The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Penguin Refuses to Stop Publishing Justice Amy Coney Barrett's Book
The Wall St. J. (Jeffrey Trachtenberg) wrote on Oct. 31 (but I somehow missed it):
The book is being published by the Sentinel imprint of Bertelsmann SE's Penguin Random House. "We remain fully committed to publishing authors who, like Justice Barrett, substantively shape today's most important conversations," said Adrian Zackheim, publisher of Sentinel, a leading conservative house, in the publisher's first public comments on the situation….
Mr. Zackheim added that Sentinel "publishes books so that people can read them, and evaluate them on their own. In an intelligent free society we need to disseminate ideas in a robust form so that we can discuss them."
This was in response to an open letter from various authors, translators, agents, and Penguin Random House employees, which urged the publisher to cancel the book because of Justice Barrett's vote in Dobbs, which held that the Constitution doesn't protect abortion rights.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This is scary -- and why consolidation in the book industry is a bad thing.
I thought the concept of meeting opponents head-on was simple and universally understood. If their argument is weak, it should not be difficult to dismantle it. Instead, we frequently see attempts to silence speakers instead of beating them with superior argumentation. Nothing is absolute but my rule is if someone is attempting to prevent another's message from getting out, they are almost always explicitly forfeiting the debate.
See https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0813384281/reasonmagazinea-20/
The concept is that "bad" speech can not be tolerated because people will believe it. The Puritans believed the same thing -- it's why they hung witches.
Hanged not hung witches
LOL I am imagining a Salem, Massachusetts school teacher who was hung as a witch correcting us from beyond the grave...
The witches actually were in Danvers, not Salem -- Danvers wanted to split off from Salem, and eventually did.
"Hung" is the past tense of "hang"...
For pictures on the wall, yes. But not when discussing the gallows, it isn't.
That's a modern prescriptionist's demand, sure. But historical practice is that they're interchangeable so far as everybody but modern grammarians and hanging judges are concerned.
To quote Webster: " If you make a point of observing the distinction in your writing, you will not thereby become a better writer, but you will spare yourself the annoyance of being corrected for having done something that is not wrong."
That is why some people are having hissy fits over the spread of Misinformation®™ on Twitter.
Of course, there would be less misinformation on Twitter if these people stopped posting it.
Not only do they want to abort their children, they want to control what I can read. So far I see nothing in these people to admire.
Quick, now do Republicans and their recent book-banning crusade against school and public libraries!
Republicans don't want children being groomed by abortionists, pedophiles, and other people who have shown no attributes to admire?
There's a big difference between limiting school and public libraries to age-appropriate material and blocking material from being published at all.
There'sa big difference between demonising lgtbq material as a pretext to go on a book banning spree and then harassing and abusing librarians and teachers and writing an open letter containing your honest opinion about a particular book which the recipient is free to ignore.
The big difference is: The first is in your imagination, the second actually happened.
Another way in which that letter, though wrong, is superior - they don't actively gaslight about it.
"There’sa big difference between demonising lgtbq material as a pretext to go on a book banning spree..."
Depictions of children having sex are lgbt material now? The lgbt movement fought long and hard to avoid that stigma.
And you're fighting hard to restore it.
That's all you, buddy. I'm not the one claiming "groomer" is an anti-gay slur, or that the people doing the grooming are gay.
No, you're claiming anything lgtbq-related is grooming, thereby turning it into an anti-gay slur. There have been more groomers and child abusers found campaigning and working for Trump in the last few years than there have been in any of the areas you guys scaremonger about.
There are probably more heterosexual "groomers" than homosexual ones, purely for statistical reasons.
"No, you’re claiming anything lgtbq-related is grooming,"
I don't know anybody who's claimed that. People are correctly claiming that age-inappropriate sexual discussion, or convincing kids to transition without their parents' knowledge or consent is grooming. But doing those things isn't lgbtq related, it's bigoted to claim that it is, as so many on the left are doing.
Why do you guys want to do those things to kids so badly?
Spouting all that utter rubbish is merely the method whereby you are turning it into an anti-lgbt slur.
People may be claiming that, but not correctly.
