[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.

[QuarterReptile]

> "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...

[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.

[deogeo]

> 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

[Donald]

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.

[cmsj]

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?".

[shkkmo]

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.