
We oppose morals clauses in book contracts (2019) - Tomte
https://www.authorsguild.org/industry-advocacy/why-we-oppose-morals-clauses-in-book-contracts/
======
jimbob45
I would go so far as to say that these clauses aren't even slimy, they're just
lazy. If the publishers are truly scared that the author's behavior could lose
them substantial amounts of money, then there have existed for decades far
more terrestrial constructs for them to use - tying compensation to total
sales numbers, tying compensation to milestones, or even just lowballing them.
To tie their compensation to what is essentially a form of censorship hands
disproportional power to the publishers, is subject to lawsuit, and is
entirely asinine.

~~~
munificent
_> tying compensation to total sales numbers, tying compensation to
milestones, or even just lowballing them._

Author contracts already do all of those things. Advances have gotten lower
and lower over the years ("lowballing them"), and typically pay out
incrementally at various phases of completion ("compensation to milestones").
Once the book is done, most of the author's compensation comes from royalties
("tying compensation to total sales numbers").

Authors are already highly incentivized not to commit "moral turpitude"
because doing so will tank sales of their book and thus their royalties.

Publishers aren't adding morals clauses to incentivize authors. It's just
another example of the classic move a large corporation in a position of power
trying to grab even more power. If they could get away with it, publishers
would add a clause to every contract saying, "We can demand your advance back
at any time for any reason or no reason at all, just because we feel like it."

~~~
kwhitefoot
How things have changed. Byron was a rock star author at the same time as he
was described as 'mad, bad, and dangerous to know' By Lady Caroline Lamb.

------
mc32
Good on them.

I don’t know what the hell is happening but I don’t understand how people who
support the ACLU and every other 90s liberal who supported free speech
unencumbered can now get on board with this censorship which shamelessly hides
behind “private cos are not the gov, so it’s not real censorship.

You don’t have to like the people, you can hate them, despise them, shame them
whatever, but people should not be silenced.

We’re going to regret this short sighted spiral into self imposed censorship.

~~~
pjc50
Similarly, once a company has found out (or been reminded) that their author
is a sex offender, they should no longer be under contractual obligation to
publish it - that would be compelled speech, no?

~~~
mc32
What’s next lawyers and attorneys refuse to represent people of poor moral
standing or worse are known felons?

WTF are we coming to?

~~~
pjc50
Lawyers can and do refuse to represent people who have behaved badly towards
them. The rules for criminal defense lawyers are usually much stricter on who
they can refuse, but it can still happen. In particular, misconduct _towards
your lawyer_ will get you dropped.

~~~
mc32
Ok, but do they with frequency drop clients due to moral incompatibility?

------
ordinaryradical
See also, the BBC's radioshow on cancel culture and purity spirals,
particularly the second half which details the progressive hollowing out of YA
fiction publishing by sensitivity readers and the arcane rules of cultural
appropriation:
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000d70h](https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000d70h)

------
Hitton
More accurate would be saying that they oppose vague morals clauses.

Which is quite reasonable to do, otherwise in the age of twitter shitstorms
this is free "get out of contract" card.

~~~
golergka
That's very similar to the reasons why I oppose codes of ethics. There's
nothing wrong with being ethical and moral - but in these cases, it's just a
pretext used by bureaucrats to attain even more power.

------
crtlaltdel
I worked for an electronics manufacturer that had a morality clause that
extended to personal behavior outside of work that is legal. this is the
classic “fired because bachelorette party pics on fb” situation. it was long
enough ago, and i was young enough not to understand the implications

------
MyHypatia
The goal of a publisher is to make money selling books. There are many books
that publishers do not publish because of concerns that the book will not be a
net positive to profits. Authors are free to self-publish, and it has never
been easier to do so. Authors with no name recognition have been very
successful at reaching large audiences. Woody Allen is already famous and
could easily self-publish.

It seems like Woody Allen prefers the legitimacy that comes along with being
published by a publishing company. Woody Allen can self-publish his book like
many other authors do. I think the issue is less about "freedom of speech"
(which Woody Allen has) and more about "legitimacy of an author's writings"
(which I think is what Woody Allen is actually seeking given the claims that
he sexually abused his daughter). If a publisher chooses not to publish
because they don't want their brand used to legitamize an author's claims, is
that a violation of free speech when the author is free to publish it
elsewhere?

~~~
rossdavidh
While what you say is true, the book publisher would already be covered if the
clause merely covered illegal acts. Also, it's not as if the book publisher
didn't know about Woody Allen's issues before they took the contract.

More fundamentally, everything you mention could as well be turned around the
other way. What if, after signing the contract, the author decided they didn't
like the publisher's reputation, and wanted to terminate the contract and
self-publish? I expect the publisher would say something like, "hey, we have a
contract! that's an obligation on your part!" If the author wanted an equally
vague "morals clause" regarding the publisher, which gave the author an out to
cancel the contract whenever they deemed it advisable, the publisher would not
agree to such a clause.

------
pjc50
Nicely timed to post this on the day of the Weinstein conviction.

~~~
biztos
Isn’t it rather about the Woody Allen contract?

~~~
munificent
This raises an interesting question as to whether authors should be able to
have "publisher morals clauses" in book contracts.