No, TiP disagreeing with you on the timings of sex ed is not pedophilia, don’t be a twit.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
Do you ever use facts in any of your mini-screeds? EVER?
What exactly is 'age-appropriate' material for a public library? Do you think there are age limits for library cards?
If I allow myself the nightmare thought of you actually having parental responsibilities for a moment: Have you considered paying attention to what your child does instead of attempting to ban books for everyone else because of your intolerance?
There are all kinds of rights that are reserved for adults. Bad try.
I see that you've never bothered to actually visit a library. You might have otherwise noticed that adults also use them.
Carry on, Nazi!
I'm amazed that I have to explain the concept of unemancipated minors on a legal blog, but here it goes -- parents get to decide what their children do (and read).
They don’t get to decide what everybody else’s children can or can't read, which brings us nicely round to one of the complaints about this letter.
Huh? Public bodies, such as libraries and schools, are absolutely subject to democratic control and are ruled by the will of the majority, like every government entity in a land the people rule. If the people decide collectively that children under 21 should not be able to buy alcohol, or that children under (say) 16 should not be able to obtain driver's licenses, or that children under a specified age should not be able to obtain certain sex-related materials at the public library or school, they absolutely have the right to make all those decisions not just for their own, but for everyone's children.
Being democratic, other people are entitled to fight back against reactionary homophobic satanic-panic-level efforts at book-banning – almost exactly the same way the people who signed this letter were entitled to do so, and other people are entitled to criticise them for it.
Sure, but if you try to pretend there is no difference between preventing children from reading certain books and preventing adults from being able to buy them, you should expect that to be pointed out.
The only difference is the level at which the book-banning is directed. Also, the appalling lies and hysteria accompanying the right-wing book-banning. I think the letter-writers are wrong, but I don't think they're actively lying.
"The only difference is the level at which the book-banning is directed."
LOL that's a pretty big danged difference...
Define banning rap music from schools.
It might be. Arguably, it's worse.
School libraries are not a forum where everyone and his cat can put up books for people to share.
Elementary school libraries do not stock Hustler nor Mein Kampf.
Who said they were?
"I think the letter-writers are wrong, but I don’t think they’re actively lying."
No, but I suspect you are, or have been lied to.
Are you referring to those Nazis banning "Maus" in Texas schools?
Are you referring to the list of "UnChristian Books" they wanted to ban?
A) The book Maus was moved out of ONE section of history class for lower grades. It was still used in higher grades, and was still available in the school library.,
B) Yep, such a list existed, produced by a fanatic city councilman in a small Texas town. No action wat taken on it, and the school, teachers and board members were appropriately embarrassed by his action.
Two examples, involving a little guesswork since you seem desperate to avoid letting any actual facts get near your noble efforts to counter "reactionary homophobic satanic-panic-level efforts at book-banning" that never happened.
A number of commenters here lie about it, the lies are echoed and repeated by many right-wing people and politicians - you've selected two incidents while ignoring a large, determined and ongoing campaign to strip schools and libraries of books they disapprove of.
It is amazing how much you obfuscate to avoid the distinction between tax dollars being used to buy inappropriate sexual material for children and elitists calling for an author to not be published because of viewpoint.
The former is not trying to ban books. You are more than welcome to go buy the books for your own children. It’s not that hard.
While both groups are free to voice their opinions, you fundamentally don’t understand the substantive differences between the two: limiting access based on age and silencing dissenting voices.
I you want books removed from libraries and schools – and bookshops because they try that too – you’re trying to ban books. If you don’t want your kids to read certain types of books, tell them not to. Don’t tell other peoples’ kids what they can and can’t access at schools and libraries.
Notably, this letter failed. How much right wing book banning has succeeded?
Tell me one book that has been banned. Again, not using tax dollars to buy certain books is not banning.
Again, again, we aren’t keeping you from you letting your child read it. Again, again, again, it’s not that hard.
Hopefully none, but the campaign to do so continues.
And nobody's going to stop you reading this book. Meanwhile you're telling libraries and schools that certain books must be removed because you don't like them.
