- Aug 21, 2010
Progress, or at least "progressiveness," rolls on.
In the #MeToo Moment, Publishers Turn to Morality Clauses
In the US right now there is an increasing tendency to treat people who are defending the right to firearms as defenders of violence, even though it is based on 12th and 17th century English law. Some countries are making it illegal for women to cover their faces with veils. Morality is no longer a clear societal wide code of right or wrong, but a rapidly shifting and often partisan rulebook that operates more like fashion.Who decides what is right/wrong?
Exactly. A publishing house has the right to publish or not; but not to decide what is moral or not.Who decides what is right/wrong?
Publishers being able to opt out completely for any revealed "anti-social" behavior at any point in the author's life puts a tremendous burden on the author to have never done anything that might be newly judged as unacceptable.
I think another key factor here is the nature of morality - I wouldn't for example read a book written by a convicted peadophile, no matter how amazing it may be - my moral compass would cloud everything I read, so I understand there are going to be personal differences and morality is such a specific thing - it varies by place, gender, ethnicity, culture, age and many other factors, so lumping moral equivalence for everyone seems to ,me a bad idea.
I abhor his views on homosexuality and same sex marriage ... However he has a right to have those views and I think a commercial boycott on his work due to his moral stance would have made SFF a poorer place.
One of the problems is that the publishers do not seem to be tying the definition down...the article simply suggests publishers are now putting in that provision to protect themselves and their brand