I never claimed that. This is how it started (from my side):
However I did provide the link to the second article from 1983 which discussed the same (perceived) problem. Somehow those two statements got confused.
Not a book, but a recent incident (they tried this with Netflix before):
This guy is a fucking comedian. If he doesn’t manage to insult everyone in the audiency at least once, he’s not doing his job.
You’ll likely reply that he’ll be fine and he got another venue anyways and so on… But I don’t intend to stay at the keyboard all night long, so I’ll answer in advance (truly sorry if this was not what you wanted to reply).
If it’s okay or even a good idea to deny someone access to a business based on political views, let alone bad jokes – why would it not be okay to do the same based on other criteria one doesn’t like (say religion)?
The owner of a venue has a right to decide who will be invited to perform at that venue.
No venue can accommodate everyone who might like to perform there, so editorial judgment is involved in choosing who will be invited.
Since this was a short notice cancellation of a sold-out show, the venue likely suffered a substantial financial loss due to the cancellation. They clearly felt that was better than the reputational damage, staff backlash, etc. that might arise from allowing the show to go on.
Their venue, their choice.
My point, really, is that publishers, venue owners, and others make this kind of arbitrary decision All. The. Time. For all sorts of reasons, some of which are “good” (to some people), some of which are “bad” (to some people), some of which are just plain random. Someone who wants to talk about “cancel culture” can easily find a handful of examples to prove their point. So can someone who wants to talk about how “anything goes” and “there are no cultural standards at all.”
But the critic who says “writer/performer X is racist/misogynist/disgusting and should be ignored by all right-thinking people” is entitled to their opinion, and is entitled to attempt to persuade others – including venue owners and publishers. That’s not “cancel culture,” it’s just the way a free marketplace of ideas works.
Kind of (I’ll explain in a second, bear with me). And the owner in this case decided: Yes, it’s a great idea, let’s invite this guy! Contracts were signed, hands shaken and – well, we know what happened…
While it’s not illegal to change your mind, there’re limits to “your place, your choice”. E.g. when a business is considered a public accommodation (open to the general public) it can’t arbritrarily exclude “certain people”. Federal law prohibits that, notably based on “race”, religion, and so on.
States (or even cities / counties) can’t overrule those criteria, but they can extend the list. Some do. For example: In D.C. businesses aren’t allowed to discriminate based on political views / affiliation. Which kind of makes sense, considering how difficult it is not to be in involved with politics in D.C. …
It’s called the marketplace of ideas for a reason, not the marketplace of people. You can oppose any idea you want, you can express your disgust, you can tell everybody why a certain idea is stupid, etc. and that’s a good thing.
However, it becomes a problem when you start going after the people who express ideas you don’t like. (Doesn’t really matter if you try to ruin their lives by “persuading” others not to deal with “those people” or by threatening them.)
Why? Well, let’s assume you’re very vocal about abortion rights. One business decides dealing with you doesn’t make them very happy. Fine. You didn’t like that place anyways. You’ll choose another one. Until you find out that your opinion closes a lot of doors in a certain area. Then what? Move to another state? Shut up?
If your freedom of speech is restricted by fears of retaliation (not being served in businesses, not getting or keeping a job, not being able to rent / buy property, etc.) – how free is it actually?
i,m of the opinion that no-one gets cancelled really. what happens is people get sick of dealing with the noise and nonsense of a few and just… give up themselves. if cancelling worked, we,d have no more jimmy carr, no more dave chappelle and no more ricky gervais. we,d have no more michael bay, no more roman polanski, and no more woody allen.
where we have seen people,s careers completely disappear without their complicity, there have been some pretty overwhelmingly shocking revelations, typically involving invitations to see the defendant,s chair in a courtroom. think kevin spacey.
all the noise about cancelling is a petulant group of self-entitled whiners thinking that because they don,t want to enjoy something, no-one else should be allowed to either. some creatives fold under that kind of nonsense, while others push it to one side.
as for the great mass of unpublished people out there… if no-one wants to publish your book you can either take the feedback and move on, or you can publish it yourself. if you publish it yourself it will either find an audience or it won,t… but you can still get it out there if you want to and are prepared to go the long way round to finding the audience that will want to hear what you have to say. you can only be cancelled by yourself.
here,s what the article doesn,t say that is almost certainly true…
1 - given how they cancelled it, dave would have still got paid
2 - dave,s fans would not have ben deterred by this, and would have been even more inclined to support him and see him
3 - the venue was cycnically trying to use virtue-signalling as a marketing tactic to appeal to an audience that was coming to see live comedy in ever-reducing numbers
4 - it was the fans who bought tickets who got screwed
If the stupid idea is expressed by a particular individual, how do you draw the line? Why is saying “this book is stupid and you shouldn’t buy it” different from saying “this speaker is stupid and you shouldn’t see his show?”
Yes, I’m familiar with public accommodation laws. I am not a lawyer, but I don’t think they apply here. Choosing to hire a particular performer (or not) is different from choosing whether particular members of the general public can buy tickets. And the laws apply to immutable characteristics like race, not to voluntary “expression.” (So it’s legal to enforce a dress code, for instance.)
I would say there’s quite a bit of difference between telling other people that a book is stupid and threatening to kill the author.
Should the law require me to hire a literal Nazi? It seems to me that my own freedom of speech is infringed if I’m not allowed to impose social consequences on offensive speakers.
It isn’t. That would be perfectly fine. But that’s not what happened. Instead the venue “chose” to last minute cancel an event it deemed acceptable when the contract was signed, taking away the choice of the audience to see it or not. That’s actually closer to book burning (making sure nobody gets to read it) in my opinion.
