Censorship, Free Speech, Jim Flynn, and the UK

[The Marquis de Leech]

In an interesting, and disturbing, bit of news, renowned academic Jim Flynn has had his book on defending Free Speech rejected for publication in the UK, on the basis that the publisher finds it too risky vis-a-vis Hate Speech laws:

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

As a background, Flynn is a fixture of my local University's Philosophy Department, and has been for some forty years. He's staunchly committed to fighting racism, being a veteran of the US Civil Rights Movement. His work on IQ has combated racist attempts to hijack the subject, while the Flynn effect (yes, it's that Flynn) has literally saved lives. He's hardly a figure of Hate.

Now, his book has not actually been banned. What has happened is that the publisher took a decision that Flynn's book is too legally risky - which is their right as a commercial publisher. The problem arises of why the publisher should feel hesitant in the first place. No publisher should fear having to publish Jim Flynn out of concern about Hate Speech legislation, and in this situation, the concern is not with the poor old publisher, but rather with the legal environment where this sort of thing can happen.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

17 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

In an interesting, and disturbing, bit of news, renowned academic Jim Flynn has had his book on defending Free Speech rejected for publication in the UK, on the basis that the publisher finds it too risky vis-a-vis Hate Speech laws:

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

As a background, Flynn is a fixture of my local University's Philosophy Department, and has been for some forty years. He's staunchly committed to fighting racism, being a veteran of the US Civil Rights Movement. His work on IQ has combated racist attempts to hijack the subject, while the Flynn effect (yes, it's that Flynn) has literally saved lives. He's hardly a figure of Hate.

Now, his book has not actually been banned. What has happened is that the publisher took a decision that Flynn's book is too legally risky - which is their right as a commercial publisher. The problem arises of why the publisher should feel hesitant in the first place. No publisher should fear having to publish Jim Flynn out of concern about Hate Speech legislation, and in this situation, the concern is not with the poor old publisher, but rather with the legal environment where this sort of thing can happen.

Interesting.  That said is this an indictment of hate speech laws, an illustration of cowardice on the part of a publisher in the light of our highly litigious western societies, or both?

[The Marquis de Leech]

I personally don't blame the publisher. They're a commercial business, and under no obligation to publish anyone (including Flynn). It's more that a commercial entity feels the need to pull a book by a distinguished anti-racist on the basis that it might be legally dangerous.  Something has gone wrong somewhere.

(The fact that the book is a defence of Freedom of Speech is the cherry on top).

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

17 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

I personally don't blame the publisher. They're a commercial business, and under no obligation to publish anyone (including Flynn). It's more that a commercial entity feels the need to pull a book by a distinguished anti-racist on the basis that it might be legally dangerous.  Something has gone wrong somewhere.

(The fact that the book is a defence of Freedom of Speech is the cherry on top).

In my opinion that is more a sign of how litigious we are than a genuine sign of censorship though.  The book itself sounds fascinating.  How difficult will it be for a respected scholar to find another publisher or are there other issues in that milieu?

[Heartofice]

What was interesting in their letter to him was how they mentioned digital media’s tendency to pull out sections of writing and quote  them out of context to twist their meaning.

If they see it as too dangerous to publish anything in fear that it might be taken out of context then how will they ever publish anything?

Its a sad state of affairs , but they are probably correct. Publishing it probably wouldn’t be worth their time and the obvious blowback it would get. 

Except could use this controversy to make it a sudden best seller!

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

24 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

What was interesting in their letter to him was how they mentioned digital media’s tendency to pull out sections of writing and quote  them out of context to twist their meaning.

If they see it as too dangerous to publish anything in fear that it might be taken out of context then how will they ever publish anything?

Its a sad state of affairs , but they are probably correct. Publishing it probably wouldn’t be worth their time and the obvious blowback it would get. 

Except could use this controversy to make it a sudden best seller!

How can they be held responsible for something being taken out of context or misquoted?  Is the hate-speech legislation in the UK really that broad?

[Heartofice]

30 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

How can they be held responsible for something being taken out of context or misquoted?  Is the hate-speech legislation in the UK really that broad?

They are being overly cautious , but certainly context and intent is becoming less relevant around these laws

[Maltaran]

They seem to be equally concerned about being sued by the people the author names in his examples as they are about the hate speech laws.

[Heartofice]

5 minutes ago, Maltaran said:

They seem to be equally concerned about being sued by the people the author names in his examples as they are about the hate speech laws.

That’s certainly part of, but their main cause for concern seems to be sensitivity of the subject and their reputation loss.

[polishgenius]

I don't know Jim Flynn, so I gotta believe you that he's a good guy, but I am immediately distrustful of his motives in this particular instance, both because he's published in Quilette, which isn't necessarily garnering a reputation as a well-adjusted and respectable publication, and because both in the article title and in the change to the title of his book he is outright lying about it being banned. I guess 'A Book Not Picked Up For Publication: Free Speech and Universities' doesn't scan quite as well but he's being dishonest here.

[mormont]

14 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

How can they be held responsible for something being taken out of context or misquoted?  Is the hate-speech legislation in the UK really that broad?

No. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 hours ago, mormont said:

No. 

So, this is un warranted fear of litigation?    Or pure cowardice from the publisher?

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So, this is un warranted fear of litigation?    Or pure cowardice from the publisher?

Not being the publisher, and not having read the book, I can't say. I can perhaps infer a few things:

Quote

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.

The bolded suggests that the statement 'Clearly you have no intention of promoting racism' could be interpreted to mean 'clearly, we're not accusing you of promoting racism' rather than 'it is objectively clear to any reasonable reader that you are not intending to promote racism'. 

It's also the case that the second reason given is likely much more substantial and in fact might be the main reason:

Quote

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. 

Putting aside 'hate speech' laws, the UK's libel laws definitely have a certain reputation, which is why Americans in particular often prefer to sue for libel in the UK. I'd suggest that if any set of laws in the UK have a chilling effect on free speech, it's libel laws, not hate speech laws, and that this is in my humble and admittedly uninformed opinion likely to be the bigger of the two legal issues concerning the publisher. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, mormont said:

Not being the publisher, and not having read the book, I can't say. I can perhaps infer a few things:

The bolded suggests that the statement 'Clearly you have no intention of promoting racism' could be interpreted to mean 'clearly, we're not accusing you of promoting racism' rather than 'it is objectively clear to any reasonable reader that you are not intending to promote racism'. 

It's also the case that the second reason given is likely much more substantial and in fact might be the main reason:

Putting aside 'hate speech' laws, the UK's libel laws definitely have a certain reputation, which is why Americans in particular often prefer to sue for libel in the UK. I'd suggest that if any set of laws in the UK have a chilling effect on free speech, it's libel laws, not hate speech laws, and that this is in my humble and admittedly uninformed opinion likely to be the bigger of the two legal issues concerning the publisher. 

That is also a very interesting point to make.  I wonder if the Author will seek an American publisher?