We oppose morals clauses in book contracts (2019) • Hacker News Board

Re: We oppose morals clauses in book contracts (2019)

#31

Post by marcus_holmes » Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 6:04 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #25

mc32 wrote: post #10

Good on them. I don’t know what the hell is happening but I don’t understand how people who support the ACLU and every other 90s liberal who supported free speech unencumbered can now get on board with this censorship which shamelessly hides behind “private cos are not the gov, so it’s not real censorship. You don’t have to like the people, you can hate them, despise them, shame them whatever, but people should not b…

Similarly, once a company has found out (or been reminded) that their author is a sex offender, they should no longer be under contractual obligation to publish it - that would be compelled speech, no?

> they should no longer be under contractual obligation to publish it

That entirely depends on what the contract says, which is probably why they're adding these clauses to the contracts.

The point is that there's no background "moral clause" in contract law. If you sign a contract, and then discover that the other person is a sex offender/nazi/actually Hitler, that doesn't matter. You still need to fulfil your obligations under the contract.

And we don't want to change this. Because getting on the wrong end of a Twitter dogpile is astonishingly easy to do. If the stakes were higher, and not only future careers but all existing contracts would be ruined, that would just inspire more dogpile. Then no-one wants to say anything in public, or where a journalist might hear of it, and the mob moves onto ever tinier infringements of ever more arcane moral rules.

Re: We oppose morals clauses in book contracts (2019)

#32

Post by lliamander » Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 6:13 PM UTC

marcus_holmes wrote: post #31

pjc50 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similarly, once a company has found out (or been reminded) that their author is a sex offender, they should no longer be under contractual obligation to publish it - that would be compelled speech, no?

> they should no longer be under contractual obligation to publish it That entirely depends on what the contract says, which is probably why they're adding these clauses to the contracts. The point is that there's no background "moral clause" in contract law. If you sign a contract, and then discover that the other person is a sex offender/nazi/actually Hitler, that doesn't matter. You still need to fulfil your oblig…

> Because getting on the wrong end of a Twitter dogpile is astonishingly easy to do. If the stakes were higher, and not only future careers but all existing contracts would be ruined, that would just inspire more dogpile.

IANAL, but this is a good time to remind people that, in the U.S., but actively trying to sabotage a contract between two parties may be tortious interference[1], and something one can be sued for.

If social media platforms made reporting of and discovery for these kinds of behaviors easier, I suspect we would see a drop-off in such dogpiling.

[1] https://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/liability-and-insurance/to...

Re: We oppose morals clauses in book contracts (2019)

#33

Post by lliamander » Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 6:18 PM UTC

strictnein wrote: post #13

mc32 wrote: post #10

Good on them. I don’t know what the hell is happening but I don’t understand how people who support the ACLU and every other 90s liberal who supported free speech unencumbered can now get on board with this censorship which shamelessly hides behind “private cos are not the gov, so it’s not real censorship. You don’t have to like the people, you can hate them, despise them, shame them whatever, but people should not b…

The most disappointing is the XKCD comic, which people still wave around. Being shouted down by the mob on a private platform isn't something to be applauded. And it isn't just "showing someone the door", as the comic puts it.

Indeed, that was the first XKCD I felt strong negative reaction to.

It's sad because it engages in two fallacies:

- The equivocation of the 1st Amendment with free speech

- The assumption that all people being de-platformed are trolls

Re: We oppose morals clauses in book contracts (2019)

#34

Post by ThrowawayR2 » Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 6:22 PM UTC

ergothus wrote: post #27

grawprog wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>As a solution to this dilemma, some advocate strong "non-moral" stances (ala "free speech") where everyone can do as they want, unrestricted Since when is that the definition of free speech? Free speech has nothing to do with a lack of repercussions to what you say, and especially do, it's about having the right to say things, even if disagreeable, without systemic silencing or punishment from a higher authority. It…

Here's the trick: Higher powers are how society applies repercussions. Note: I'm aware U.S. Govt 1st amendment doesn't restrict anything but the govt. I think we're both talking about the general concept of free speech, not that particular example. Let's take the example of twitter. People swamp twitter with misinformation and toxic behavior. As individuals, we're all free to ignore/block the annoying/misleading peop…

> "Putting the burden on each individual to filter everyone is NOT taking "no" stance, it's taking the stance that those most willing to "speak" (which includes expressive actions) are given power. When the talking is for good things, that's great. But the people least willing to consider other people, the people lacking empathy, will have no restraint on what they say (or do, expressively) unless imposed. Long before they suffer any personal social repercussions they care about, they will have inflicted their harm upon a lot of people."

