
James Flynn's Book Defending Free Speech Has Been Pulled - jseliger
https://quillette.com/2019/09/24/my-book-defending-free-speech-has-been-banned/
======
Eleopteryx
It seems like the reason why the publisher dropped the book is to cover their
ass in terms of legal repercussions. This actually presents a compelling
question: "does Britain have free speech?" if you can get zapped for being
racist or being perceived as racist in a book. The author asks this
outright... but from there really just segues into telling how great and not-
racist the book really is if-you-only-knew.

The aforementioned question is the only point I should really care about. If a
book is harmful to a publisher's brand because of social/PR/profit
ramifications, then it makes sense for them to drop it. That's not a free
speech issue. If the barrier to publishing the book is legal, that's worth
discussing. But beating me over the head with "but my books's not even racist
tho!" isn't really getting to the core of the issue at hand.

~~~
tbihl
> "does Britain have free speech?" if you can get zapped for being racist or
> being perceived as racist in a book.

To quote directly from the publisher in the linked article, the test, far less
than being perceived as racist, is "...merely whether it is “likely” that
racial hatred could be stirred up as a result of the work." In other words, if
racists find you inspiring, that means your previous act has been rendered
illegal. In only the most pedantic sense could you say that anyone subject to
such a rule "has free speech."

It is also explicit from the publisher's very words that this is based on
legal concerns, not business sense. "The potential for circulation of the more
controversial passages...represents a material legal risk for Emerald."

I've had some discussions with my co-workers over recent news of a Kansas
soldier being arrested for 'distributing information related to explosives'[1]
regarding the free speech implications. I work in a notoriously conservative
company, but I was still surprised to hear people so supportive of that being
a crime. It strikes me as odd that we should legally forbid that considering
how much openness there is for scope creep. Where is the dividing line between
propellant and explosive? What is the dividing line between materials research
and discussing fragmentation weapons? Admittedly I'm quite irritated because
my engineering job requires work that is clearly made illegal by this chilling
rule.

[1]:
[https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article235387277...](https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article235387277.html)

~~~
cannonedhamster
What purpose does distributing information on explosives provide other than
creating knowledge of how to create explosives something which most people
don't have an actual need to know how to do, regardless of how trivially way
it is to do. Someone the next town over destroyed an entire condo complex
killing himself making improvised explosives.

I agree, myself knowing how simple it is to make IEDs from home devices (I was
in the military and defusing IEDs, mines, etc was part of my MOS), that the
line between explosives and propellent is tenuously thin if at all present.
The issue is the intent of dissemination of the information. What possible
reason other than making devices that could put people at risk provide to the
public? He was intentionally putting out information to attempt to cause harm
to other individuals and the right to life is primary before the right to
liberty in the Constitution. A bomb is not a self defense tool like a firearm.
It's not useful for controlled demolitions. It's sole purpose is to cause fear
and harm to others. That's why it doesn't fall under protected speech.

------
manfredo
> 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.

This is very chilling to me. If someone quotes the original material out of
context and uses that deceptively quoted excerpt to stir up racial or
religious hatred then the original publisher is liable. Pretty much anything
even remotely controversial could fall foul of this law.

~~~
DanBC
> Pretty much anything even remotely controversial could fall foul of this
> law.

That's not how English law works though.

Please can you link to the section of English law being talked about? Or any
cases on Bailii or judiciary.gov for offences under this law? The author has
article 10 rights to freedom of expression if he thinks he's being censored.

I think if people read the actual law, or previous cases, they're normally
somewhat reassured.

~~~
manfredo
This quote is the publisher's reply to Flynn.

------
mattchew
It's very upsetting how quickly the West is abandoning the ideal of free
speech.

20 years ago I would not have believed it was possible that we would have a
significant fraction of educated people who were opposed to free speech. But
here we are, where a book defending the idea of free speech is too dangerous
for a publisher to touch.

I noticed this got flagged off the front page for a while. I wonder why. Thank
you to the admins for restoring it, at least. (Update: flagged again.
Nevermind.)

~~~
cannonedhamster
Since when have we had free speech in the west? If anything we're more free
than ever ever been. Being anti-Christian would get you barred during the
founders time, being pro-communism during the cold war got government
attention and black listing, not being patriotic enough got you in trouble in
WW2, being pro-union used to put your life at risk.

~~~
mattchew
The ideal of free speech is a Western ideal. It is part of the individualist
tradition going back at least to the Enlightenment.

Back when I was in college (early 1990s), respect for free speech was almost
universal among educated people. Everyone was at least somewhat aware of the
usual arguments for free speech and basically accepted them. Sure, there were
people who wanted to ban books or music or video games, but they didn't have
much success and they were generally viewed with contempt.

