Censorship


Fighting dairy censorship

It’s a curious and little-known fact that the dairy industry is a leading advocate of censorship. It demands the suppression of words such as “milk” and “butter” for non-dairy products, even where their meaning is clear and their use is well established. If the dairy lobby had its way, you wouldn’t find “peanut butter” or “soy milk” in stores. Its puppets include several members of Congress, and it’s especially powerful in Wisconsin, where it was long illegal to serve yellow margarine.

More surprisingly, the dairy lobby appears to have bought the California Department of Food and Agriculture. The CDFA sent a demand to Miyoko’s Creamery demanding that it stop using terms such as “cultured vegan butter.” Indeed, the government’s demands went far beyond that, saying that Miyoko’s couldn’t call its products “cruelty-free” or show a picture of a woman hugging a cow. The letter’s thinly disguised purpose was to hamper competition with the dairy industry.
(more…)


Negotiating a world of suppressed information 1

When information on a topic is broadly suppressed, what are we writers supposed to do? There are two easy answers, both error-prone. One is to reject all claims that there’s suppression and call them a “conspiracy theory.” The other is to assume that whatever is being suppressed is true.

Let’s look at the hypothesis that COVID-19 originated in a lab in Wuhan and somehow escaped into the population. I don’t know if that’s true, but the circumstances make it a possibility worth investigating. There have been many attempts to discourage an examination of the question. A Vanity Fair article by Katherine Eban summarizes the battle.
(more…)


Dr. Seuss becomes “Doctor Sues” (UPDATED: APPARENT FALSE REPORT)

Update: It now appears that the alleged legal threat by Dr. Seuss Enterprises was a forgery. A tweet by Seth Dillon claiming receipt of the legal notice is “no longer available.” A Daily Wire post which reported the supposed threat now has the following added at the top:

Seuss Enterprises told The Daily Wire that the legal threat is fake and that Seuss Enterprises never demanded the retraction.

“The purported legal notice is a fake. It did not come from Dr. Seuss Enterprises or anyone associated with the organization,” Seuss Enterprises told The Daily Wire.

This morning (April 20), I can’t find anything on Dillon’s Twitter feed either reaffirming or retracting the statement that they received a notice from the Seuss organization. We can all make mistakes (as the original version of this post shows), but we need to correct them, especially when they make someone look bad.

Sorry about conveying erroneous information. Now I have to go back to all the places where I posted links to this article and post updates.

Original post follows…

In March, I wrote that Dr. Seuss Enterprises faced a difficult situation. It now seems I was wrong. They’re just nuts. They discovered a satirical Babylon Bee article and are now threatening to sue.
(more…)


The Seuss affair 4

Dr. Seuss Enterprises has announced it will discontinue publication of six Dr. Seuss books. Its stated reason is that they “portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong.”

Whatever you think of this decision, you need to remember what every writer knows and many on the right forget: Publishers have no obligation to publish, except when they’re bound by a contract. The villain of the piece isn’t Dr. Seuss Enterprises, but absurdly long copyright terms. Theodore Geisel died in 1991. And to Think that I Saw It on Mulberry Street was published in 1937. It won’t enter the public domain until, I think, 2033.
(more…)


To the “Publishing Professionals” blacklist letter: HELL, NO!

It’s hard to tell how seriously to take the “letter of intent from publishing professionals of the United States.” It seems like just a bunch of fanatical nuts. A quick glance through the signers doesn’t turn up anyone I’ve heard of. But there are a fair number of them, and it’s worthwhile for people in the writing and publishing business to give them a quick “Hell, no!” before letting them languish in obscurity.

The letter declares: “No participant in an administration that caged children, performed involuntary surgeries on captive women, and scoffed at science as millions were infected with a deadly virus should be enriched by the almost rote largesse of a big book deal.”

This doesn’t specify which administration. The Obama administration caged children, and there have been multiple epidemics infecting millions in the past few decades. Let’s be conservative and assume it’s intended only for employees of the Trump administration. It still says “no participant,” and there are a lot of federal employees under the executive branch. Anthony Fauci comes to mind quickly. So do the Capitol cops who tried to stop the storming of the building with inadequate preparation and resources. So do a ton of whistleblowers whose names aren’t known yet. So do any number of federal employees trying to break in as novelists.

Publishers can refuse any manuscript they dislike for any reason. That’s their right. The absurd claims that publication is “almost rote” and “enriches” authors makes me wonder if these people have ever submitted a book proposal. But the letter goes beyond urging publishers not to accept books from government employees. It says, “‘Son of Sam’ laws exist to prevent criminals from benefiting financially from writing about their crimes.” That hints that books by employees of the previous administration should be outlawed. That would be a massive violation of the First Amendment, constituting an attempt by supporters of the current administration to silence people who worked for the previous one. Some SoS laws have been declared unconstitutional.

The letter reportedly had the title “No book deals for traitors” at first, showing its authoritarian intent.

My influence in the publishing world is close to zero. Still, I’ll declare that I will not sign that letter and will despise anyone who does.

Update: Perhaps I should make a distinction clear. I’ve come across a site complaining that Simon and Schuster dropped a book by Senator Josh Hawley the day after he voted against accepting the results of the presidential election and calling their decision “blacklisting.” Hawley called the publisher a “woke mob.” When an author violates his oath to support the Constitution, that’s a very sufficient reason to refuse to do business with him. It isn’t comparable to working for the Trump administration. When you look up articles on “blacklisting,” pay careful attention to exactly what they’re complaining about.


Book meta-discussion: Unmasked: Inside Antifa’s Radical Plan to Destroy Democracy 1

This will be the last of my regular Monday book posts for a while. In preparation for moving, I’ve put a lot of my books in boxes, and it’s getting harder to find the books that I want to reread and discuss. Naturally, this isn’t stopping me from acquiring even more books. This post is about an upcoming book by Andy Ngo, called Unmasked: Inside Antifa’s Radical Plan to Destroy Democracy. Or rather, it’s about Antifa’s attempt to suppress the book. I have it on pre-order from Water Street Bookstore but haven’t read it yet.

There’s a lot of misinformation about Antifa. On the one hand, mainstream media articles keep claiming it’s an “anti-fascist” organization. It’s anti-fascist in the same sense that the Capitol riot was “patriotic”: not at all, but the people involved find it handy to appropriate a term which they don’t deserve. On the other hand, some people on the right have built it into a ten-foot-tall organization which is behind everything. It’s even supposed to have been the real people who invaded the Capitol. What it mostly does is disrupt speaking events it doesn’t like. It’s basically a gang of thugs who hate freedom and aren’t hugely important.
(more…)