Simon & Schuster cancels the publication of Sen. Josh Hawley's upcoming book "The Tyranny of Big Tech"

[sw0mp_d0nk3y]

Just make it a ebook, who even cares about normal books anymore at this point there loss.

Ironically, Amazon would likely happily sell it for him.

 

[sw0mp_d0nk3y]

Publishers aren't responsible for censorship. They choose who they publish or don't publish based on any criteria they feel like. Try getting them to publish your book. Anyone in America can get a book published if they want to, fairly inexpensively. In Hawley's case, someone will step up to publish his book, because it will sell.

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

He was courting the retard vote by kow towing to the morons who assaulted the capitol.

He can self publish.

 

[AgentP]

Thus proving Hawley’s point.

Are you against private companies now? Should the government mandate publication? Conservatism vs Right Wing nuttery, which wins?

 

[oagboghi2]

Are you against private companies now? Should the government mandate publication? Conservatism vs Right Wing nuttery, which wins?

I'm sorry, do liberals not think government should mandate publications?

You guys are already happy cancelling people who don't say the correct pronouns. Firing people from their jobs if they don't have the right ideas, banning them from social media If they criticize the wrong groups, arresting then if they don't wear masks or stay locked up in their homes.

"Right wing nuttery" seems to be just catching up with where the left went 4 years ago

 

[Patriots7]

So you'll be fine if your company decides to fire you for what they possibly might see as a lamentable post history on GAF?

It's a yes or no question.

I just want to press you to check for internal consistency. And, to be clear, as long as contractual obligations are met, companies and employees should be able to terminate their relationship when they see fit.

Yes.

Part of the reason I lurked for 12 years on GAF was just to avoid that issue, since my prior employer was extremely strict on client-facing employees' online presence. We specifically rejected candidates who were dumb enough to have a public social media account and post questionable material.

Elected officials whose public actions and words have real life impacts, and in this case, may have contributed to the loss of life should definitely be held to a higher standard.

 

[HeresJohnny]

Are you against private companies now? Should the government mandate publication? Conservatism vs Right Wing nuttery, which wins?

I’m against censorship, you fucking nutter.

 

[NickFire]

Until recently I hadn't seen so many people cheer the erosion of freedoms since the end of Episode 3. All over the internet there's people essentially screaming YES MASTER CEO, YAY FOR MASTER CEO, etc.

 

[e&e]

I’m against censorship, you fucking nutter.

That’s not censorship you quack!

 

[NickFire]

Are you against private companies now? Should the government mandate publication? Conservatism vs Right Wing nuttery, which wins?

The government should protect the freedom of expression in all public squares. If it has the power to take a man's land to give to corporations (which it does), it certainly has the power to protect the spirit of the first amendment where millions and sometimes billions of people congregate to speak. And only a fool would suggest the government has not used its power to protect the spirit of the constitution, or the population at large when they were subject to corporate oppression. A couple examples:

Spirit of the Constitution as opposed to exact text:

1) Right to have counsel paid by the tax payer.;
2) Abortion rights

Protecting men and women instead of "private companies"
1) Utility services
2) Railroads and other mass transit
3) anti-monopoly legislation
4) essentially every regulation in America.

 

[B-universe]

That’s not censorship you quack!

So you support the right of business owners to deny service to, say, atheists, pro-abortion customers, etc.?

Let the record show Mr. e&e, as a matter of principle, supports the right of business owners to serve whoever they please and deny service to whoever they please.

Welcome aboard.

Are you against private companies now? Should the government mandate publication? Conservatism vs Right Wing nuttery, which wins?

So you support the right of business owners to deny service to, say, atheists, pro-abortion customers, etc.?

Let the record show Mr. AgentP., as a matter of principle, supports the right of business owners to serve whoever they please and deny service to whoever they please.

Welcome aboard.

 

[sw0mp_d0nk3y]

Clearly a lot of knuckleheads here don't understand how publishing companies work, and how that's different than owning a diner or a store. I just wrote an awesome movie about what chimp Trump is, and Disney wouldn't produce it for me. Censorship!!!

 

[NickFire]

Clearly a lot of knuckleheads here don't understand how publishing companies work, and how that's different than owning a diner or a store. I just wrote an awesome movie about what chimp Trump is, and Disney wouldn't produce it for me. Censorship!!!

Maybe you should check back in after you sign a publishing deal, and then have it cancelled it because of a political speech that fascists disagreed with.

