4 ms·
> There are two main causes of concern for Emerald. Firstly, the work could be seen to incite racial hatred and stir up religious hatred under United Kingdom la
by manfredo 7y ago
> There are two main causes of concern for Emerald. Firstly, the work could be seen to incite racial hatred and stir up religious hatred under United Kingdom law. Clearly you have no intention of promoting racism but intent can be irrelevant. For example, one test is merely whether it is “likely” that racial hatred could be stirred up as a result of the work. This is a particular difficulty given modern means of digital media expression. The potential for circulation of the more controversial passages of the manuscript online, without the wider intellectual context of the work as a whole and to a very broad audience—in a manner beyond our control—represents a material legal risk for Emerald.
This is very chilling to me. If someone quotes the original material out of context and uses that deceptively quoted excerpt to stir up racial or religious hatred then the original publisher is liable. Pretty much anything even remotely controversial could fall foul of this law.
- DanBC 7y ago> Pretty much anything even remotely controversial could fall foul of this law. That's not how English law works though. Please can you link to the section of English law being talked about? Or any cases on Bailii or judiciary.gov for offences under this law? The author has article 10 rights to freedom of expression if he thinks he's being censored. I think if people read the actual law, or previous cases, they're normally somewhat reassured.
- manfredo 7y agoThis quote is the publisher's reply to Flynn.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]