I disagree. Business is business. Either “everyone” is allowed to participate in it or not. Even buying a ticket is a contract. But I’m no lawyer either, so this is merely my interpretation / opinion.
Who forces you to be / stay involuntarily Catholic? (Or whatever religion.)
You’re right, federal anti-discrimination law doesn’t cover political beliefs or affiliations (or clothing styles). For now. And as I said: it depends. Local laws can add more categories and they do. I gave you an example.
I wholeheartedly agree. Not sure if I’d draw the line not until killing, but that’s definitely “too much opposition”.
The law already requires you to hire people you probably don’t like. Within reasonable limits. If such a member of a protected group threatens customers, argues with them and hands out propaganda leaflets during working hours… Not required to keep 'em.
Unless you’re a judge or law enforcer I don’t understand how “imposing social consequences on ‘offensive’ speakers” is part of your free speech package. But if that’s the case: It’s rightfully infringed. Not your job to punish people for being dicks. Of course you’re entitled to tell everyone how much they suck.
In practice this likely won’t work out very well. I’m not naïve. Not everyone can work with everyone and they will find ways to avoid each others presence, laws or not.
You asked me if the law should require you to hire a literal Nazi. Yes, it should. It already requires you hire people with radical beliefs who were smart enough to disguise them as religion. Would I like the law require me to hire Nazis, Communists, Islamists (and a lot other ists)? Hell, no.
Only smart people manage to play dumb that smooth. We both know that “this” kind of book burning is not the problem. It’s not the regimes that prevent you from doing it, it’s the regimes that do it for you.
I think we agree there. This thread (or at least my part of it) isn’t about government behavior, it’s about the behavior of individuals and publishers.
Similarly, “social consequences” as I’m using the term has nothing to do with judges and law enforcement, and everything to do with your neighbors telling you what they think.
Exactly. That’s the crux of the matter. It is called vigilante justice. Unlawfully punishing people for their beliefs, for saying nasty things, for being pricks or whatever, in short: for being X or Y or doing things you disagree with and that you feel should be criminal offenses – but aren’t. I’ve to admit I don’t understand why you think that entitles you to take matters in your own hands, though.
Why should the person who says something offensive be protected from others expressing their opinion about its offensiveness?
Why should people be required to associate with someone whose views they find offensive? Or buy their books? Or give them access to a (privately owned) performance venue?
If I get up on my soapbox and say something offensive, but no one is allowed to yell at me, doesn’t that mean that free speech only belongs to the first person to grab the soapbox? Or maybe to the person with the largest box?
According to Merriam-Webster it’s “to inflict a penalty for the commission of (an offense) in retribution or retaliation”. If you want to hear it in my own words: It’s like love. You may not be able to define it, but you know when it happens.
I can’t answer this question. That shouldn’t happen, the critics should be able to express their opinion without fear of retaliation, too.
Because it’s the law? Is it fair that a Pagan shop can’t discriminate against a (potential) employee who happens to be a hardcore Christian? Should you be forced to serve Jewish customers in your Halal restaurant?
While you can’t change your “race” (in 2022, that is), the legislator felt the need to step in and also prevent discrimination based on beliefs. Religious beliefs. Which you can change. For some strange reason not political beliefs. Yet.
I certainly wouldn’t make book purchases mandatory. Don’t know why you ask me this question.
Yeah, that’s the same line of thinking when people put “Whites only” signs on their businesses. It’s their property, so they can do with it whatever they please and serve who they want, right?
Why I think these kind of anti-discrimination laws should also cover political beliefs or affiliations? Because the point is not who owns the business, but who it’s supposed to serve. If the answer is “the general public” (in contrary, say, to a closed, membership based club) – then you can’t just exclude people based on unrelated “offenses”.
I don’t know? That’s not what I believe. At all. You can voice your disagreement. If you decide to take away the other speaker’s soapbox, because you think the speaker does’t deserve to be heard – that’s a very different problem.
I’m talking about the people on stage, not the customers in the audience.
This is along the same lines as requiring a publisher to buy certain books.
There’s a whole body of law involving “compelled speech,” the summary of which is that requiring someone to endorse particular speech is just as much a violation of free speech principles as silencing them.
I can’t be required to pay for another speaker’s soapbox.
Well, I don’t know the contract details, but either the venue hired the comedian for this show or the comedian rented the stage. So it’s either the equivalent of an “employee” or a “customer” (besides the audience, who are definitely customers without quotes). But this is irrelevant. The point is that “anyone” can do it and the venue itself had no objections at all. Until they had.
It’s not. It’s along the same line as requiring a publisher to publish the book of a black author or a female author or a Buddhist author who get rejected based on what they are or believe in. This would have to be proven in court, of course.
The venue was not required to speak or endorse anything. They just hosted a damn comedy event. Or, almost did. Without context you’d think they dared to invite Hitler or Stalin.
Yeah. That’s true. I absolutely support you in your resistance. For a world without the requirement to pay for other peoples’ soapboxes!
Since I already did that for “punishment”, I assume this time you struggle with the “unlawful” part? That’s when you are not allowed to do it. Like in… taking away that soapbox while someone is standing on it, delivering a speech. Or “suggesting” to soap box dealers to “better not” not sell them to “people like that”. Not your job and not in your responsibility. If in doubt, call the cops and let them sort that out. Sue. Cry. Petition.
Please find an example where a rejected author even attempted to force someone to publish them on those grounds. I’m pretty sure you are extending the purported reach of anti-discrimination laws well past their actual boundaries.