In his fevered dreams "they" rampage with torches through the streets of every city that is not Biden-compliant. Apparently.
That's your dream, not mine.
Judge thwarts Va. Republicans’ effort to limit book sales at Barnes & Noble
Did you really think we weren't going to notice your haughty highlighting screeched to a halt right before "to minors"?
That's your smoking-gun rebuttal to a post arguing there's a clear distinction between restricting publication altogether and "limiting access based on age"?
Come on.
"Come on" is right. Jazzizhep claimed "Again, again, we aren’t keeping you from you letting your child read it." So I cited an example of right wingers trying to keep children from reading it. Not just public school libraries. Private bookstores.
So your attempted gotcha, "Aha, but this attempt is about children!" isn't actually a gotcha at all. It's the topic.
You're trying to limit access based on your own depraved and reactionary hate.
Ah. Two "Republicans". Yes, that is absolutely "reactionary homophobic satanic-panic-level efforts at book-banning".
Ok, you've changed your argument completely, from "they have no right" to "everyone has a right." I'm always happy to see people learn and grow.
Seriously - Are you unable to grasp the concept that some things are just not age appropriate.
This post from 10 years ago claims to list all books by Supreme Court justices, including stuff they published before and after their terms, but in many cases during their terms.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2012/03/351-books-by-supreme-court-justices/
Joseph Story’s *Commentaries on the Conflict of Laws, Foreign and Domestic, in Regard to Contracts, Rights, and Remedies, and Especially in Regard to Marriages, Divorces, Wills, Successions, and Judgments* was, according to the reviewers, “a can’t-put-down page turner…a turbocharged erotic thriller.”
I wonder how many involved have suffered an unexpected pregnancy.
Good point. I forgot that gives them the right to decide what I can read.
Nothing is stopping you from reading it. The question is, Do you want to publish it?
No, the question is whether Penguin wants to publish it, which it does.
And whether a bunch of immature babies will be listened to. Which they won't be.
Lets ban the publishing of any book progs like. Because they can still read it anyway according to your logic. I'm sure they won't be mad.
Sure, I want to read a book you stopped me from reading because you didn't allow copies to be published. Have you stopped to consider that if it isn't printed you won't be able to burn piles of the copies in your town square?
Publishing houses already decide what you can and can't read, to an extent. You also are allowed to send them letters containing your opinions on what they should and shouldn't publish.
You seem to know about as much about publishing house employees' children as you do about Chinese history.
"Suffered an unexpected pregnancy..."
I'm reminded of what Sam Kinnison said about catching AIDS -- you don't get it by sitting on the toilet seat. There is a very specific thing one must do to become pregnant.
Don't want to become pregnant, don't do it..
At the end of the day, it's always about the Puritan streak.
Thinking that killing another human being is wrong is puritanical. Got it.
Trying to control women’s bodies and ‘punishing’ them for having sex by forcing them to go through pregnancies when they don’t want to is classically Puritan.
We know you have a very active imagination. However, fictional claims are not convincing.
I do have quite the imagination, but I couldn't have invented you guys in a million years.
You use this 'argument' often, and as far as I can tell it has never been accurate.
Whomever is paying you to comment is being swindled.
What a convoluted pile of dog shit. You never cease to amaze with your idiot comments.
Oh I agree, the whole anti-abortion thing is utter dogshit.
Not only would I punish women for having sex by making them have their babies, I would even punish the ones who go ahead and give birth to their children and then, upon finding out that parenthood is hard, kill their kids later. I'm worse than you think.
So having a baby and going to jail for murder are both the punishments you like to dish out to women?
actually it isn't Puritan at all, since uncommitted sex involves the woman from the outset.
Sorry, no real Puritan would even say that the woman is the sole killer of the baby.
Who cares?
But then again, the vast bulk of pregnancies are unexpected.
Don't forget this book issued by Penguin:
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/207069/my-beloved-world-by-sonia-sotomayor/
...and this one:
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/670366/rbgs-brave-and-brilliant-women-by-nadine-epstein-introduction-and-selection-by-ruth-bader-ginsburg/
They are also publishing Prince Harry's memoir, entitled Spare.
