3 ms·

The goal of a publisher is to make money selling books. There are many books that publishers do not publish because of concerns that the book will not be a net

The goal of a publisher is to make money selling books. There are many books that publishers do not publish because of concerns that the book will not be a net positive to profits. Authors are free to self-publish, and it has never been easier to do so. Authors with no name recognition have been very successful at reaching large audiences. Woody Allen is already famous and could easily self-publish. It seems like Woody Allen prefers the legitimacy that comes along with being published by a publishing company. Woody Allen can self-publish his book like many other authors do. I think the issue is less about "freedom of speech" (which Woody Allen has) and more about "legitimacy of an author's writings" (which I think is what Woody Allen is actually seeking given the claims that he sexually abused his daughter). If a publisher chooses not to publish because they don't want their brand used to legitamize an author's claims, is that a violation of free speech when the author is free to publish it elsewhere?

rossdavidh 7y ago
While what you say is true, the book publisher would already be covered if the clause merely covered illegal acts. Also, it's not as if the book publisher didn't know about Woody Allen's issues before they took the contract. More fundamentally, everything you mention could as well be turned around the other way. What if, after signing the contract, the author decided they didn't like the publisher's reputation, and wanted to terminate the contract and self-publish? I expect the publisher would say something like, "hey, we have a contract! that's an obligation on your part!" If the author wanted an equally vague "morals clause" regarding the publisher, which gave the author an out to cancel the contract whenever they deemed it advisable, the publisher would not agree to such a clause.

rossdavidh 7y ago

While what you say is true, the book publisher would already be covered if the clause merely covered illegal acts. Also, it's not as if the book publisher didn't know about Woody Allen's issues before they took the contract. More fundamentally, everything you mention could as well be turned around the other way. What if, after signing the contract, the author decided they didn't like the publisher's reputation, and wanted to terminate the contract and self-publish? I expect the publisher would say something like, "hey, we have a contract! that's an obligation on your part!" If the author wanted an equally vague "morals clause" regarding the publisher, which gave the author an out to cancel the contract whenever they deemed it advisable, the publisher would not agree to such a clause.