Larry Correia says [1] that "ban" would not be the right word here, but what they were doing was effectively censoring his work. And the reason they did so, in the instant case, was because of politics. Period.

[1] http://monsterhunternation.com/2016/02/10/left-wing-bias-in-...

To which I'd say, "And?"

The fact that you say something controversial doesn't change the relationship between an author and a publisher from "I'll publish your book if I think it's good and will sell" into "I'll publish your book absolutely because it makes a political stand".

He's free to find another publisher, or as in this case, self-publish. This seems about as clear a case of "move along, nothing to see here" as the internet is capable of providing.

If the publisher chose not to publish the book because they don't think its good, and will sell, that is one thing. If the publisher chose not publish the book, because they agree with the politics of it, that I would dislike.

As far as I can tell no one gains in a society where the right refuses to work with the left and vis-versa. That just makes society harder for everyone.

What is far worse is when one side wields disproportionate power. Fiction has long played a role in advancing social morals. Imagine a case where in a society that was very, very homophobic. If books that featured lgbqt in a good light were not published... and it was considered okay because that is the publishers right, that would be a bad thing.

Finally, I think our rules on situations like this should be abstracted away from poltiical or social beliefs. It is easy to say that we can judge the publishers in my hypothetical wrong, because homophobia is bad, but the publishers in this actual instance okay, because there is nothing wrong with being pro-choice.

However there is a danger in that, and this is largely inspired by http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html, but we have been pretty bad as society and individuals at judging what is good. Which is why I am hesitant to be okay with censoring something I disagree with, it may very well turn out that I am wrong.

You seem to be responding to a different situation than the one presented here. At least according to the OP, this author wasn't taking a political stand — it was just a small plot detail. They didn't even ask him to change it. Somebody saw something they didn't like and attempted to punish the author in the most severe way available to them. This is their right, of course, but you have the right to do lots of lousy things, including burn books.

They did ask him to change it. And the "punishment" was just to not publish him. Hardly severe, given the large number of other publishers available, and now the pretty good option of going without a publisher altogether.

"Publisher asks author to change book" hardly seems worthy of attention.

According to the author, they had already killed the book before they even sent him any notes. That seems to be the biggest part of what he found so upsetting.

The book was removed from the schedule, but I imagine it could have been reinstated (reschedule?) if the requested changes had been made. Certainly a dick move by the publisher if it went down like that, but the choice to change the offending section seems to have been there.

As much as this isn't an atttempt to "ban" the book it also isn't an attempt to "censor" the book. It's simply a publisher saying 'We don't want to publish this book in this form". And they could say that for any reason, including a political one.

Now, he may have signed a contract with this publisher that has the literary equivalent to a non-compete in it ( "You can only publish through us" ), but that's on him.

Larry finds liberal bias in any outcome in which his results aren't what he perceives they ought to be. He also is a poor writer (imo obviously; I've half-read two books before quitting because I was bored) who likes to write superman books and is offended by any reader that prefers moderately more complex fiction than when the reader was an 8 year old child. To top it off, Larry is in the midst of a 3-year (and counting!) tantrum that the Hugos include, and sometimes give awards to, anything but straight white men. So, you know, giant grain of salt.

ps -- Daniel Wilson wrote Robopocalypse [1] which I found a good read; so there's at least one publisher in the sci-fi realm that continues to publish robot apocalypse fiction

[1] http://www.amazon.com/Robopocalypse-Contemporaries-Daniel-H-...

Correia has also made a good deal of money off his books (unsurprising, since "GET PAID" is part of his core mission statement as a writer). Apparently, he's such a poor writer that people are attempting to drown him in dollars in an attempt to make him stop. ;-)

I have no idea about his financial results, but his ongoing tantrum that some people don't like his books would lead most observers to believe they aren't awesome. You don't generally see successful authors mocking folks who don't like their stuff.

> Larry Correia says [1] that "ban" would not be the right word here, but what they were doing was effectively censoring his work. And the reason they did so, in the instant case, was because of politics.

And, if so...which we have only his claim for, and its quite possible the publisher had other reasons, assuming its actually true that they refused it...so what? The right to make political choices about what you publish is exactly the central and most important part of the First Amendment's freedom of the press.

It does become worrying where there is a press monopoly or conspiring oligopoly preventing publication of certain political views and, so, suppressing them in the marketplace of ideas, but that's not happening here, and the evidence is the fact that his book is being published, and available through the dominant retail channel for such works.

There is a de facto conspiring oligopoly preventing publication of certain political views, which Correia knows about and mentioned in his post because he's experienced it firsthand. It's not a direct conspiracy, to be sure, but it's a de facto conspiracy because the publishing executives are all part of the same culture and have the same views.

What you're engaging in is part of the second way Correia predicted that Cole would be attacked and dismissed, namely, by quibbling over the exact definitions of "censorship" and "banned." Oh, and we have Cole's own words about why the publisher rejected the book. The publisher yanked the book of the schedule, without even asking first if Cole would revise the point that they found unacceptable.

> There is a de facto conspiring oligopoly preventing publication of certain political views, which Correia knows about and mentioned in his post because he's experienced it firsthand.

There is not a conspiring oligopoly preventing publication of the political views at issue, which I know about and mention in this post because those views are in fact published in works that are available through major commercial channels.

There may be a group of major publishers with biases which result in them not publishing the views that Correia and Cole complain about being "banned", but it is not only not a "ban", but its not a conspiring (or even independently acting in the same interest -- which seems to be what you mean with the "de facto conspiracy" description) oligopoly with the power to prevent the views from being widely published and the works embodying the views from being readily available through major outlets. As is evidenced by the fact that the views are widely published, and the works containing them are readily available through major outlets. Including, emphatically, the work of Cole's that this thread concerns.

> What you're engaging in is part of the second way Correia predicted that Cole would be attacked and dismissed, namely, by quibbling over the exact definitions of "censorship" and "banned."

I absolutely agree that this is censorship. The right to censor works one publishes is central the right of freedom of the press. No quibbling there.

But when it comes to "ban", yes, I certainly disagree that with any description that this is a ban -- not only by a strict definition, but even by a loose analogy. I certainly agree that were there an alignment (conspiratorial or not) of publishers collectively wielding enough power over the market that could and did prevent certain political views from receiving wide circulation, that would be a lot like a ban. And, I'm open to the idea that, for some views, such an alignment does exist. But what happened to Cole is not evidence of anything that is even remotely similar to a ban. Because the book is being published, in a manner which makes it available through the single most significant outlet for retailing books, one which has a majority of the market for books.

> Oh, and we have Cole's own words about why the publisher rejected the book.

Cole is, obviously, not a neutral source of information on the matter.

The post you reference also mentions that the resulting free publicity is boosting Nick's sales of his existing books. So, at least there's some upside to his current situation.

Which is point #3 that Correia predicted would be used to attack Cole: "This is all a publicity stunt to sell more books." Correia is not necessarily condemning that, of course, but he did also warn Cole that, as a result, he is likely to be slandered by the CHORFs [1] with every vile accusation imaginable. I'll let you decide if higher book sales is sufficient compensation for having your name dragged through the mud like that.

[1] "Cliquish, Holier-than-thou, Obnoxious, Reactionary, Fanatics." A coinage by Brad Torgersen. See e.g. https://bradrtorgersen.wordpress.com/2015/03/31/chorf-its-a-...

er, I didn't attack anyone, nor did I imply anything about "sufficient compensation". I said "some upside".

I thought they did it because of sales.