In what context is Amy Barrett an extremist outside of a smattering of 21st century American and Western European urban and academic circles?
She's a
conservativefar right neo-Nazi white supremacist who has betrayed her cause by putting on shoes and stepping outside the kitchen.Pretty good point. The inadvertent irony is much appreciated.
"This was in response to an open letter from various authoritarian dickweasels who would not have been out of place in early 1930's Germany."
FTFY.
As Karl Popper observed, a free and open society can tolerate everyone except the intolerant. The signatories of this open letter should be unpublished (for authors) and/or dismissed from the media industry (for employees who do not write their own books).
So they should be punished for exercising their own free speech? How intolerant of you.
Not punished, ignored.
I expect every single person who signed will somehow stumble on while being ignored by you.
I prefer to ridicule these people.
Start when you're ready.
Sorry, NIge, you are wrong and they are right.
That is not a free speech exercise at all. Quitting your job would be but staying and not abiding the business decision of your company is NOT.
Quitting as an objection would ALSO be an exercise of free speech.
You really took the wrong lesson from the paradox of intolerance of you want actual blacklisting of private citizens writing a dumbass letter to a private company.
Shorter Gaslight0: "We must be very tolerant of leftist intolerance."
Name them and shame them, but you want blacklists for speech. That’s just authoritarianism.
Authoritarians have been arguing authoritarianism is the last defense against those authoritarians over there for ages.
You are following in the footsteps of fascist goons.
No, I want blacklists for people who use their privileged positions to demand blacklists for other people.
You are defending fascist goons from criticism.
Your blacklists and y blacklists are the same.
You think you are the good guys so hard it’s making you fascist.
Criticizing these people is not what you are doing.
" ...a free and open society can tolerate everyone except the intolerant."
I can't think of any tyrant or propagandist, be they socialist or fascist, who wouldn't fall head over heels for that fallacy.
Don't worry, they already have.
You too,TiP. You have become so partisan you are now censoring to avoid censorship.
How embarrassing.
Popper mentioned that one necessary feature of intolerance is using "fists or pistols" to answer arguments.
That is because you don't know your history.
If something means something as in toleration it MUST LOGICALLY also exclude something
IF I say "This is a toaster" I am asserting equally that it is not a giraffe or ironing board or Fig Newton.
This was the correct decision, I think, but of course, the letter itself is an exercise in free speech, as well.
But not "freedom from consequences", right?
I'm trying to sort this shit out, and the lack of consistency adds to the difficulty.
Who are you quoting there? Not me. No wonder you're finding this difficult.
So Jewish Liberals from NYC shouldn't be able to stop publishing a Catholic's SC Justice's book? Well, that just should not be allowed. Can't allow "white supremacy" hate be published...you know those Catholics...
Bill, you are the racist in what you say. If someone is a Jew (and also Independent, a gay person, a Black ) then you say "All the matters is that he is a Jew" pure racism
Always nice when the censors list their names, so we know who we’re dealing with.
Does anyone expect Penguin to be interested in pointers from a guy who (1) regularly launches vile racial slurs and (2) imposes viewpoint-driven censorship at a white, male blog?
If you would acknowledge your errors and apologize, Prof. Volokh, your standing in the eyes of those beyond the right-wing fringe might improve.
Why do you assume that anyone, including EV, cares about what you think and say?
A white, male blog that allows you to comment on nearly a daily basis, "Rev. Kirkland."
Prof. Volokh is entitled to censor me; his playground, his rules.
I try to comply with the rules he has imposed -- what words I am not permitted to use when describing conservatives, for example.
Carry on, clingers.
(If my use of that term triggers the right-wing bigots around here, I recommend asking Prof. Volokh to censor me again. Or perhaps try Prof. Bernstein -- I do not know whether he is able to impose censorship at this blog, but he seems to be becoming unhappy enough to try.)
If you're describing me, I prefer "bitter clingers." It more accurately describes my attitude toward people who want to take away my right to the free exchange of ideas they don't agree with. If you don't understand my bitterness about losing that right then you don't really understand what I'm saying.
No, he just choose to mute you.