This just isn't true any more. There is a sizable fraction of educated people
now who think free speech is bad and dangerous, who want an authority to
control what people are allowed to say and to restrict what ideas others are
allowed to come in contact with. And they're gaining power and influence.

Yes, you're correct that free speech hasn't always been respected in the West.
Sometimes it gets stepped on. What I'm talking about is whether people think
it SHOULD be respected. They used to, quite strongly, but less so now. If you
favor free speech this should be concerning.

~~~
eesmith
"Back when I was in college (early 1990s), respect for free speech was almost
universal among educated people."

So, I think you need to clarify what you mean by "free speech".

It wasn't until the late 1980s that flag desecration was recognized as free
speech. Before 1989, 48 of the 50 states prohibited, for example, flag burning
in a political protest, and with different laws than apply for burning, for
example, paper at a political protest.

Quoting
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson#Subsequent_de...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson#Subsequent_developments)
, "More than two decades later, the issue remained controversial, with polls
suggesting that a majority of Americans still supported a ban on flag-
burning." This suggests that many people in the 1990s, including "educated"
ones, did not believe in free speech in the same way that the US Supreme Court
did.

Is commercial speech covered under the same free speech tradition? That is,
can companies lie about their products, under the protections of free speech?
Does the Establishment clause ever overrule a teacher's free speech right of
leading a prayer in the classroom?

Going back a generation, many people supported the anti-Communism restrictions
of the Taft–Hartley Act of 1947, which required union officers to sign non-
communist affidavits with the government. The Supreme Court later overturned
it, but it's an example that, no, "respect for free speech" was not "almost
universal among educated people" in the mid-1900s.

Going back yet another generation, and you see cases like Schenck v. United
States and Debs v. United States where speaking out against the war, and
encouraging resistance to the draft. This was illegal under the Espionage Act
of 1917, and upheld by the Supreme Court. Was this free speech or not?

Going back yet another generation, to the 1870s, and you see the start of the
Comstock Laws, which among other things banned distribution of sex education
information. These laws were widespread, and widely supported. Was this free
speech, or not?

So no, it does not seem to me that "respect for free speech was almost
universal among educated people".

------
duxup
>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.

Do we have any information what that means exactly / what that content is
exactly?

That seems to be the real key here.

------
ceejayoz
Alternative framing: "James Flynn's publisher exercises their rights to
freedom of association". Other publishers, as well as self-publishing,
presumably remain an option.

~~~
darawk
It's not quite as simple as that, though. Ordinarily a publisher like this is
politically neutral. They are choosing not to publish this book because they
face _legal_ liability, not because they personally disagree with what he has
to say. They in fact acknowledge the legitimacy of what he's written, and are
choosing not to publish it out of fear.

~~~
ceejayoz
I'd argue my rights to not associate with people who'll get me dragged into a
lawsuit are at least as important as my rights to free speech.

~~~
rubbingalcohol
The point of contention here is whether the publisher _should_ be liable in
any lawsuit for non-defamatory speech. You are deliberately avoiding that
point.

~~~
ceejayoz
If that's the point of contention, maybe the article should talk a lot more
about Britain's libel laws and the issues with them.

For example:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Singh#Chiropractic_lawsu...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Singh#Chiropractic_lawsuit)

That way it'll read less like a "left is mean" and more "reforming this should
be a non-political, multi-partisan concern".

~~~
shkkmo
The article repeatedly references legal liability as a concern and nowhere
does it blame a particular side of the political spectrum.

~~~
cannonedhamster
The comments about fake news how colleges stifle free speech are typical
Conservative dog whistles in the United States. This article could be
construed as being right leaning however I don't think that's the intent of
the author.

~~~
shkkmo
> The comments about fake news how colleges stifle free speech are typical
> Conservative dog whistles in the United States.

Dog whistles? What "secret meaning" is meant to be conveyed?

> This article could be construed as being right leaning

I don't see how the article can be construed as "right leaning" as there is
nothing conservative or liberal about supporting free speech and the value to
listening to dissenting opinions.

Indeed, I think the desire to categorize arguments, article, positions or
especially people as "conservative" or "liberal" rather than engaging with
ideas on their merits is a distinctly negative trend that accelerates our
descent into ineffectual partisan bickering. It means that anyone who takes
the time to consider issues carefully and form their own opinion gets shut out
as a "liberal" by the conservative and a "conservative" by the liberals. Thus
the people who we should be paying the most attention to are the ones who get
ignored.

------
linguistbreaker
Why does he need a publisher?

