Paypal

[elingregory]

In the 1950s one couldn't buy a copy of Lady Chatterley's Lover in the UK. In the 1920s if one wanted a copy of The Well of Loneliness you had to go to Paris to buy it. Censorship in the UK laid down very strict rules on what was and was not suitable matter for publication. Those days are over, thank goodness. Authors in all genres can explore subjects that were taboo only a few years ago and the body of literature is much richer for that freedom.

Nobody wants to return to those days of censorship and scrutiny but isn't that what Paypal is doing with its ban on certain controversial subjects? J S Wayne has explained why this is a very bad thing here. I have to admit to having no desire at all to create titillating scenes out of such subjects as bestiality, rape and child abuse but it's quite feasible that I might involve incest if I am writing a story set in ancient Egypt. Also the erastes/eromenos relationship could be classed as paederasty even though, for the time, no abuse was involved. Customs were different in the past and if one wants to write accurate historical novels one can't inject too much modern sensibility without looking anachronistic.

So what does this mean for historical romance writers? No Sabine women? No pairings between tough centurions and beautiful Gaulish salves [of whatever gender]? No greek youths being tenderly courted by their mentors? No feisty Saxon lasses learning to love their Viking ravishers? No Mary Renault or Danielle Steel?

I would like to know what Paypal's criteria are and how they will applied. Who, in other words, will make the decision that a book, or an author, has to be banned? Are Paypal going to employ readers to skim novels electronically looking for certain triggery keywords? Or are they hoping the publishing industry will self regulate by choosing not to publish books with 'questionable' content? Or are they hoping that authors will restrict themselves to the straight and narrow?

Fat chance, Paypal.

Comments

[gaycrow.livejournal.com]

I had no idea they could be (or had been) doing that. I often choose to use the PayPal button, instead of using my credit card. Might be changing my mind now.

[elin-gregory.livejournal.com]

Paypal is so damned useful! But some of their TOS are very badly interpreted in practice. I saw a post recently in one of the Conservation magazines about a painting, a piece of fine art, that had been sold using Paypal to transfer the money. The buyer claimed that it didn't conform to the description [not a big deal, just a matter of colour, he'd probably bought it to match his curtains]. The vendor refunded the money expecting his painting to be returned but Paypal ordered the painting to be destroyed citing their TOS. Where's the sense or honour in that?

Also I has issues with Paypal a few years back over some money I tried to send to a friend that they sequestered because someone on the same shared IP address had a frozen account. Again the TOS were cited and it took 2 weeks for me to get them to admit that, in that case, it had been a bad call.

It's experiences like that - where they adhere to rules that make no sense in the context of that particular transaction - that make me question how far this part of the TOS will be extended.