Guardian article about Kate Clanchy "The book that tore publishing apart: ‘Harm has been done, and now everyone’s afraid’"

[miri1985]

www.theguardian.com/books/2022/jun/18/the-book-that-tore-publishing-apart-harm-has-been-done-and-now-everyones-afraid

Interesting article but Sarah Ditum said it on twitter better than I could "I think it's a major flaw that this article broadly assumes good faith on the part of cancel-culture agitators. A lot of them are perfectly self-interested and borderline sociopathic" twitter.com/sarahditum/status/1538144622643494912?cxt=HHwWgIC-3dCYy9gqAAAA

if Clanchy had carried out her threat of reporting the GR reviewer to her employer and the GR reviewer was fired - that's cancellation. Especially given Clanchy was lying about quotes being fabricated.

Yes, I'd forgotten that Clanchy tried to have an ordinary member of the public fired from her job for expressing an opinion Clanchy found offensive.

Kate Clanchy really does hate free speech, doesn't she?

Sorry "threatened to try to have her fired" not "tried to have her fired."

I liked the Guardian article, as it made me think about the issues. I have no familiarity with this book or its author so I can't comment on that.

But I am interested in the role of the relatively new information technology here:

It's social media which allows the cancel culture and similar phenomena to exist, it makes us feel as if the distance between authors and their audience is removed, and pile-ons, for instance, are often interpreted in statistically incorrect ways as demonstrating extremely widespread disapproval of a particular book or issue or person which they may not be.

The majority of people are not on Twitter, for one thing, and those who do respond to various issues are usually the ones who have most extreme feelings on a particular topic, from both end points of various distributions.

I believe the polarisation of opinions comes partly out of this aspect, especially when Twitter disapproval is viewed as disapproval by the majority in the relevant population (say, readers of particular types of books) whether it is or not.

Because pile-ons work, they can also be manufactured rather than seen as something which occurs organically, though of course they can be the latter, too. Political movements have learned to use them pretty effectively, to further certain interpretations.

It's almost impossible to successfully stop a pile-on from happening (think of a Gish gallop carried out by a couple of thousand accusers, all at the same time, and you can see how responding to the accusations really is impossible), and whether it can be justified by some ethical criteria or not, the effect is always at least mildly unpleasant and sometimes far worse than that on the attacked person or organisation.

Because pile-ons can destroy reputations and are so difficult to cope with, employers of those who have been attacked and the industries in which an attacked person works etc. have strong incentives to disassociate themselves from the opinions causing the pile-ons to happen so that they don't get contaminated by being associated with the issue.

In some ways the 'court of public opinion' has now been transformed into something rather different: more partial, perhaps, though also more open to those whose opinions were previously not listened to, but also with much stronger powers to sentence someone to at least a loss of reputation.

There have been cases where probably an entirely innocent person lost his job due to something like this, and we are quite likely to see at least some where this will happen in the future. (I also know of a case where someone with the same name as a canceled person got nasty attention from various social justice warriors).

Which individuals might be unfairly sentenced by the online opinion courts will depend on which groups wield the most power in a particular society at a particular time. As far as I can tell, the cancel culture is currently used more by the political left in Western countries, but it has certainly been used by the political right in the past and can be so used in the future, too.

I have no idea how any of this could be moderated, but I do feel that instant responses by employers, organisations and so on are a very bad knee-jerk response. If this is now going to be the new court of online opinions, proper evidence should be examined and the accused should have a barrister to defend them, too, and there should be some kind of a court of appeals.

Free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. KC experienced consequences to her own attempts to suppress someone else's free speech. Although she hasn't learnt from it as she continues to claim victimhood, bringing up the sales of 3 women who have received terrible abuse knowing that it will unleash that abuse again.

Consequences for all sides, but one in which the woman claims the book was about her learning about her own position of privilege and power seems to have learnt nothing beyond hot to harness anti-woke victimhood perfectly.

And there are other freedoms and rights to be balanced with free speech, which shouldn't need saying. Freedom of speech does not trump everything else.

Interestingly, the women whose names get repeatedly raised as KC's critics were not the first or loudest voices to highlight that KC had lied. I read it all at the time, as it unfolded, and there were some tweets by men, explaining what was problematic in the book, that drew a lot of attention. Yet it was and is the women who've been accused of being bullies, etc - still accused of it on Feminist boards.