 

[B-universe]

Clearly a lot of knuckleheads here don't understand how publishing companies work, and how that's different than owning a diner or a store. I just wrote an awesome movie about what chimp Trump is, and Disney wouldn't produce it for me. Censorship!!!

What a dumbass comment.

The issue is of internal consistency, not censorship.

If you are ok with a private publishing company refusing their services to a potential customer simply, explicitly and openly on political grounds, there is no good reason you would oppose any other business refusing service to, say, atheists, or pro-abortion activists.

There is no substantive difference.

Please tap dance some more.
It's a spectacle to watch.

 

[HeresJohnny]

That’s not censorship you quack!

Sure it is. They’re reneging on a previous agreement involving the publication of a book based on beliefs they disagree with. If it is t censorship, what is it?

 

[HeresJohnny]

Maybe you should check back in after you sign a publishing deal, and then have it cancelled it because of a political speech that fascists disagreed with.

And he should try breathing through his nose more.

 

[Vow of Silence]

Until recently I hadn't seen so many people cheer the erosion of freedoms since the end of Episode 3. All over the internet there's people essentially screaming YES MASTER CEO, YAY FOR MASTER CEO, etc.

Yep. It’s like invasion of the body snatchers. Truly disturbing.

 

[Ten_Fold]

Gonna get worse, big tech got all the power, legit need laws in place to stop them.

 

[CGiRanger]

Gonna get worse, big tech got all the power, legit need laws in place to stop them.

Which will be impossible with the amount of money and ownership they have.

Heck, didn't several former Big Tech employees from Facebook and others have people ready to literally be appointed/join Biden's cabinet?

 

[oagboghi2]

Clearly a lot of knuckleheads here don't understand how publishing companies work, and how that's different than owning a diner or a store. I just wrote an awesome movie about what chimp Trump is, and Disney wouldn't produce it for me. Censorship!!!

Another retarded take from a leftist on this board

 

[sw0mp_d0nk3y]

Read the contract. Its their discretion to cancel whenever they want, for any reason.

 

[HeresJohnny]

Read the contract. Its their discretion to cancel whenever they want, for any reason.

Just because it’s legal doesn’t make it any less censorship, dude.

 

[e&e]

Clearly a lot of knuckleheads here don't understand how publishing companies work, and how that's different than owning a diner or a store. I just wrote an awesome movie about what chimp Trump is, and Disney wouldn't produce it for me. Censorship!!!

This is why I don’t engage Whataboutism...make an argument about what the person did and maybe I’ll respond...

Sure it is. They’re reneging on a previous agreement involving the publication of a book based on beliefs they disagree with. If it is t censorship, what is it?

Yesterday’s craziness is not a “belief” what the fuck!

 

[sw0mp_d0nk3y]

This is why I don’t engage Whataboutism...make an argument about what the person did and maybe I’ll respond...

Yesterday’s craziness is not a “belief” what the fuck!

Dude you just literally engaged in my whataboutism.

 

[sw0mp_d0nk3y]

Just because it’s legal doesn’t make it any less censorship, dude.

Didn't we just spend 4 years defending someone's every sketchy immoral move with "it isn't illegal".

 

[e&e]

Dude you just literally engaged in my whataboutism.

I got triggered because of the chaos and recency, and didn’t even read your second sentence, I’m only human...

PS: my Whataboutism comment wasn’t directed at you.

 

[HeresJohnny]

Didn't we just spend 4 years defending someone's every sketchy immoral move with "it isn't illegal".

Bu bu Trump!

And Trump wasn’t trying to censor anyone so your attempt at a point is moot.

 

[TheKillerStove]

Read the contract. Its their discretion to cancel whenever they want, for any reason.

Why is it every time shit like this happens people come out of the woodwork with "They legally have the right, though! First ammendment is only government!" like we're a bunch of brain dead fuckwits. We KNOW they have the right! We're arguing that as businesses become more capable than governments in stifling speech, that government should step in and create legislation to ensure the spirit of the first ammendment is maintained. I swear it's pitiful how many will come out of the woodwork to support suppression of speech just because the power is in the hands of Megacorps A through E instead of your typical tyrannical dictator.

 

[B-universe]

This is why I don’t engage Whataboutism...make an argument about what the person did and maybe I’ll respond...

Yesterday’s craziness is not a “belief” what the fuck!

