Expert: Dan Pepper - 11/6/2008

Question
My friends and I are debating about this, "In 2001, Yahoo! expanded its online store for adult material (erotica, sex videos, and so forth-all legal). Many users and advertisers complained against the action, and Yahoo! quickly reversed policy and removed advertisements for adult material. Some described Yahoo!'s reversal as an unprincipled cave-in to pressure for censorship. Others saw it as a reasonable response to customer preferences."

What are the possible arguments that people with each point of view might make to justify their stand? Does the legal right of adults to purchase adult entertainment (a negative right, to be free from arrest) impose an ethical obligation on a Web site to sell it? What amount of censorship should be imposed on the Internet?


Answer
John,

These are some pretty heady concepts which can be debated at length (which I won't here).  Here are my general thoughts:

The first thing to keep in mind is that corporations are not democracies, and do not need to follow many of the precepts that governmental entities do.  So even if a majority of consumers demand certain products or services, a noisy minority that can cause bad PR may easily win the day.  I think "censorship" is the wrong term (as that is typically reserved for governmental actions).

Next, just because I have the right to purchase an item doesn't create an obligation on a seller to provide it to me.  This is especially true if I have a choice in vendors - if one won't provide it to me, someone else will.

As I mentioned before, corporate decisions limiting what they choose to sell to consumers isn't censorship.  If you are also asking what amount of governmental censorship should be imposed on the Internet, I personally am a strong proponent of First Amendment free speech rights, so my view is that a minimal amount of censorship should be imposed.