‘Blood Heir by Amelie Wen Zhao
The Black Witch by Laurie Forest
The Witchlands by Susan Dennard
The Continent by Keira Drake’

That’s four. But thanks. Not at all common.

‘Freedom of speech does not trump everything else.’

It trumps everything but the law. Freedom of speech is a legal right even when it’s offensive to some.

Mate, I’m not Googling every instance of “Twitter storm results in book cancellation” for you 😂 I’m on Mumsnet to waste my own time, not have you waste it for me. It’s obviously a non-exhaustive list.

‘Free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.’

It means freedom from censorship, because censorship is antithetical to free speech. People can complain as much as they like - that’s critique - but they have no right to have their demand that a text is changed met. Clanchy, on the other hand, has every right to refuse to change it.

‘It’s obviously a non-exhaustive list.’

Very obviously. And I’m not your mate. The point is that this is extremely rare.

‘But helping writers rewrite their books is literally what traditional publishing is?! No one hands in a manuscript that goes straight to print. There’s development editing, structural editing, copy editing, beta reading, sensitivity reading and proofreading, then print. In Clanchy’s case clearly the checks and balances weren’t enough, or they failed, so Picador wanted to revisit the process. It’s really not unusual.’

It is unusual. Sensitivity reading is about five minutes old. Obviously books are edited. But nearly always, once something is in print, it’s what you published and it stands. The demands for her to change it from her publisher were appalling. If Clanchy got it wrong, they did as well, and they needed to own that, not try to cancel out their mistake.

It trumps everything but the law. Freedom of speech is a legal right even when it’s offensive to some.

I suggest you google "freedom of speech law" since you don't seem to have even a basic understanding of what it is.

Clanchy, on the other hand, has every right to refuse to change it.

And there was absolutely nothing stopping her from doing so.

If Clanchy got it wrong, they did as well, and they needed to own that, not try to cancel out their mistake.

I actually do agree with this.

Article 10 of the ECHR really is a law. Google it yourself.

Exactly this.

I am well-aware of the law. You clearly are not, since you seem to think the law says that freedom of speech means publishers are legally obligated to publish anything anyone wants to publish.

The ECHR that you reference literally says (this is a direct quote)

"The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."

UK law makes it an offence to use “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviours that causes, or is likely to cause, another person harassment, alarm or distress”, and also outlaws language that is deemed to incite “racial and religious hatred and hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation” and language that “encourages terrorism”.

But all of that is irrelevant. Unless Kate Clanchy was being prevented from disseminating her book via ANY outlet at all, or was being threatened with prison for publishing, free speech laws absolutely do not apply.

There's absolutely nothing stopping Kate Clanchy from self-publishing her unedited book on Amazon or any other self-publishing platform, releasing it as a blog, recording it as a podcast, or I'm sure any number of right wing "anti-woke" independent publishers would have been happy to publish it.

Please quote what "freedom of speech" law mandates that you have the legal right to be published by the publisher of your specific choice, and that publisher declining to publish your book is a violation of the human rights act?

So, pretty much everyone agrees that freedom of speech is an important right, and that writers shouldn't be censored.

Everyone agrees that Kate Clanchy behaved badly in relation to the reviewer, and should have just ignored the review.

Some people, even though they claim to agree with both statements, think that Kate Clanchy should indeed be censored and/or cancelled in retaliation for her behaviour.

And other people think that the first two statements are right, but there has not been any censorship in this case.

I think that's a fair summation of what's been said.

I guess there's not much point debating whether or not Clanchy's book was censored when by any reasonable definition, it most certainly was. You can't really debate a fact, although some on this thread are doing a good job of just outright denying it! Whether or not KC has been cancelled depends on your definition of cancellation, which no one but me has been willing to give so far. I expect we can all agree that she's been punished - whether you think that's fair or sufficient is up to you.

What bothers me is the effect that this has on authors and publishers in general. I'm an author and I certainly feel there is a chilling effect on free speech. It's been going on for a long time, especially with regard to sex and gender. It seems to me that punishing Clanchy and censoring her book has a ripple effect and while you may think that KC deserves everything bad that happens to her, other authors are being affected by this same dynamic. The widespread acceptance of censorship (or the denial that it even happens) is really worrying. I fear what will happen next. If it's okay to do it to KC, is it okay to do it to everyone we don't like? What are the wider consequences and what's at stake?