No, the reason is because you were left blushing and speechless, because a blatant contradiction in your thinking was exposed and you have no comeback. So you can try this mock victory lap of yours now, but the truth remains you were asked a simple question, which you didn't answer. Deal with it.

Grow a spine.

Dude you just literally engaged in my whataboutism.

Yes, you were gloating about your knowledge of the publishing industry ten seconds ago, how people were failing to understand the topic, you even brought the Film Industry. That wasn't Whataboutism. No, siree. When your contradictions are pointed out, then your alarms go off, and you can't bring yourself to answer a basic Yes or No question.

I do not fear having my convictions tested for internal consistency.

Have some decency.

Didn't we just spend 4 years defending someone's every sketchy immoral move with "it isn't illegal".

Who's "we"?
Do you hear voices in "your" head?

Luckily, I definitely don't share your stenchy morality.

And, for the record, I'm not religious, I am pro-choice and stand by the right of every business owner to deny service to whoever for whatever reason.

I'm not the one caught up in endless contradictions.

It's you and your partner in this impromptu Dynamic Duo of Inanity who twist themselves in knots at every opportunity, contradiction after contradiction after contradiction after contradiction.

Next time any of you two complain about services being denied to someone, in all your left-wing high horse zeal, I'll be here reminding you both what you posted January 08, 2021.

 

[sw0mp_d0nk3y]

I got triggered because of the chaos and recency, and didn’t even read your second sentence, I’m only human...

PS: my Whataboutism comment wasn’t directed at you.

Ha. Sorry about that. I was even going to say it wasn't quite whataboutism, but just plowed through. I have to remember that not every single response I get is always antagonistic.

 

[sw0mp_d0nk3y]

Why is it every time shit like this happens people come out of the woodwork with "They legally have the right, though! First ammendment is only government!" like we're a bunch of brain dead fuckwits. We KNOW they have the right! We're arguing that as businesses become more capable than governments in stifling speech, that government should step in and create legislation to ensure the spirit of the first ammendment is maintained. I swear it's pitiful how many will come out of the woodwork to support suppression of speech just because the power is in the hands of Megacorps A through E instead of your typical tyrannical dictator.

Ok. I hear you. But there are a lot of people that attack this shit as 1st amendment that don't know what they are talking about. Nobody forces these guys to sign the contracts that they sign, they could fight harder for contracts without cancel clauses. I don't think you are ever going to get the government to make a law that doesn't allow two parties to enter into a contract that they both agree to. I understand the distinction of your point though.

 

[NickFire]

Why is it every time shit like this happens people come out of the woodwork with "They legally have the right, though! First ammendment is only government!" like we're a bunch of brain dead fuckwits. We KNOW they have the right! We're arguing that as businesses become more capable than governments in stifling speech, that government should step in and create legislation to ensure the spirit of the first ammendment is maintained. I swear it's pitiful how many will come out of the work to support suppression of speech just because the power is in the hands of Megacorps A through E instead of your typical tyrannical dictator.

They regurgitate zingers and ignore every opportunity to address reasoned counter-points. But you can't really fault people for that when so much "education" has devolved to promote liberal arts theory and indoctrination at the expense of critical thinking. With a properly focused education they might understand that the same arguments they regurgitate about the rights of "private businesses" being superior to freedom for all, actually originated with people fighting against civil rights legislation. Or maybe they do realize it and just don't care.

But let's be real. In my opinion, they just like seeing people they disagree with silenced.

 

[e&e]

Wall of text.

Whatever feeds your Whataboutism arguments, just know by using that tactic you can’t really argue and I will ignore! Hopefully you are okay with that.

 

[Explosive Zombie]

Whatever feeds your Whataboutism arguments, just know by using that tactic you can’t really argue and I will ignore! Hopefully you are okay with that.

Whataboutism man I remember when that started becoming popular. it's basically only used in politics in almost exclusively by the left wing of politics and the reason why it's used by them is because they need to stop you from taking advantage of the precedents they have set. Whether it's Bush after Clinton or Trump after Obama it doesn't matter what they swept under the rug for their candidate, it doesn't matter what their candidate got away with or what they argued away for their candidate all that matters is that your candidate did something wrong. It's basically a logical fallacy invented to excuse people from having standards and allow them to be hypocrites.

 

[AgentP]

We're arguing that as businesses become more capable than governments in stifling speech, that government should step in and create legislation to ensure the spirit of the first ammendment is maintained.

