is it your right to set conditions on the sellers as to what they are allowed to sell? Or is your business identity and your reputation at the mercy of everyone you rent space to?

 

[RebSaint]

Let’s try a different tack for Roof and French:

Let’s say you owned a storefront, and rented out space for sellers. It was identified with your name, and you were well known as the proprietor. Is it your right to set conditions on the sellers as to what they are allowed to sell? Or is your business identity and your reputation at the mercy of everyone you rent space to?

Waste of time.

 

[Nebaghead]

I used to work for PayPal when eBay still owned them and you accept their policy the minute you open an account with them. (That thing that no one reads but is legally binding) They clearly have the right to decide what is allowed to be sold on their site.

 

[Roofgardener]

Let’s try a different tack for Roof and French:

Let’s say you owned a storefront, and rented out space for sellers. It was identified with your name, and you were well known as the proprietor. Is it your right to set conditions on the sellers as to what they are allowed to sell? Or is your business identity and your reputation at the mercy of everyone you rent space to?

Fair point; obviously you could determine what is sold.
But would you be happy if only Republicans where allowed to hire space in your storefront ? Or only White people ?

The Suess books where banned NOT because they where not commercially successful, or because anyone had issued a meaningful complaint, but because of 'woke' politics. Ebay had NOT objected to people selling the books UNTIL Seuss Enterprises withdrew them.

I've said all I'm going to say on this topic. It's YOUR republic, so for the most part I've not got a dog in the fight. (especially seeing as the books ARE available on the UK ebay site. ).

 

[Nebaghead]

Fair point; obviously you could determine what is sold.
But would you be happy if only Republicans where allowed to hire space in your storefront ? Or only White people ?

The Suess books where banned NOT because they where not commercially successful, or because anyone had issued a meaningful complaint, but because of 'woke' politics. Ebay had NOT objected to people selling the books UNTIL Seuss Enterprises withdrew them.

I've said all I'm going to say on this topic. It's YOUR republic, so for the most part I've not got a dog in the fight. (especially seeing as the books ARE available on the UK ebay site. ).

You bring up a good point. Companies can direct eBay not to sell their goods. Seuss enterprises might have requested eBay not to sell it anymore. I know a lot of high end fashion designers don’t allow their product to be sold on eBay because of fakes.

 

[Dragon]

Fair point; obviously you could determine what is sold.
But would you be happy if only Republicans where allowed to hire space in your storefront ? Or only White people ?

The Suess books where banned NOT because they where not commercially successful, or because anyone had issued a meaningful complaint, but because of 'woke' politics. Ebay had NOT objected to people selling the books UNTIL Seuss Enterprises withdrew them.

I've said all I'm going to say on this topic. It's YOUR republic, so for the most part I've not got a dog in the fight. (especially seeing as the books ARE available on the UK ebay site. ).

Your analogy does not fit this situation. This is a product decision - Not a decision based on political association, race or gender. The first is within the law -the second is not.

Many businesses have a clear understanding of what they want to promote and the books were removed because the owner of the shop did not want those things sold from his store.. Just like the Bakers who did not want to sell wedding cakes to a same-sex marriage. A lot of conservatives defended their rights and yes - ebay have the same rigth to decide what they want to sell and what they don't want to sell.

 

[brandon]

But would you be happy if only Republicans where allowed to hire space in your storefront ? Or only White people ?

Let's put this in a free market context.

From a purely cynical capitalist standpoint, eBay made a business decision that it would cost them more long term to continue selling those books than they would from refusing to sell the books. It is your suggestion that they be forced to continue selling the books, which will likely undermine their long-term profits, as they could potentially be inviting a boycott if they were to continue.

So from a business standpoint, they decided it was more profitable to NOT sell the book than to continue selling it.

Are you going to stand in the way of the right of the business to make a business decision in light of market pressure? Are you a socialist commie who demands that businesses bow to the government?

Or are you a free-market capitalist who believes in the right of a business to make its own decisions related to the products it sells?

 

[samiam5211]

Fair point; obviously you could determine what is sold.
But would you be happy if only Republicans where allowed to hire space in your storefront ? Or only White people ?

The Suess books where banned NOT because they where not commercially successful, or because anyone had issued a meaningful complaint, but because of 'woke' politics. Ebay had NOT objected to people selling the books UNTIL Seuss Enterprises withdrew them.

I've said all I'm going to say on this topic. It's YOUR republic, so for the most part I've not got a dog in the fight. (especially seeing as the books ARE available on the UK ebay site. ).

Seuss books were not banned.

The owner of the content decided to stop producing it.

 

[Dragon]

Seuss books were not banned.

The owner of the content decided to stop producing it.

And no books were burned but facts does not seem to matter to some folks...

 

[Saintamaniac]

And no books were burned but facts does not seem to matter to some folks...

When someone alleges that an activity took place that didn't actually take place, that person is known as a liar.

LIAR
noun

1. a person who tells lies.
   "Trump is a notorious liar"

 

[RobF]

One more reality check:

Seuss Enterprises chose to cease publication of a few items of their catalogue, the top seller of which accounted for less than a fraction of one percent of their sales (source), as they "portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong".

People have previously raised the issues related to those books, and here are just a couple of examples of that: NPR, School Library Journal.

eBay chose to stop carrying those items, possibly in accordance with a request from the publisher, certainly in accordance with their offensive items policy which explicitly covers "Items with racist, anti-Semitic, or otherwise demeaning portrayals, for example through caricatures or other exaggerated features, including figurines, cartoons, housewares, historical advertisements, and golliwogs."

eBay UK has the same policy.

The policy also covers Nazi and anti-Semitic material.

There is no equivalence between this and refusing service to people based on their skin colour. None. This is withdrawal of products by the publisher, due to the products "portraying people in ways that are hurtful and wrong", and a platform choosing to stop carrying those products accordingly. That is, it's a cessation of treating people in ways that are hurtful and wrong. Whereas refusing people service based on their skin colour is treating people in ways that are hurtful and wrong.

An argument that claims that "eBay were OK with it before" is at heart the false argument that, "It was OK before, so it can never change to not being OK." Things that were considered acceptable or tolerable clearly can change to being seen as unacceptable or intolerable, and the publisher looking at their own products and saying, "You know what, even we think these aren't OK," is clearly a natural prompt for that shift.

Finally, wishing to see other people portrayed considerately and with respect reflects empathy, understanding, and kindness. Dismissing it as 'woke politics' and actively attacking such positive actions through disingenuous and false arguments and assertions does not.

 

[MT15]

Roof, as already noted, your contention that this was not a business decision by both the Seuss estate and eBay isn’t proven to be true and is more likely to be false than true.

 

[wardorican]

Answer the question please, how is this different than a whites only lunch counter?

Easy.

One is denying a product to all consumers in some cases, or just ending production in other cases.

The other is denying a service available to the public to only a certain class of person.

It would only be equivalent if, let's say Barnes and Nobel, or E-Bay, decided to only sell those Dr. Suess books to black people, and deny it to anyone else. So, the example you provide is patently ludicrous.