‘I am well-aware of the law. You clearly are not, since you seem to think the law says that freedom of speech means publishers are legally obligated to publish anything anyone wants to publish.’

Since that isn’t what I said, I will ignore the rest of your reply.

Freedom of speech means not having your expression unlawfully interferes with. I believe Clanchy would have won a case against her publisher if they had insisted on her changing something that isn’t libellous, that they had already edited and agreed for publication. It’s censorship.

Obviously nobody is obligated to select any particular manuscript for publication, but they had already published her.

Some people, even though they claim to agree with both statements, think that Kate Clanchy should indeed be censored and/or cancelled in retaliation for her behaviour

Who on here has said that she should be censored or cancelled?

And other people think that the first two statements are right, but there has not been any censorship in this case

Who on here has said the first 2 statements are right but there hasn't been censorship?

She hasn't been censored. Posters, myself included, have pointed out what they consider to be racist, sexist and classist comments- the sort of comment which would usually attract condemnation on here. It's a bit of a leap to extrapolate your conclusions from that.

www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/news-events/news-events/news/kate-clanchys-orwell-prize-winning-memoir-sent-to-75-important-figures-in-education-in-the-uk/

Setting everything else aside it might have behoved the judges of The Orwell prize to comment on their decision.

What part of the Human Rights Act do you believe bans publishers from ditching authors who damage sales by being abusive and telling lies, or making financial decisions as to how to handle scandals? There is no law stating that "freedom of speech" forces publishers to give you a platform, or to continue to give you a platform just because they had in the past.

Publishing contracts are watertight. They certainly would be legally covered by clauses governing their rights over the material they publish and over marketing.

The law is very clear. It's only a freedom of speech issue, legally, if you are being prevented from speaking at all, or if you are imprisoned or threatened with imprisonment as a result. There was nothing stopping Kate Clanchy publishing the unedited book elsewhere.

I have writer friends who have been imprisoned and tortured in prison for writing things critical of their government. THAT is censorship. That is a freedom of speech issue. Claiming a famous and influential woman who still has huge platform is a victim of a freedom of speech violation because she was held accountable for abusing and censoring others, is an attack on every single brave writer who has genuinely faced censorship.

I didn’t say anyone was obligated to continue giving her a platform (whatever you mean by that). Her publisher could have declined to reprint her book and returned her rights. That was in legal scope for them. What I don’t believe was in legal scope was forcing her to change her printer words, because the HRA does protect her right to artistic expression. So they could only ask her if she would, and she said no. But if they had pressured her to do so, I believe they would have lost any legal case. IANAL and might be wrong, but my point is that sometimes freedom of expression does mean freedom from consequences, if the consequences break the law.

Printed

Sorry, I was basing this on earlier comments - when I was arguing for freedom of speech, pp said they were also concerned with that. Pp said there should be consequences for KC and that she should be 'denounced'. But when I asked what the consequences should be for Clanchy, people said that they didn't have any ideas beyond the one poster who said she should be asked to check her internalised misogyny.

Apologies if I misrepresented your point of view.

She hasn't been censored.

Her book has been censored. No one has objected to her being criticised, but criticism and censorship aren't the same thing. Indeed, I think nearly all of the people arguing against censorship have criticised what she wrote. She's definitely been condemned by many on here for her words and I have no problem with that.

I have writer friends who have been imprisoned and tortured in prison for writing things critical of their government. THAT is censorship. That is a freedom of speech issue.

Yes, it is. But so is censoring a book. It's definitely preferable to have your book censored than to be tortured. But they are both freedom of speech issues. The fact that this can happen in other countries is a big part of the reason why people like me are so concerned with defending freedom of speech here. We need to be vigilant.

But when people ask you to ‘check your internalised misogyny’ they don’t mean ‘check’ like ‘think about’, they mean ‘check’ like ‘stop’. They mean agree. They mean they won’t stop harassing you until you do agree. After that they won’t stop until you crack under the pressure of their never-ending demands for compliance with their views.

Much better to say nothing, publish and be damned.