Maybe we should report this at https://www.ala.org/tools/challengesupport/report
I think it's a nice gesture when the real fascists and authoritarians, whether in a public letter or a thread here, are willing and eager to raise their hands and self identify as the scummy weasels they are.
I read and I've never heard of any of these alleged busybodies. Interesting so many of them identify as librarians. Such small minded and self-absorbed people.
Locally, their enlightened politics has led to them serving a clientele consisting of the homeless. It works great, they still get paid, nobody checks out books and the only work is cleaning the splooge off the computers.
I’m glad the homeless have a place to go to access resources. Good for them. But you should clean the computer yourself when you're finished.
I'm glad they're still publishing the book; regardless of whether I agree with the content we should never support a heckler's veto. Now can anyone build a bot to track the signatories so we can boycott THEIR works?
"Penguin Random House employees"
The problem right here. Employers tolerating public attempts by employees.
Not enough to reject their childish "demands", you need "pour encourager les autres" by firing the children or you will get repeats.
There's a good little authoritarian...
Spare me, "authoritarian" is the new lib "race card" or "fascist", thrown willy nilly without thinking to suppress speech. Ain't working anymore chief.
Write a public letter attacking your employer. See how long you last at the job.
UCLA's law dean publicly apologized for an employee's misconduct (involving public statements) but that person seems to still have his job.
Which shows it wasn't an apology at all.
The dean apologized. The person who uses disgusting racial slurs regularly did not; perhaps that underlies your apparent confusion.
No, you approve of an employer suppressing speech when it's speech you don't like. Clearly, too, you're a right-wing conformist.
"Authoritarian" fits the bill.
BTW one thing about the "authoritarian" label is that, unlike "fascist", it can be applied to left as well as right (at least, without looking stupid or ignorant), and it's not as subjective as "racist".
Actually, the "fascist" label works just fine for the left, if you have any understanding of the the ideology, and don't get hung up on the trappings. Sure, the left will call you ignorant if you call them out on their modern fascist tendencies, but who cares what fascists think?
Actually, the “fascist” label works just fine for the left, if you have any understanding of the the ideology,
I do and you're wrong
Huh? Not a deep thinker, are you?
As invented, fascism was a union of business and government. As when the government gets businesses to do what it cannot (like censor) and businesses get government to do what it cannot: like suppress competition and innovation.
I see room to call both left and right (as sloppily defined in 2022) "fascists", although the fascism is entered into informally rather than as a matter of policy. Our current corporate kleptocracy lacks only the uniforms to be fascism, and it's about the most "both sidesist" thing there is.
There's nothing remotely left-wing about a union of government and business, not in the form fascism took, and not in the form it's taking today.
NO, it's Reagan firing every air traffic controller. Ask Mommy about that. The nation was electrified by the obviousness of what he did.
They're idiots who should write their own damn books explaining why ACB is a Christian supremacist and theocrat.
Ah, but it's so much easier to just "cancel" her. It's a wonderful shortcut "progressives" have discovered. No need to argue your position, or even to explain why your opponents are wrong -- just squelch them, make it so they can't "spread their hate." Brilliant and foolproof!
Right. It demonstrates a certain admission of being unable to formulate one's own arguments effectively.
(What authoritarians like "Bob from Ohio" don't get is that "cancelling" is generally bad, whether from a cohort of academics or from one's employer.)
B ut if being Christian is a bad thing, just say it. Don't be a coward
I don’t think being a Christian is a bad thing. Indeed, though I’m an atheist Jew, I think that being a non-hypocritical Christian is a good thing, and I am sure that there are plenty out there, though perhaps not in the GOP, where Christian hypocrisy is a sacrament.
But being a fundamentalist Christian theocrat is a bad thing, giving preference to alleged Christian principles is a bad thing, thinking that the law should represent fundamentalist Christian beliefs is a bad thing.
Do you think that they’re good things?
BTW I don't know why you call yourself "the rational" - a rational person would not have imputed to me a position I do not hold.
The answer is simple. Instead of banning the book, the publisher should be required to impose an obligation on buyers: anyone who buys the book must actually read it, and be prepared to prove it by passing an exam on the contents, within a certain time-frame. So if you buy the book but fail to read it, THEN you get punished.