If an author feels that their publisher is demonstrating moral turpitude (by
for example, publishing Woody Allen's memoir), in a way that will harm sales
of the _author 's_ book, should the author be able to get out of the contract?

At the very least, I think the author's guild has a strong claim that
_asymmetric_ morals clauses are bad. A publisher shouldn't be able to hold
authors to a standard that they themselves are not beholden too.

------
ergothus
As someone that has grown to have a more moderate view over free speech over
time, I think morals clauses truly do have two sides.

There are behaviors that most everyone finds reprehensible, and when someone
commits them we want to be able to shun them, to remove our connection.

There are many times in the past when this shunning has been abused to censor
or otherwise oppress others.

Generally people feel like they believe the latter part is the most important
part...until something occurs in the former part.

As a solution to this dilemma, some advocate strong "non-moral" stances (ala
"free speech") where everyone can do as they want, unrestricted. That used to
be my answer. But I've come around to believing that if society doesn't apply
a means of guidance/restriction/social repercussions the void will be filled
with emergent results (i.e. ugliness). Abused rules are abusive, but a lack of
a set of rules doesn't lead to peace, it leads to warlords and those least
willing to restrain their own actions in the name of empathy gaining the most
power.

I don't have the right answers, but I'm confident that walking away from the
questions is not the right answer.

~~~
grawprog
>As a solution to this dilemma, some advocate strong "non-moral" stances (ala
"free speech") where everyone can do as they want, unrestricted

Since when is that the definition of free speech? Free speech has nothing to
do with a lack of repercussions to what you say, and especially do, it's about
having the right to say things, even if disagreeable, without systemic
silencing or punishment from a higher authority. It doesn't mean you can't
shun the crap out of people saying dumb shit though.

~~~
ergothus
Here's the trick: Higher powers are how society applies repercussions.

Note: I'm aware U.S. Govt 1st amendment doesn't restrict anything but the
govt. I think we're both talking about the general concept of free speech, not
that particular example.

Let's take the example of twitter. People swamp twitter with misinformation
and toxic behavior. As individuals, we're all free to ignore/block the
annoying/misleading people, and the company (the higher power) does not
interfere. Ideal, right?

Except that the toxic people drive the others away. White supremacists attack
and threaten people of color. Toxic bros attack and threaten women.
Misinformation swamps the good information, and only the people that are
already experts can tell the difference (and the misleading people will claim
to be experts, so...).

If your response to above is "threats are illegal", you've not paid attention
to how threats can made sufficiently arguable to be legal, but still clear
enough to threaten.

Putting the burden on each individual to filter everyone is NOT taking "no"
stance, it's taking the stance that those most willing to "speak" (which
includes expressive actions) are given power. When the talking is for good
things, that's great. But the people least willing to consider other people,
the people lacking empathy, will have no restraint on what they say (or do,
expressively) unless imposed. Long before they suffer any personal social
repercussions they care about, they will have inflicted their harm upon a lot
of people.

Preventing our "higher authorities" from taking action is reducing the power
of collective people to take action. Sometimes collective people are wrong,
but sometimes they are right, and that's why I say the topic isn't simple.

~~~
vorpalhex
Sure, so the current US admin used it's "higher power" to force the EPA to
remove all references to climate change.

It legally can not use that power for non-government entities, including those
mirroring that content.

And you're suggesting it should be able to?

> Except that the toxic people drive the others away

And who gets to decide who is toxic? I've seen a user have a meltdown because
someone compared democratic socialism to communism, and claimed everyone who
disagreed with them was toxic. Should they get to be the judge?

> threats can made sufficiently arguable to be legal, but still clear enough
> to threaten.

Let's be clear - a threat in and of itself is _not_ illegal. A threat must be
a direct, actionable call to violence to be illegal. Someone telling you
they're going to make fun of you, post embaressing things or otherwise
"threaten" you isn't illegal.

> Putting the burden on each individual to filter everyone

Is a recognition that humans are free agents and get to make their own choices
in life. No man or woman is fit to play the censor.

> they will have inflicted their harm upon a lot of people.

What harm? Mean words on the internet? That pales in comparison for a
regulatory agency, say the NSC, to suppress true information, say about a
major pandemic, by abusing it's powers of censorship.

~~~
ergothus
> > Putting the burden on each individual to filter everyone

> Is a recognition that humans are free agents and get to make their own
> choices in life.

And also puts the biggest burden upon those in the minority, even if the
majority thinks they shouldn't have that burden.

> No man or woman is fit to play the censor.

But apparently they can drive other men and women away. It's defacto
censorship, just of another source.

> What harm? Mean words on the internet?

Yes. Pointing out (and sharing) where you live, perhaps some details about
your kids, and discussing the tragic consequences of families that lose
children is just one example of "mean words on the internet". And maybe, per
the above, the govt shouldn't be able to do anything about that. But saying
that we, as society, just need to get thick skinned about that and suck it up
as individuals is naive as to whom we are empowering and whom we are harming.
We have more options than just dealing with things as individuals.

I'm not likely to respond further - my goal was not to debate the topic, but
to share that there are some nuanced views on the topic of companies
practicing some level of limitations on the free speech of others - anything
more is well past the penumbra of the article. You clearly disagree with my
views, and you clearly aren't alone, but I feel I've expressed my view well
enough.

