Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We oppose morals clauses in book contracts (2019)

authorsguild.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 62 posts

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

#41

Post by pinkfoot »

mc32 wrote: post #39
thinkingemote wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> who decides what’s [intolerable]?

A fantastic first step is to eliminate anyone who reserve the right to unilaterally use violence in the name of religion.

After that, exclude those who want a special deal for their faction that they wont grant others.

See, easy.

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

#42

Post by vorpalhex »

duxup wrote: post #12
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…

Humans of all kinds are bad about seeing beyond their own noses. Having principles is hard when it might apply to / benefit someone you don't like. That's not applicable to any particular group, it's a human problem. I often wonder when talking to folks who I agree with: How much does this person really think about this topic... and how much do they just think that this bad thing we don't like is bad because that guy…

Personally, I use the trick of substituting myself or someone I like in the position of the accused when trying to determine ethics/morality.

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

#43

Post by mc32 »

pinkfoot wrote: post #41
mc32 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> who decides what’s [intolerable]? A fantastic first step is to eliminate anyone who reserve the right to unilaterally use violence in the name of religion. After that, exclude those who want a special deal for their faction that they wont grant others. See, easy.

The word violence in common usage used to have a meaning. Now it can mean anything you want it to mean. There is no solid ground down this path.

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

#44

Post by pinkfoot »

mc32 wrote: post #43
pinkfoot wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> who decides what’s [intolerable]? A fantastic first step is to eliminate anyone who reserve the right to unilaterally use violence in the name of religion. After that, exclude those who want a special deal for their faction that they wont grant others. See, easy.

The word violence in common usage used to have a meaning. Now it can mean anything you want it to mean. There is no solid ground down this path.

Fair enough: actual murders or direct threats thereof.

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

#45

Post by monksy »

pinkfoot wrote: post #41
mc32 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> who decides what’s [intolerable]? A fantastic first step is to eliminate anyone who reserve the right to unilaterally use violence in the name of religion. After that, exclude those who want a special deal for their faction that they wont grant others. See, easy.

The usage of violence is already illegal.

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

#46

Post by vorpalhex »

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…

Sure, so the current US admin used it's "higher power" to force the EPA to remove all references to climate change.

It legally can not use that power for non-government entities, including those mirroring that content.

And you're suggesting it should be able to?

> Except that the toxic people drive the others away

And who gets to decide who is toxic? I've seen a user have a meltdown because someone compared democratic socialism to communism, and claimed everyone who disagreed with them was toxic. Should they get to be the judge?

> threats can made sufficiently arguable to be legal, but still clear enough to threaten.

Let's be clear - a threat in and of itself is _not_ illegal. A threat must be a direct, actionable call to violence to be illegal. Someone telling you they're going to make fun of you, post embaressing things or otherwise "threaten" you isn't illegal.

> Putting the burden on each individual to filter everyone

Is a recognition that humans are free agents and get to make their own choices in life. No man or woman is fit to play the censor.

> they will have inflicted their harm upon a lot of people.

What harm? Mean words on the internet? That pales in comparison for a regulatory agency, say the NSC, to suppress true information, say about a major pandemic, by abusing it's powers of censorship.

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

#47

Post by monksy »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #30
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…

> " 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. " What makes you think old-school liberals are on board with any of this? I would guess that they, like myself, are lying…

> just remember that one thing that can't ever be "cancelled" is your vote in primaries and on Election Day. Please go out and vote for what you believe in.

I've heard people argue that that's exactly what happened with the Trump win. People voted against the party who brought on "well he's an -ist" [racist, mysogist, etc]

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

#48

Post by pjc50 »

mc32 wrote: post #26
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?

What’s next lawyers and attorneys refuse to represent people of poor moral standing or worse are known felons? WTF are we coming to?

Lawyers can and do refuse to represent people who have behaved badly towards them. The rules for criminal defense lawyers are usually much stricter on who they can refuse, but it can still happen. In particular, misconduct towards your lawyer will get you dropped.

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

#49

Post by mc32 »

pinkfoot wrote: post #44
mc32 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The word violence in common usage used to have a meaning. Now it can mean anything you want it to mean. There is no solid ground down this path.

Fair enough: actual murders or direct threats thereof.

Curious, does it imply people in prison for rape murder and assault should not be able to have a book written, what about providing an interview?

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

#50

Post by derefr »

mc32 wrote: post #28
jimbob45 wrote: post #7

I would go so far as to say that these clauses aren't even slimy, they're just lazy. If the publishers are truly scared that the author's behavior could lose them substantial amounts of money, then there have existed for decades far more terrestrial constructs for them to use - tying compensation to total sales numbers, tying compensation to milestones, or even just lowballing them. To tie their compensation to what…

Let’s hope this attitude doesn’t trickle down into the legal profession where we have attorneys and layers in general refusing service to people who are morally corrupt /bankrupt or are previous felons. Or, don’t spend public dollars defending “bad” people.

Heh, imagine a world where the law requires the appointment of a public defender, but it's also disallowed by the bar association to serve as one.
Post reply on HN