I have mixed feelings as to Penguin Random House's decision to publish here. Expressions of overt racism are (properly) ostracized. So should misogyny be ostracized.
I wish the publisher had not contracted with Justice Bear It to publish her book. Thereafter breaching the contract by refusing to publish, however, would not avoid subsidizing her misogyny, in that she would still be entitled to payment of the agreed upon advance.
Setting aside the ludicrous misuse of the word "misogyny" here, publishing her book does not "subsidize" anything.
Expressions of overt racism are (properly) ostracized. So should misogyny be ostracized.
IF indeed ACB's book contains overt racism and misogyny - the former, unexpected perhaps, the latter, completely expected - then publishing the book would expose her unambiguously as a racist and misogynist, which exposure would be a good thing. And meanwhile, no-one would be compelled to buy the book. Suppose she is indeed as suggested - then it is surely a beneficial outcome that her book languishes while her reputation diminishes in a pleasant act of self-inflicted injury.
And if the book does not show that, then that is of course fine.
Nothing mixed in your desire that Penguin does exactly what you want them to. You aren't an employee, you don't intend to buy the book, you don't even think it is worth discussing but you do want that police power.
Misrepresentation and mis-definition of misogyny and racism should be ostracized.
She says she's not a misogynist, I'll bet. Seems we have a disagreement, a dispute and NOT you in a position to determine who gets to speak via your power of "ostracization".
I'm sure it seems so very simple from your side, though.
Dude, you haven't read the book, no more than David Bernstein read that book about Asians.
Wow, Penguin Random House paid her $2 million to make that ruling?
Oh, wait. They're not paying her for the ruling. They're paying her for a book. And they agreed to pay her this money for this book *before* the ruling. I wonder if it's wise to breech a contract with a Supreme Court justice specifically because you don't like their vote on a case. Seems bribery-adjacent to me, even if it isn't quite. Retaliating financially against sitting SCOTUS judges to punish them for particular rulings just seems like a bad place to go.
And it's rich how they can complain about bringing moral agendas in, as if Roe v Wade itself wasn't the result of exactly that. Gee, if judges aren't allowed to have morals, then why should any judge care about violating human rights in the first place?
And any signatories who are actually employees at that place might want to read the "Conflict of Interest" section of their Code of Conduct, because it sure seems that their personal interests are conflicting with the business interests of their company.
Aaaah, Davy, your bigotry is transparent.
You are the one calling Clarence a Catholic but Ketanji a Black.
People must laugh at you at the rare party you invited to
I have no idea what you are talking about.
I wonder how much Justice Barrett paid her ghostwriter.
Every day, liberals demonstrate why they're a menace to Western society, and should be gassed.
How are those "civility standards" coming along, Prof. Volokh?
"Other publishers would be free to publish this book."... and would then be subject to the same demands.
If LGBKDLFKJDLKFJLDKFMMJ propaganda or anything else you liked was was limited in anyway you guys would and have freaked out on countless occasions. It makes no difference how readily available it was by other avenues.
"There’s no banning here, there’s the suggestion a company not produce a product."
That's weird, in other threads you call it banning when the public suggests that certain books not be in public libraries (as Nige is doing upthread) even though people would still be able to read the books.
Queenie, your suggestion that other would publish is the idiotic response I would expect from you.
Oh shit, a loophole!
Gotta get Amazon to not sell it!
And if that fails, get ISPs to not download it.
"Wait, I thought you were about net neutrality."
SHUT UP!
That's my point!
But it is in a context of not learning from history, not "Ooooh! My side gets to do it now!"
From the linked article:
…” some threatening to cancel their Netflix subscription.”
How is canceling their subscription deciding what YOU could watch?
that was MIchelle, folks, not the Oreo.
I love it!
Telling you don’t see this as hypocritical by the right, condemning this thing as though it was successful and widespread even as they are absolutely into this self same nonsense in other contexts.
Best from the left I see here is Queen A saying it’s not illegal.
