God may have given Michael Jensen a penis for a reason, but I’m still not sure why He saw fit to give him such a dick of a publisher.
1 Like
“God gave you an asshole for a reason.”
Apparently in this case, so Mr. Mortimer could be one.
4 Likes
Might be some kind of code word
They’re pretty aggressively deleting any comment that does mention it, fyi.
I love it when publishers practice censorship.
Yeah, I had a post deleted, I’ve registered my disapproval.
Tempted also to post a comment on the list of books being released on 10th Sept “Wot, no Woven?”
I love that Lyle Mortimer’s facebook page lists his occupation as “former publisher.” An omen???
Sorry, I don’t and won’t use Facebook for anything. Too major a security issue and their idea of privacy makes the NSA look close-mouthed.
2 Likes
Quick reminder: Editorial policy is not censorship, even when the policy is misguided at best. Freedom of the press belongs to the man who owns and operates one, and includes the freedom to not publish, for whatever reasons they see fit. The author has the freedom to take it to another press, unless they’ve sold that right – in which case one hopes, as always, that they held out for a sufficient payment to make this acceptable.
On the other hand, boycotting publishers who make misguided decisions – and telling them why you’re doing so – isn’t censorship either. You too have the right to decide what you will or won’t support.
2 Likes
This is one reason why I decided to self-publish my contemporary fantasy novel, The Destiny of Ethan King. The protagonist is gay and, although his sexuality isn’t a big issue or used as social commentary in the story, I feel some people just aren’t ready for fictional heroes who just happen to be gay. I mean, if you can’t reference your sexuality in an author bio, how will like-minded people react to prominent gay characters?
Thank you for the reminder. I see the term “censorship” abused so often, usually by people who conflate it with mere criticism and, more frequently, those who think a boycott is “censorship” that I really should know better.
This is a pretty clear case of a publisher exercising their right to choose what to publish and what not to publish, and, in Mr. Mortimer’s case, he’s exercising his right to be a complete asshole.
Actually, not to be pedantic, but when you used it, you were referring to the publisher deleting unflattering comments on Facebook, which is a slightly different issue. In some ways, it’s almost a ‘public forum’ and there’s a slightly stronger argument to be made that they were removing comments that were critical of them from public view, and thus, by some definitions, censoring them, rather than simply deciding not to publish ones they didn’t like. Facebook may allow that ability to people who run a page, and ‘removing comments you don’t want people to see’ isn’t always a bad thing (say it’s anti-gay posting on a gay fandom page), but it’s a whole different kettle of fish from a publisher deciding not to publish something for whatever reason and so arguably might count as censorship.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