What now? You want the government to force a publisher to pushish a book between two parties? This idiot's free speech is not being hampered one bit. He can give the book away online, he can self publish anytime he wants. This is about a contract, for profit, between two private parties.

 

[NickFire]

What now? You want the government to force a publisher to pushish a book between two parties? This idiot's free speech is not being hampered one bit. He can give the book away online, he can self publish anytime he wants. This is about a contract, for profit, between two private parties.

Oh for Pete's sake. He's addressing a much broader issue that was brought back to the forefront by a specific action. You don't look smarter by ignoring an elephant in the room Stevie Wonder.

 

[B-universe]

Why is it every time shit like this happens people come out of the woodwork with "They legally have the right, though! First ammendment is only government!" like we're a bunch of brain dead fuckwits. We KNOW they have the right! We're arguing that as businesses become more capable than governments in stifling speech, that government should step in and create legislation to ensure the spirit of the first ammendment is maintained. I swear it's pitiful how many will come out of the woodwork to support suppression of speech just because the power is in the hands of Megacorps A through E instead of your typical tyrannical dictator.

I disagree.

Government has no business and certainly no legitimacy to regulate or dictate how private companies run their operations insofar they're not violating the rights of others. Period. Provided they are not violating individual rights - which in this case they are not, since having a book published is not a right - companies can do whatever they want.

The solution is to quit the platforms which are actively working in favour of your adversaries and build your own alternatives by coming together with like-minded people.

Twitter, Facebook and to a lesser extent Youtube are being partial in favour of the mainstream Left. For what tactical reason would you give them clicks, money and content? Don't buy books from a publisher who issues a statement like the above quoted, if you strongly disagree with it.

The solution is not more state.
It is more private initiative.

 

[B-universe]

Whatever feeds your Whataboutism arguments, just know by using that tactic you can’t really argue and I will ignore! Hopefully you are okay with that.

You can't answer a basic Yes and No question.
Noted.

Let the record show e&e now supports businesses denying service to customers on political grounds. And I agree. Businesses should have the right to deny service for whatever reason.

It's always a pleasure watching as the zealous left-winger inches towards the right position.

Keep them coming.

 

[NickFire]

I disagree.

Government has no business and certainly no legitimacy to regulate or dictate how private companies run their operations insofar they're not violating the rights of others. Period. Provided they are not violating individual rights - which in this case they are not, since having a book published is not a right - companies can do whatever they want.

The solution is to quit the platforms which are actively working in favour of your adversaries and build your own alternatives by coming together with like-minded people.

Twitter, Facebook and to a lesser extent Youtube are being partial in favour of the mainstream Left. For what tactical reason would you give them clicks, money and content? Don't buy books from a publisher who issues a statement like the above quoted, if you strongly disagree with it.

The solution is not more state.
It is more private initiative.

That is a well reasoned argument, which I genuinely want to agree with. But I cannot agree with it like I would have years prior, because in my opinion there are threats to the first which the founders could not have predicted. The threats stem from the transformation of the public square and consolidation of power into the hands of corporate gatekeepers to then unimaginable degrees. In the late 1700's no one would have imagined one man could be allowed to instantaneously spread their message to billions of people while the average man, who the bill of rights was designed to protect, would be limited to those literally in ear shot during that time frame. And in the 1700's no one could have imagined that the public square would move to a digital superhighway controlled by a small handful of men.

Again though, I appreciate your argument and understand it. I just think this is one of those times when we need to legislate to protect all of our rights.

 

[Ten_Fold]

Which will be impossible with the amount of money and ownership they have.

Heck, didn't several former Big Tech employees from Facebook and others have people ready to literally be appointed/join Biden's cabinet?

Yeah, it’s gonna be an uphill battle, people are really dumb, just because big tech is on their side FOR NOW, they only doing it to gain more control. Google owns play store and Apple has the App Store so coming up with your own social media app that supports your point of view will be VERY difficult to pull off. I don’t think Biden isn’t into censorship, but Harris would for sure.

 

[oagboghi2]

What now? You want the government to force a publisher to pushish a book between two parties? This idiot's free speech is not being hampered one bit. He can give the book away online, he can self publish anytime he wants. This is about a contract, for profit, between two private parties.

Amazing how quickly liberals became libertarian. Literally overnight

Read the contract. Its their discretion to cancel whenever they want, for any reason.

Whether or not it was legal is relevant.