While phrased as being benevolent, this is incredibly Orwellian. It is tantamount to saying "The adult voting public cannot be trusted to identify 'wrong' beliefs themselves; they must be protected from hearing these dangerous thoughts and only permitted to hear 'correct' beliefs (which conveniently happen to coincide with my own)."

"Beware of those who would deny you access to information for, in their hearts, they dream themselves your masters." Though this quote's origin is in fiction, it turned out to be terrifyingly prescient.

Re: We oppose morals clauses in book contracts (2019)

#35

Post by thinkingemote » Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 6:27 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #10

Good on them. I don’t know what the hell is happening but I don’t understand how people who support the ACLU and every other 90s liberal who supported free speech unencumbered can now get on board with this censorship which shamelessly hides behind “private cos are not the gov, so it’s not real censorship. You don’t have to like the people, you can hate them, despise them, shame them whatever, but people should not b…

Fundamentally it's the idea that you should not tolerate the intolerant.

This idea is what many people believe who justify the use of this kind of censorship Vs freedom of expression.

Re: We oppose morals clauses in book contracts (2019)

#36

Post by lliamander » Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 6:31 PM UTC

ergothus wrote: post #27

grawprog wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>As a solution to this dilemma, some advocate strong "non-moral" stances (ala "free speech") where everyone can do as they want, unrestricted Since when is that the definition of free speech? Free speech has nothing to do with a lack of repercussions to what you say, and especially do, it's about having the right to say things, even if disagreeable, without systemic silencing or punishment from a higher authority. It…

Here's the trick: Higher powers are how society applies repercussions. Note: I'm aware U.S. Govt 1st amendment doesn't restrict anything but the govt. I think we're both talking about the general concept of free speech, not that particular example. Let's take the example of twitter. People swamp twitter with misinformation and toxic behavior. As individuals, we're all free to ignore/block the annoying/misleading peop…

There are already many forms of speech that have limited or no protection in the United State: perjury, defamation, incitement, threats, obsceneties, fighting words, commercial speech, and copy-written works.

I have yet to see a proposal for additional classes of unprotected speech that materially benefit the social discourse.

Re: We oppose morals clauses in book contracts (2019)

#37

Post by ergothus » Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 6:34 PM UTC

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #34

ergothus wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the trick: Higher powers are how society applies repercussions. Note: I'm aware U.S. Govt 1st amendment doesn't restrict anything but the govt. I think we're both talking about the general concept of free speech, not that particular example. Let's take the example of twitter. People swamp twitter with misinformation and toxic behavior. As individuals, we're all free to ignore/block the annoying/misleading peop…

> " Putting the burden on each individual to filter everyone is NOT taking "no" stance, it's taking the stance that those most willing to "speak" (which includes expressive actions) are given power. When the talking is for good things, that's great. But the people least willing to consider other people, the people lacking empathy, will have no restraint on what they say (or do, expressively) unless imposed. Long befo…

> It is tantamount to saying "The adult voting public cannot be trusted to identify 'wrong' beliefs themselves;

The issue isn't "identify", nor "trust". It's effort. The adult voting public are the ones that should be picking (and auditing!) those that are taking on the effort, as well as drawing the line as to where the effort is worth handing off and where it is worth keeping in personal hand.

Requiring everyone to be an expert on everything in order to evaluate it is a problem. I'm not saying they CAN'T be experts, I'm saying we have the right to choose that we don't HAVE to be. As a group. And pick whom we empower to deal with that. And pick what limitations and reviews it has to go through.

