This week in the strange death of Europe: Book about free speech pulled after worries about UK law

[Metaphor]

https://quillette.com/2019/09/24/my-book-defending-free-speech-has-been-banned/

I recently completed a book defending free speech. Emerald Press scheduled it for publication but then decided not to proceed.
...
I was notified of Emerald’s decision not to proceed by Tony Roche, Emerald’s publishing director, in an email on 10th June:
I am contacting you in regard to your manuscript In Defense of Free Speech: The University as Censor. Emerald believes that its publication, in particular in the United Kingdom, would raise serious concerns. By the nature of its subject matter, the work addresses sensitive topics of race, religion, and gender. The challenging manner in which you handle these topics as author, particularly at the beginning of the work, whilst no doubt editorially powerful, increase the sensitivity and the risk of reaction and legal challenge. As a result, we have taken external legal advice on the contents of the manuscript and summarize our concerns below.

There are two main causes of concern for Emerald. Firstly, the work could be seen to incite racial hatred and stir up religious hatred under United Kingdom law. Clearly you have no intention of promoting racism but intent can be irrelevant. For example, one test is merely whether it is “likely” that racial hatred could be stirred up as a result of the work. This is a particular difficulty given modern means of digital media expression. The potential for circulation of the more controversial passages of the manuscript online, without the wider intellectual context of the work as a whole and to a very broad audience—in a manner beyond our control—represents a material legal risk for Emerald.

Note in an interview here that the book appears to have been pulled not because Flynn has said or agrees with anything that could incite 'racial hatred', but that in part of the book he discusses race and IQ and how he had to hear his opponent's arguments in order to debunk them (specifically Charles Murray): https://youtu.be/l09ii8jxCvw

Note also that the book was withdrawn not for any commercial reason but because of the potential legal ramifications that the publisher would face under UK law. That is censorship.

 

[repoman]

It may as well be The Turner Diaries.

 

[laughing dog]

While the decision to not publish is regrettable, it is not censorship in any normal sense if the concept because it was a business decision to avoid an undesirable increase in expenses.

 

[repoman]

Expenses because of of what primary cause?

 

[laughing dog]

Expenses because of of what primary cause?

Fear of potential legal action. Duh

 

[repoman]

Expenses because of of what primary cause?

Fear of potential legal action. Duh

So a censorious law is pushing censorship by proxy.

If this was China with not wanting LGBT covered in media and a private media would not cover LGBT people...

 

[laughing dog]

Expenses because of of what primary cause?

Fear of potential legal action. Duh

So a censorious law is pushing censorship by proxy.

If this was China with not wanting LGBT covered in media and a private media would not cover LGBT people...

Try to concentrate. The content of the book is not banned - the publisher is worried that it may be perceived as violating the law.

I think the decision is regrettable and the law, while well-meaning, is misguided.

 

[Metaphor]

While the decision to not publish is regrettable, it is not censorship in any normal sense if the concept because it was a business decision to avoid an undesirable increase in expenses.

"An undesirable increase in expenses"

Were you a politician in a former life, laughing dog?

It is censorship because the State created the 'undesirable increase in expenses'. The State created the law that has chilled the speech.

 

[Metaphor]

So a censorious law is pushing censorship by proxy.

If this was China with not wanting LGBT covered in media and a private media would not cover LGBT people...

Try to concentrate. The content of the book is not banned - the publisher is worried that it may be perceived as violating the law.

I think the decision is regrettable and the law, while well-meaning, is misguided.

No, not just perceived as violating the law. The book could actually be violating the law if it is perceived to incite "racial hatred".

 

[laughing dog]

While the decision to not publish is regrettable, it is not censorship in any normal sense if the concept because it was a business decision to avoid an undesirable increase in expenses.

"An undesirable increase in expenses"

Were you a politician in a former life, laughing dog?

It is censorship because the State created the 'undesirable increase in expenses'. The State created the law that has chilled the speech.

Take a chill pill. There us nothing stopping the publisher except the publisher’s “risk management” attitude.

There is no need for alarmist rhetoric to make the point that this law had undesirable consequences.

 

[laughing dog]

So a censorious law is pushing censorship by proxy.

If this was China with not wanting LGBT covered in media and a private media would not cover LGBT people...

Try to concentrate. The content of the book is not banned - the publisher is worried that it may be perceived as violating the law.

I think the decision is regrettable and the law, while well-meaning, is misguided.

No, not just perceived as violating the law. The book could actually be violating the law if it is perceived to incite "racial hatred".

Reality check - at this point in time, it is the perception of the publisher that this book may be perceived ad violating the law; it is a perception of a perception.

 

[Metaphor]

No, not just perceived as violating the law. The book could actually be violating the law if it is perceived to incite "racial hatred".

Reality check - at this point in time, it is the perception of the publisher that this book may be perceived ad violating the law; it is a perception of a perception.

Reality check: if the law were not enacted, there'd be no fear of violating that law.

Also reality check: censorship is not just the State physically "banning" books. If the State can threaten you for publishing it, that's censorship.

 

[Metaphor]

While the decision to not publish is regrettable, it is not censorship in any normal sense if the concept because it was a business decision to avoid an undesirable increase in expenses.

"An undesirable increase in expenses"

Were you a politician in a former life, laughing dog?

It is censorship because the State created the 'undesirable increase in expenses'. The State created the law that has chilled the speech.

Take a chill pill. There us nothing stopping the publisher except the publisher’s “risk management” attitude.

There is no need for alarmist rhetoric to make the point that this law had undesirable consequences.

Undesirable? To whom? It seems to me that this is exactly how the UK intended the law to operate, so I'd say the UK government doesn't find it undesirable at all. This is not an unintended side effect. It's the intended main effect.

The law itself is an attack on free speech.

 

[laughing dog]

No, not just perceived as violating the law. The book could actually be violating the law if it is perceived to incite "racial hatred".

Reality check - at this point in time, it is the perception of the publisher that this book may be perceived ad violating the law; it is a perception of a perception.

Reality check: if the law were not enacted, there'd be no fear of violating that law.

Also reality check: censorship is not just the State physically "banning" books. If the State can threaten you for publishing it, that's censorship.

The State at this point is not threatening anyone,

 

[Metaphor]

Reality check: if the law were not enacted, there'd be no fear of violating that law.

Also reality check: censorship is not just the State physically "banning" books. If the State can threaten you for publishing it, that's censorship.

The State at this point is not threatening anyone,

Of course it is. All laws are threats that the State will do something to you by force if the laws are violated.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

While the decision to not publish is regrettable, it is not censorship in any normal sense if the concept because it was a business decision to avoid an undesirable increase in expenses.

Is there any overreach by the left that you will not defend?

 

[ZiprHead]

While the decision to not publish is regrettable, it is not censorship in any normal sense if the concept because it was a business decision to avoid an undesirable increase in expenses.

Is there any overreach by the left that you will not defend?

How do you know this law was enacted by the left?

 

[laughing dog]

While the decision to not publish is regrettable, it is not censorship in any normal sense if the concept because it was a business decision to avoid an undesirable increase in expenses.

Is there any overreach by the left that you will not defend?

No where in this thread did I defend this law. In fact, I called the law misguided.