My god the mental gymnastics you people are jumping through

 

[belmarduk]

I’m against censorship, you fucking nutter.

Being against private publishers being able to set their own standards sounds pretty Communist to me.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Until recently I hadn't seen so many people cheer the erosion of freedoms since the end of Episode 3. All over the internet there's people essentially screaming YES MASTER CEO, YAY FOR MASTER CEO, etc.

The ultimate sign of privilege, were people are too comfortable to have their opinions challenged. A challenged opinion is just far too much for a spoiled mind to handle.

 

[B-universe]

What now? You want the government to force a publisher to pushish a book between two parties? This idiot's free speech is not being hampered one bit. He can give the book away online, he can self publish anytime he wants. This is about a contract, for profit, between two private parties.

So you're ok with a bakery not baking a wedding cake for, say, a couple with a minority background? Or a company denying service to atheists, or pro-.abortion activists?

These are Yes or No questions.
I'm sure you can manage three short answers.

 

[Nobody_Important]

So you're ok with a bakery not baking a wedding cake for, say, a couple with a minority background? Or a company denying service to atheists, or pro-.abortion activists?

These are Yes or No questions.
I'm sure you can manage three short answers.

Josh Hawley is not being discriminated against because of the color of his skin or his sexual orientation. He is having his contracted terminated because his public support of a campaign of misinformation and lies has resulted in a negative PR disaster. Bad PR that would also be directed at S&S if they were to publish his book. S&S is allowed to cut his contract for his public behavior just like an NFL team is allowed to cut a player for their behavior. Just like a restaurant is allowed to kick out a paying customer if they are being disruptive.


Terminating a contract or denying someone service based on race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation is something completely different.

 

[Vicetrailia]

Josh Hawley is not being discriminated against because of the color of his skin or his sexual orientation. He is having his contracted terminated because his public support of a campaign of misinformation and lies has resulted in a negative PR disaster. Bad PR that would also be directed at S&S if they were to publish his book. S&S is allowed to cut his contract for his public behavior just like an NFL team is allowed to cut a player for their behavior. Just like a restaurant is allowed to kick out a paying customer if they are being disruptive.


Terminating a contract or denying someone service based on race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation is something completely different.

Can’t understand business decisions because persecution narratives and free speech. Republicans become anti business due to victimization narratives.

 

[B-universe]

Josh Hawley is not being discriminated against because of the color of his skin or his sexual orientation.

You need to read more carefully. I know you're excited, but still.

I said minority background, which could include a host of traits, including political beliefs. I never mentioned sexual orientation. In fact, I went on to add, quote, "atheists" and "pro-abortion activists". Both atheism and pro-abortion activism are not innate characteristics. They're not about sexual orientation. They are or substantiate convictions.

Try harder.

He is having his contracted terminated because his public support of a campaign of misinformation and lies has resulted in negative PR disaster. Bad PR that would also be directed at S&S if they were to publish his book.

You don't need to give me your version of the events. I fully support the right of the publishing company not to publish, for whatever reason. Nobody is owed a deal with a publishing company. I have repeated this point hundreds of times now.

I am testing his - and now yours - internal consistency.

So I ask you a direct question:

Would you object to a company denying service to an atheist or pro-abortion activist on political grounds?

Let's see the consistency of your beliefs.

S&S is allowed to cut his contract for his public behavior just like an NFL team is allowed to cut a player for their behavior. Just like a restaurant is allowed to kick out a paying customer if they are being disruptive.


Terminating a contract or denying someone service based on race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation is completely different.

You don't have to lecture me about the rights of companies. One of us is for individual rights, one of us is for capitalism, and it certainly isn't you. Now answer the basic Yes or No question you were asked, if you can.

It's going to be fascinating.

 

[B-universe]

Can’t understand business decisions because persecution narratives and free speech. Republicans become anti business due to victimization narratives.

So you won't object if a company denies service to an atheist or pro-abortion activist because of politics, will you?

Good to know.
You're now on record.

 

[Vicetrailia]

So you won't object if a company denies service to an atheist or pro-abortion activist because of politics, will you?

Good to know.
You're now on record.

But will they? No. Gotta be reasonable about it.

 

[B-universe]

But will they? No. Gotta be reasonable about it.

What's that? I didn't catch your reply.

Is that a No? You will not object to companies denying service to atheists or pro-abortion activists? You seem to be having some throat problems answering the question.