James Flynn's Book Defending Free Speech Has Been Pulled(quillette.com)
quillette.com
James Flynn's Book Defending Free Speech Has Been Pulled
https://quillette.com/2019/09/24/my-book-defending-free-speech-has-been-banned/
32 comments
> "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...
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...
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.
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.
> 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.
Depends. If you limit free speech considerations to only the law, then no. But if you expand it to which ideas are not allowed to spread, regardless of how they are suppressed, then it is. For example, being fired after making a comic the sponsors of a newspaper don't like [1]. Then there was the totally "voluntary" Comics Code Authority, without whose permission it was at one time impossible to sell comics in the US. The Motion Picture Production Code [3] was similar. To call that "not a free speech issue" is to view free speech very narrowly.
[1] https://www.kcci.com/article/long-time-iowa-farm-cartoonist-...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code_Authority
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code
Depends. If you limit free speech considerations to only the law, then no. But if you expand it to which ideas are not allowed to spread, regardless of how they are suppressed, then it is. For example, being fired after making a comic the sponsors of a newspaper don't like [1]. Then there was the totally "voluntary" Comics Code Authority, without whose permission it was at one time impossible to sell comics in the US. The Motion Picture Production Code [3] was similar. To call that "not a free speech issue" is to view free speech very narrowly.
[1] https://www.kcci.com/article/long-time-iowa-farm-cartoonist-...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code_Authority
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code
That is essentially the author's point, though. Society has endorsed powerful private institutions (specifically in his book, universities) that have moved away from the Enlightenment-era's notion of radically protecting freedom of expression. Instead, this freedom has been relegated to mere legal protection and the spectrum of speech protected and amplified by private organizations has significantly narrowed.
No country has an absolute, no-holds-barred right to free speech. Every legal jurisdiction has some limits on speech/expression, so arguably a more appropriate question would be "are Britain's limits on speech, reasonable?".
The issue isn't the freedom of association of the publisher.
The first issue is the legal framework for assigning risk and liability to the publisher in a way that creates a chilling effect on speech.
The second issue is a culture of outrage that creates a culture of fear and creates a chilling effect that prevents needed discussion from taking place. We need to push back against rather than encourag partisan or ideological boycotts.
The first issue is the legal framework for assigning risk and liability to the publisher in a way that creates a chilling effect on speech.
The second issue is a culture of outrage that creates a culture of fear and creates a chilling effect that prevents needed discussion from taking place. We need to push back against rather than encourag partisan or ideological boycotts.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.)
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.)
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.
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.
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.
"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... , "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".
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... , "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".
>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.
Do we have any information what that means exactly / what that content is exactly?
That seems to be the real key here.
Alternative framing: "James Flynn's publisher exercises their rights to freedom of association". Other publishers, as well as self-publishing, presumably remain an option.
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.
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.
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.
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...
That way it'll read less like a "left is mean" and more "reforming this should be a non-political, multi-partisan concern".
For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Singh#Chiropractic_lawsu...
That way it'll read less like a "left is mean" and more "reforming this should be a non-political, multi-partisan concern".
The issue isn't Britain's libel laws. Britain has laws regulating "hate speech". Speech that might "incite racial hatred" is illegal under British law, completely independent of its libelousness.
The article repeatedly references legal liability as a concern and nowhere does it blame a particular side of the political spectrum.
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.
> 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.
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.
Nobody is denying their right to do it. The question is whether publishers should operate in an environment where they're legally liable for the speech they choose to publish.
My opinion: A publisher who knowingly publishes libelous material should be on the hook.
My concurrent opinion: Britain's libel laws specifically are toxic and should be reformed.
My concurrent opinion: Britain's libel laws specifically are toxic and should be reformed.
Ya libel is in a different category, IMO. I completely agree libel should not be tolerated. But I don't think anyone is saying Flynn's book was libelous.
The letter from Emerald says this:
> There are two main causes of concern for Emerald.
[...]
> Secondly, there are many instances in the manuscript where the actions, conversations and behavior of identifiable individuals at specific named colleges are discussed in detail and at length in relation to controversial events. Given the sensitivity of the issues involved, there is both the potential for serious harm to Emerald’s reputation and the significant possibility of legal action. Substantial changes to the content and nature of the manuscript would need to be made, or Emerald would need to accept a high level of risk both reputational and legal. The practical costs and difficulty of managing any reputational or legal problems that did arise are of further concern to Emerald.
This is talking about the risk of defamation.
> There are two main causes of concern for Emerald.
[...]
> Secondly, there are many instances in the manuscript where the actions, conversations and behavior of identifiable individuals at specific named colleges are discussed in detail and at length in relation to controversial events. Given the sensitivity of the issues involved, there is both the potential for serious harm to Emerald’s reputation and the significant possibility of legal action. Substantial changes to the content and nature of the manuscript would need to be made, or Emerald would need to accept a high level of risk both reputational and legal. The practical costs and difficulty of managing any reputational or legal problems that did arise are of further concern to Emerald.
This is talking about the risk of defamation.
The glossed-over underlying issue in the linked article is that Britain's libel laws are notoriously hard to defend against. In the US, a comment has to be proven libelous; in the UK, you have to prove it isn't.
[deleted]
Why does he need a publisher?
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.