censorship


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…)


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…)


Book discussion: Fahrenheit 451 1

“It was a pleasure to burn. It was a special pleasure to see things eaten, to see things blackened and changed.”

Those are the opening words of Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451. They could also have been the words of whoever torched Uncle Hugo’s Bookstore in Minneapolis. (The crowdfunding campaign to restore it is still active.)

The arsonist might have gone on, as the protagonist’s thoughts do: “You weren’t burning anyone, you were burning things! And since things really couldn’t be hurt, since things felt nothing, and things don’t scream or whimper … there was nothing to tease your conscience later. You were simply cleaning up.” The goons who write in defense of looting and burning regularly say there’s nothing wrong with destroying mere property.
(more…)


A banned book you may never see 3

“Banned Books Week” has become a joke. I call it “bland books week.” Its definition of “banned” includes being deemed inappropriate for elementary school libraries. This is at best deceptive, and it’s an excuse for not talking about books that face actual efforts to ban them. The list also includes “challenged” books; that means simply that somebody asked a library not to carry a book. Talking about real banned books would require entering real controversies.

Unless you think school libraries should carry everything down to and including hard porn, “banning” in that sense is justified in some cases. “Challenging” hardly deserves notice at all, unless it results in serious consideration of excluding a book. Whether a school library carries Captain Underpants or not isn’t an issue of freedom of the press. Whether a book can be published at all is. There are books which have actually been banned in recent US history.
(more…)


US Copyright Office attacks small publisher

There’s an old federal law that affects publishers. It requires every book publisher to submit two copies of each work published to the Copyright Office, without getting any payment. It originated long before automatic copyright and print-on-demand existed. Originally that served the purpose of securing copyright, and it only affected large-volume publishers. The burden on such publishers was low.

Today the law still exists, but it’s rarely enforced. With automatic copyright, it no longer serves its original purpose. Collecting free books from every print-on-demand operation and every fan publisher would ruin them. But when someone in the government wants to target a business, antiquated laws are useful. The Copyright Office is trying to ruin small PoD publisher Valancourt Books by enforcing this law.
(more…)


Dealing with FDA censorship

Writers in every country can run into governmental censorship. The USA is among the freest, but there are some areas where businesses can get into legal trouble for publishing truthful statements that aren’t state secrets. The FDA is one of the biggest censors of truthful speech. With certain products, it isn’t enough for the manufacturer’s statements about them to be true. They have to be approved. More precisely, making certain truthful statements about smokeless cigarettes, which contain no tobacco, miraculously turns them into “modified risk tobacco products” which are subject to tobacco regulations.

'No' symbol over word 'censorship' I can say what I want about e-cigarettes on this blog, since I don’t produce or sell them and I’m not getting paid by anyone who does. But if a business that sold them asked me to write something for them, I’d have to be careful. I might not be able to say that they don’t contain tobacco, even though they don’t. I couldn’t point out that they’re far less dangerous than real cigarettes.

Legal writer Jonathan Adler, in the Washington Post, writes about the prohibition: “FDA regulation of e-cigarettes is not only bad for public health but also is likely unconstitutional. Insofar as the federal Tobacco Act, and the FDA’s implementing regulation, prohibit product makers and sellers from making factually true statements about their products, they likely violate the First Amendment.”

Nonetheless, A lawsuit against the FDA lost and, as far as I can tell, ran out of appeals. The ruling is long, and I can’t figure out from it how it justifies the speech prohibition. It seems to just take it for granted. The part of the ruling which claims to show that products with no tobacco are “tobacco products” is preposterous hand-waving, so I shouldn’t expect much sense from anything in the ruling.

Concerns for writers

It’s very unlikely the FDA would go after me personally for anything I wrote for a customer. (But don’t take anything here as legal advice.) The issue is that to write something which the customer could safely publish, I’d have to be careful to state only government-approved facts. Companies sometimes run articles past their legal departments to minimize the chance of regulatory trouble. This could result in nitpicking rewrites or even rejection of a perfectly good article. If you get into this situation, understand that the customers are just protecting themselves.

The tobacco industry loves it when e-cigarette makers can’t tell people all about their products. So do the nannies who think people should be prohibited from taking any risk, even if it’s a smaller risk than they’re currently taking. Tacit alliances like this happen more often in the crony system than you might think.

You have to be aware of the potential for trouble when you write on those topics. You can’t be a legal expert on what statements are allowed or not, but you can be aware that your work could face delays and rewrites.

Thanks to Tom Schwing for the forum post which called my attention to this issue.