PayPal’s Censorship

There has been a lot of discussion recently on some of the loops and blogs I frequent about the pressure PayPal is putting on its publishing clients to withdraw titles with certain subject matter. Mark Coker of Smashwords has been sharing his efforts to negotiate with PayPal.

Generally speaking, the crowd I run with is not in favor of institutionalized censorship. Authors and artists don’t like having boundaries put upon them, and an argument could be made that it’s only by pushing boundaries that we know where they are. It is because artists (inclusive of writers and filmmakers, etc.) frequently push the boundaries that society sometimes pushes back. This is a familiar pattern

We censor ourselves all the time. We don’t say whatever comes into our heads to our children, our parents, or our bosses. And in the latter case, we voluntarily submit to restrictions placed on us by our employers in order to have an economic relationship with those companies.

Similarly, many of us, including Smashwords, have an economic relationship with PayPal, which has an Acceptable Use policy that states (among other things):

You may not use the PayPal service for activities that: . . . 2. relate to transactions involving . . . (e)  items that promote hate, violence, racial intolerance, or the financial exploitation of a crime, (f) items that are considered obscene. . .

This policy has been in place since at least last October 24th, so it’s not like PayPal just sprang this on us.

One problem with this policy, however, is that “obscene” is a vague word. That’s why PayPal is trying to further define it’s restrictions as material that pertains to incest, bestiality, and rape for titillation.  (Similar restrictions that most Ebook publishers I’ve seen require.) Titles like “Daddy’s Dirty Little Virgin” which features pseudo-incest and an 18 year old protagonist are drawing negative attention. While this story is distasteful to many, it’s not illegal. And if descriptions of sexual activity in true crime stories aren’t obscene, neither are the descriptions of legal activities in this story. Creepy, yes. Obscene, no.

Likewise, it seems to me that PayPal is not equally enforcing it’s own policies.  Profiting from the publication of a true crime story could be considered the “financial exploitation of a crime,” yet PayPal is not requiring those titles to be taken down. (I’d guess that PayPal means to prevent criminals from profiting from the accounts of their crimes, but this isn’t spelled out.)

Codifying the difference between art and obscenity is a difficult and slippery target. Minding society’s morals is an impossible job, and it doesn’t belong to PayPal. Will they stop allowing people to use their service to buy movie tickets because some movies have mature content? Will they stop serving Amazon or Barnes & Noble because they carry books about rape and incest and the Kama Sutra? What about books and stock photo sites that carry pictures of classical Hindu statuary? Where do they draw the line?

Is sex is okay as long as the protagonists (or the viewers/readers) don’t enjoy it?

PayPal, and it’s owner Ebay, should trust its clients to serve their customers, and trust the customers to buy only what they want.  If you want a nasty, smelly cigar, you should be able to go to a smoke shop and buy it, because it’s still a legal product.

But PayPal doesn’t have to facilitate the sale.

Bed, Bath, and Beyond isn’t required to sell cigars. Nor should PayPal be required to service any particular business. However, if PayPal chooses to create and enforce a policy that excludes certain lawful products, they had better be sure that policy is clear and legal, and that they enforce it universally. They had also better be sure they want to endure the economic consequences.

12 Comments

Filed under Publishing

12 responses to “PayPal’s Censorship

  1. This is a tough one and you are very brave to weigh in. I won’t touch it with a ten foot pole.

  2. I agree with Julia. You are courageous. But I do agree – it’s the age old struggle – one person’s art is another person’s smut!

  3. Thoughtful, and eloquently put, Frankie!

    Having recently beaten, rather than touched on this topic with the pole that Julia mentions, I greatly respect any artist who is willing to take a stand for tolerance in the face of any form of institutionalized censorship. It seems to me that we can’t get much more institutional in our censorship than to have our recently bailed-out financial corporations putting pressure on service companies to exclude payment to specific authors or publishers.

    At times I’m not sure whether this falls more into bullying than into the censorship basket? Perhaps both. I just watched the live streaming feed of the Germanotta’s Born This Way Foundation launch at Harvard University this afternoon.While watching, it struck me how similar teen bullying behavior is to he censorship that occurs when we become “adults.” Perhaps the generation that’s coming up will become adults who, having eschewed bullying and a desperate need for sameness, are armed with the psychological and emotional tools necessary to replace censorship and it’s crippling effects with love and real tolerance?

    • Speaking of bullying, I don’t know how pertinent this is, but Ebay’s CEO, Meg Whitman, spent over 140 million on her campaign as the Republican candidate for governor of California in 2010. Personally, I haven’t been all that impressed with the Republicans’ commitment to individual freedoms. And Ebay owns PayPal.

      • Frankie, you’re right about Whitman … I had forgotten about this. Their attitude about what might constitute “obscene” isn’t surprising viewed with that in mind. It has been more years than I want to think about since I’ve respected the path Republicans are treading.

  4. If PayPal allows guns to be purchased through them, one of which could be used in a murder…Someone buys a rope and hangs themself… A kid gets a game from eBay and then goes on a killing spree…Where would it all end?
    On the other hand– A woman buys an erotic romance and six months later is married to her one true love… where’s the bad?

    I agree. It is all based on opinions and in the history of the world never has everyone ever agreed on one thing.

    • Calisa, Yes, exactly!! Where do we draw the line once we start down that road?

      If Nabokov’s Lolita falls under their definition of what should not be allowed (and it does), what kind of literary witch hunt will we open the doors on in the future? Any time we push on boundaries of art and expression it should never be inward toward tearing down, suppressing, or limiting. Everything we do, and support, as a society needs to expand our tolerance and understanding if we’re going to grow culturally and globally. Maybe that’s idealistic. But isn’t that why we want art in our world? To illuminate, to provoke thought, to surprise and persuade? When do we learn to celebrate our uniqueness if not, at least through our art? When do we embrace tolerance as being the necessity it is? It’s as important as breathing to human evolution.

  5. Sam Turner

    Right on Frankie

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s