[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

If the content was seen as good by a publisher then I'm sure she would be.


Don't think this is true, I think you're possibly extrapolating some unique situations to make a more broad brush statement.

Staff working on Rowling’s latest children’s book, The Ickabog, at Hachette were so “upset” they threatened to down tools. The management pushed back. “We will never make our employees work on a book whose content they find upsetting for personal reasons, but we draw a distinction between that and refusing to work on a book because they disagree with an author’s views outside their writing, which runs contrary to our belief in free speech,” was the official statement.

Even established authors have been cancelled. Only certain groups are allowed to be "upset" or have people "upset" on their behalf. How far would I get if I drew up a list of things and opinions that I fine offensive, and I reported them to the Police?



In how many instances is the argument more than simply "I don't like it"? Are reasoned arguments given?

This discussion particularly intensified last week, after a group of prominent artists, writers, and journalists signed an open letter in the US monthly Harper’s Magazine. With signatories including Noam Chomsky, Margaret Atwood and Salman Rushdie, this letter was a defence of “open debate” – something these public figures feared is becoming increasingly unavailable. “The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted… it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought,” it reads. “Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.”