Well, no, only that Penguin would be well advised to fire any employees suggesting that Penguin refrain from publishing a book that's fairly certain to sell, particularly if they're doing so on such a stupid basis.
No. (Well, I have no idea what anyone else's argument is.) I am literally arguing that these employees are bad people making illiberal arguments, that their arguments should be summarily rejected, and that these people should probably be fired because their values are fundamentally at odds with those of their chosen occupation.
For example ... a Christian baker and a Gay Wedding and now a "Trans Celebration" cake. 10+ years and they're still trying to crush him with legal fees. Lefty has proven again and again to be utterly and totally intolerant.
Fire people for expressing an opinion?
I agree, although to flip that argument, QA is right inasmuch as had the letter worked the books is unlikely to have had much difficulty in finding another publisher so if, like the books banned from schools and libraries, it's ultimately still available, what's the fuss?
For the smart ones where intelligence can modify impulse and base instincts they buy birth control products.
That's sad, to have no control over yourself.
So's bank robbery -- you see all the money sitting there and can't help yourself.
For that matter, what about rape? Boy sees attractive girl in a bikini -- why should he restrain shelf?
'base instincts'
Really telling on yourself there.
If their job is to ensure speech is published, and they demand that speech not be published because they disagree with the speaker on some other topic, they demonstrated they cannot be trusted to do their job. So fire them.
That's not their job.
"Fire people for expressing an opinion?"
Yes, if they are your employees and they are attempting to raise a mob against you. Its just self preservation.
Pfft. Yeah, when the opinion is, "Throw away easy money as a sop to my personal politics!"
"People"?
Employees have a duty of loyalty to their employer. Employers can consider such advocacy as undermining the business.
Thus unions protect employees' freedom of speech.
There's no doubt that a company has the right not to publish a book and these letter signatories have a right to ask. What I am pointing out is the inferiority of that position compared to standing up for the free interchange of ideas.
Oh for shit sake. "A pastor" disapproves of Harry Potter and you (and the Independent midwits) freak because of it.
There are more people seeking to "suppress" Harry Potter from the rabid, satanic-panic-level "Anti-TERF" side, than just "a pastor", and their opposition arguably makes even less sense than his does. In the sense that the Potter books may actually offend his core beliefs, stupid as they may be.
Such mendacity. Are you even aware when you do it? Or is it just second nature by now?
If you think there are no pro-choice Christian authors you don't know the topic. I think they're disturbed, but they are there.
See, the problem with that analogy is that it is not a generalizable one, the way these employees' complaints are. It's reasonable to suggest that a publisher dedicated to publishing books that convey one specific position not publish books that are antithetical to that position. But these employees are not making publisher-specific complaints; every argument they raise about why their employer shouldn't publish ACB applies to every other publisher as well.
Their argument is that she's bad so her book shouldn't be published.
Not my circus, not my monkeys. Even if we had no control at all of our sex drives I think you could still make an argument that decent humans should consider procreation a sacred process.
"Not people who couldn’t buy the book, but I get you probably don’t think much about them."
Not providing books free is banning them? I get that you don't think much of people who read your comments, if you expect them to buy that load of bullshit.
Is it actual lack of control? Or is it the typical demand for zero personal responsibility, that others be responsible for any action taken whether or not one was a consenting and willing partner?
That was their thug friends chasing people out of restaurants, going to a Supreme Court justice's house with a pistol and knife in an assassination attempt, shooting up Congressional baseball practices, "punching fash", and so forth. The same intolerance drives all of those actors.
So every time a public library says, "We have an acquisition budget of such and such this year, which means we can buy 2,000 books," it is "effectively banning" all the other books that have been published? I don't think so.
Not a very good analogy, in that the body that is taking away the public defenders is the same body creating the need for such defenders in the first place.
Well, the former is in fact like the latter, in that it has exactly the same effect on the hypothetical reader who can't afford to buy the book.
"So every time a public library says, “We have an acquisition budget of such and such this year, which means we can buy 2,000 books,” it is “effectively banning” all the other books that have been published? I don’t think so."