Again, I'm not saying restricting speech is free of problems. It has tons. But so does unrestricted speech. That's why it is complicated and hard, and pretending that everyone is a rational and well-intentioned actor is not a good idea. (Pretending power structures don't have problems is also not a good idea, but I've already admitted that)

Re: We oppose morals clauses in book contracts (2019)

#38

Post by ergothus » Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 6:40 PM UTC

lliamander wrote: post #36

ergothus wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the trick: Higher powers are how society applies repercussions. Note: I'm aware U.S. Govt 1st amendment doesn't restrict anything but the govt. I think we're both talking about the general concept of free speech, not that particular example. Let's take the example of twitter. People swamp twitter with misinformation and toxic behavior. As individuals, we're all free to ignore/block the annoying/misleading peop…

There are already many forms of speech that have limited or no protection in the United State: perjury, defamation, incitement, threats, obsceneties, fighting words, commercial speech, and copy-written works. I have yet to see a proposal for additional classes of unprotected speech that materially benefit the social discourse.

Are you referring to the govt or more broadly?

Because (in relation to the article) we're talking about companies and social groups making decisions, not just the govt. Notably, I think the US 1st amendment is basically based around the idea that we, collectively, will take social action above the personal level. If you remove that ability, my defense of the 1st amendment reduces notably.

I see the social discourse primarily being improved by the general awareness that it CAN be harmed. To think it's immune from harm outside of censorship is the key problem.

Re: We oppose morals clauses in book contracts (2019)

#39

Post by mc32 » Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 6:40 PM UTC

thinkingemote wrote: post #35

mc32 wrote: post #10

Good on them. I don’t know what the hell is happening but I don’t understand how people who support the ACLU and every other 90s liberal who supported free speech unencumbered can now get on board with this censorship which shamelessly hides behind “private cos are not the gov, so it’s not real censorship. You don’t have to like the people, you can hate them, despise them, shame them whatever, but people should not b…

Fundamentally it's the idea that you should not tolerate the intolerant. This idea is what many people believe who justify the use of this kind of censorship Vs freedom of expression.

That’s problematic. Who decides what’s tolerable and not? Twenty years ago this posture would go contra liberal thought.

Do the accused soon not deserve representation because they’re intolerable?

It’s like show trials are wanting to show their face right around the corner any day soon.

Re: We oppose morals clauses in book contracts (2019)

#40

Post by thingification » Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 6:45 PM UTC

lliamander wrote: post #29

grawprog wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>As a solution to this dilemma, some advocate strong "non-moral" stances (ala "free speech") where everyone can do as they want, unrestricted Since when is that the definition of free speech? Free speech has nothing to do with a lack of repercussions to what you say, and especially do, it's about having the right to say things, even if disagreeable, without systemic silencing or punishment from a higher authority. It…

The 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects free speech from government regulation, but that does not mean it is free speech. Free speech as a concept absolutely does mean an absence of consequences for, or at least a relative tolerance of, speech that people in society may generally disagree with. It stems from the belief that the truth can sometimes be unpopular, and that in order for us to benefit from the…

I'm not sure I'd have put this quite as emphatically as you, but there's a very important point here about the principle of free speech as compared with government suppression of speech.

While nodding towards quite real problems involving, let's say for example vaccines, I don't think any of that troubles the principle of free speech in the slightest. Practically applying it is difficult and as error-prone as is anything else, but the principle is enlightening in that task.

There does exist a principle of free speech that is not the same thing as the various legal principles, constitutional rules, laws, or rules of thumb that say government suppression of speech is worse than other kinds. Crucially important though those have been, it's still true that suppression of speech itself is uniquely bad: Fundamentally, knowledge is not infallible, all problems are caused by lack of knowledge, and speech is the means of correcting all other mistakes. Practically, we find it all too easy to socially suppress good ideas. It's hard to see the true extent of that because it's impossible to see the upside that hasn't happened as a result of that suppression.

I hardly need to refer explicitly to some of the specific ideas of the not-distant past about social control that we have since learned, though they were certainly obviously good, were not good.

Practically, it's hard to escape the idea that taking seriously the millennia-long stream of historical failures of ideas -- and their replacement with better ones -- does entail treating ideas that are obviously wrong with considerably more flexibility and humility than is tempting.

I recommend David Deutsch's book The Beginning of Infinity to shake up anybody's ideas about this, no matter where you start from.