Institutional censorship — James Flynn's losing bout with his publisher — is indicative of our mealy-mouthed times

© 2019 Peter Free

 

24 September 2019

 

 

If only namby-pambies could be (metaphorically) drowned in the sea

 

I share a trait with "conservatives".

 

I despise our mealy-mouthed era.

 

 

In that regard — institutionally sponsored censorship

 

By way of background, James Flynn is an academic intelligence researcher. He is widely known, among other things, for what is called the "Flynn Effect".

 

He recently completed a book entitled, In Defense of Free Speech: The University as Censor.

 

His publisher, Emerald Press, reportedly declined to publish the volume:

 

 

There are two main causes of concern for Emerald.

 

Firstly, the work could be seen to incite racial hatred and stir up religious hatred under United Kingdom law.

 

Clearly you have no intention of promoting racism but intent can be irrelevant. For example, one test is merely whether it is “likely” that racial hatred could be stirred up as a result of the work.

 

This is a particular difficulty given modern means of digital media expression. The potential for circulation of the more controversial passages of the manuscript online, without the wider intellectual context of the work as a whole and to a very broad audience—in a manner beyond our control—represents a material legal risk for Emerald.

 

Secondly, there are many instances in the manuscript where the actions, conversations and behavior of identifiable individuals at specific named colleges are discussed in detail and at length in relation to controversial events. Given the sensitivity of the issues involved, there is both the potential for serious harm to Emerald’s reputation and the significant possibility of legal action.

 

Substantial changes to the content and nature of the manuscript would need to be made, or Emerald would need to accept a high level of risk both reputational and legal. The practical costs and difficulty of managing any reputational or legal problems that did arise are of further concern to Emerald.

 

For the reasons outlined above, it is with regret that Emerald has taken the decision not to publish your manuscript.

 

© 2019 James Flynn, My Book Defending Free Speech Has Been Banned, Quillette (24 September 2019)

 

 

In other words

 

Translating Emerald Press's letter:

 

 

People might be offended.

 

They might go to the courts with their bullshit.

 

Or they might say that we, as publishers, are bad people.

 

Both would be expensive. The legal system agrees to hear all manner of wailing, money-backed folk. And you know how important an angelic reputation is to us.

 

Free speech isn't, anyway.

 

So there.

 

Furthermore, nobody cares about preserving context anymore. Parts of what you said might be cruelly torn from the surrounding thoughts in which they were clearly embedded and, nevertheless, distributed.

 

Because people are inherently stupid, these out of context statements would add more fuel for our (essentially brainless) society to fight over. And that would further diminish our Godly reputation.

 

In short, we cannot publish your book.

 

You will have rewrite what is true into what is not.

 

That process, we recognize, will reverse what you were trying to say.

 

But we don't care.

 

We are here to make money and mush, not to stand up for publishing freedom.

 

Good luck!

 

 

The moral? — If you wonder why there's so much "fakeness" floating around . . .

 

. . . Emerald Press's understandably system-oriented reasoning is why.

 

Our culture encourages smarmy talk. No wimp is too weak, not to protect from injured feelings.

 

If you wonder why Trumpists vehemently support the smack-talking American president, the "can't say what you think" issue is a significant part of it.