My personal experience with at least one small town library was that they didn't just have a limited acquisition budget, if you donated a book to round out their collection they'd sell it for pennies on the dollar in their next used book sale. They were curating as much in the negative as in the positive.
Once I found out what they were doing with those acid free hardcovers I was donating, that was the end of that.
Excellent arguments for increasing library budgets.
You know that they also have limited shelf space, right? Even if you give it to them for free they have to decide whether it should supplant a different book.
"No control" and "sacred process" are not opposite ends with a spectrum in between.
Their argument is that publishing her book is a violation of human rights. This is such a stupid claim that anybody who actually makes it should have scissors and forks taken away from him to avoid him hurting himself, but it is their argument. That is not unique to Bertelsmann and Penguin Random House. The "Code of Conduct" to which they refer is just that they respect human rights.
"QA is right inasmuch as had the letter worked the books is unlikely to have had much difficulty in finding another publisher"
Surely you're aware that there's a lot of herding among publishers. The few highly right-wing publishers who'd publish basically anything the left wanted quashed have gone by the wayside, often as a result of concerted legal attacks.
Those imaginary pro-lifers in your head are some nasty people.
All I was doing was dropping a cable subscription I'd only gotten to binge watch Hellsing while in Covid quarantine. They can do anything they want off my dime, though I thought they were pretty over the top in the way they were pushing that LGBQUERTY content, given how little of the public actually has any interest in it.
You are laughably playing the victim by saying that.
So now we have all either approved liberals or approved conservatives and the rest should be expunged, persecuted, and imprisoned. You are wanting an official seal on all people with an opinion --- except of course you.
Then a cake baker has a right not to publish a perverted sexual message. i will agree with you if you take it the whole way 🙂
NO, it isn't if it gets out who didn't support the protesters in the company. Remember the Google case
The Puritan streak, where it applies, is to people like you who think that we are always thinking morally. But most of us do 90% of our buying (like cars, bread, movies) simply because we want to 🙂
The laws restricting use of sexually explicit materials in lower grades have most certainly NOT. Here is a case where YOU are the hysteric, YOU exaggerate, YOU misrepresent.
I suspect it's an unavoidable case of projection. YOU are eager to ban, censor and suppress (as with Justice Barret's book) and you cannot imagine any opposing side having less vile character. So you just apply it to them. Still not seeing a fact in these accusations btw.
Ah, he's "mad".
Great predicted hypothetical mindreading about his feelings, that are not actually demonstrated in his post.
Gee, I was hoping there might be a factual reference with some substance...but no, not even this one,
from the linked "article":
Two VA school board members called for burning books that have been deemed worthy of removal. (Ah, when they voted to remove, they expressed their disapproval "They oughta be burned." Note there is no mention of a formal motion to the school board that this be done.)
The Spotsylvania County School Board directed staff to begin removing "sexually explicit" books from library shelves. (No burning there.)
The GOP has been pushing against teaching students about race and sexuality. (But rapidly, and vapidly, conflated with very dubious charges against the GOP. What the party has opposed is certain ways of teaching about race and sexuality. This statement, unsurprisingly, misleads.)
Just fuck off if that's the kind of "source material" that is forming your opinions.
It's the environment they find themselves in, I'm pretty sure.
Oooh, tell us more.
Was it some of those "conspiracy theorists" who did it?
They absolutely are. Especially if sexually explicit = anything lgtbq related, though it seems to extend further than that. At least they're not trying to ban Harry Potter for grooming kids into Satanism any more. Or are they?
Or was it the scandals that revealed they were bulk-buying their own books to push them onto bestseller lists, something they could afford to do thanks to funding by assorted right wing groups and billionaires.
Your notion of 'herding' is obviously wrong - they are publishing the book despite the objections.
It's a pity car manufacturer employees don't object to them making more internal combusion engines because they are bad for people and for the planet, but that's another argument.
I'm aware of the author being embroiled in a massive row, but the only people I ever heard demanding Harry Potter books be removed or banned was right-wingers accusing them of Satanism.
Yes. Here. It's from a comment JUST ABOVE.
Choosing whether or not to proceed with a pregnancy IS a personal responsibility.
You are so weird.