JohnPhilpin
JohnPhilpin

Woody Allen’s memoirs: this is the behaviour of censors, not publishers.

What do you think?

|
Embed
Bruce
Bruce

@JohnPhilpin I have a hard time calling it censorship when it’s private actors doing it to a powerful person. Allen can quite easily self-publish, so no one is silencing him.

|
Embed
JohnPhilpin
JohnPhilpin

@Bruce truth in that. so of course that would mean that twitter (as a private actor) can cut off certain accounts - and that too would not be censorship.

|
Embed
Bruce
Bruce

@bix I also think, even if one disagrees with Hatchette’s decision, calling it censorship is like calling the American political process rigged. Glanville compares Allen's situation with Gay News' prosecution by Woodhouse. Using the state to silence people is different than risking one's job to pressure one's private employer. Conflating the two robs the word "censorship" of its power. //@johnphilpin

|
Embed
Bruce
Bruce

@JohnPhilpin I think Twitter is a more difficult situation as it is open for anyone to sign up. Publishers already choose whom to publish (and within that whom to really promote). I think publishing has a problem ignoring POC, but I don’t think that is censorship.

|
Embed
In reply to
JohnPhilpin
JohnPhilpin

@bix well yes ... but as i understand it - there have been court battles - but as yet he has not been found guilty - and thus ‘sent down’ … a la crosby and weinstein …

so IF one is presumed innocent until proven guilty - are they exposing themselves to lawsuits - like the allen / amazon one ….

Also noting that Polanski was found guilty - did a runner and decades later operates with impunity, continues to win awards and CA has done nothing about extraditing him. In fact we can still watch his movies - and will - I am sure - despite the walk out - ‘An Office and Spy’ will soon be available for your viewing pleasure all over America …

A little consistency is all I am looking for ... and of course if we cut off access to any books, films, art, theater made by people who are ‘found guilty of a crime' - that's going to cut a lot of art out ...

// @bruce

|
Embed
JohnPhilpin
JohnPhilpin

@Bruce they chose - and then under pressure - chose to change their minds ....

|
Embed
jean
jean

@JohnPhilpin et al. Coming from my perspective as an one-time publishing house employee, I am relieved on behalf of the workers.

Seriously, if it’s such a great book, Allen should self-publish. Plenty of authors do it. He will make even more money. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with this.

|
Embed
JohnPhilpin
JohnPhilpin

@macgenie All good. All good. I have no problem with the cancelling.

BUT - they do have a contract. I wonder if whoever signed the contract in Hachette will be fired - because it is going to cost them and ultimately they are part of a Public company - so it will cost the shareholders.

Get the popcorn.

|
Embed
Cheri
Cheri

@JohnPhilpin Seems to me that everyone is exercising their agency here. Allen was free to persue a deal. Hachette was free to agree or not. Employees are free to protest. The public is free to condemn the book. Hachette is free to change their mind.

Freedom all ‘round.

|
Embed
JohnPhilpin
JohnPhilpin

@Cheri absolutely 100% correct.

|
Embed
Bruce
Bruce

@JohnPhilpin Re: Polanski and extradition, I believe France has made it very clear that they have no intent to ever allow it. And the French have their own issues with Great Male Artists and underage women.

As for consistency, I’d guess the people who called for Hachette to not publish Allen’s book would also favor canceling the release of Polanski’s new film. But the only entity that theoretically has power over both the book and the film is the government and it is being quite consistent by staying out of both situations. //@bix

|
Embed