I hear what all of you are saying, but I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Having respect for the culture and people you're writing about, not doing any harm, practicing sensitivity, being mindful of inclusion and diversity ... all of these are different sides of the same coin, and they fall to the writer, not to some third party or governing body to make the distinction. That IS censorship, no matter how you choose to label it. It's also fraught with the very concepts some of you are arguing against because where does it end? Who has the final say, and what gives that person the power or the right to deem someone else's work inappropriate, offensive, or illegal?
And, by the way, we've already done that throughout history. We've banned books. We've banned certain types of writing. And it didn't work. People did it anyway. And when the governing body doing the banning and the censoring fell, so did the restrictive practices.
Yes, there is material out there that promotes hate and violence. There is material out there that mocks certain cultures. There always has been. Always. I'm not saying it's right or that I condone it. I do not. But ... and here's my point.... I also DO NOT READ IT. As humans we have the gift of free will. In my eyes - and this is only my perception (but they do say it's everything), what some of you are suggesting would take away that free will. It would take away my CHOICE of what I read or what I pass over. Sorry folks, but I have a huge problem with that, and if you think about it, most people would. Because where does THAT end? Today it might be my reading choices. Tomorrow it could be what brand of toothpaste or shampoo I use. And the next day, it might be what I say, or who I choose to love.
The sad truth is that you're not going to stop people from writing things that offend, or that promote violence and hate, by having a third party censor their work. Not unless you shut down Amazon, and all the other platforms whereby people can publish their work. A traditional publisher has the right to refuse any book, for their own reasons, and it certainly is within their power to do so. But no one who truly wants to promote hate and violence needs a traditional publisher to do it.
All it takes is a keyboard and the ability to use a computer to "publish" a book on Amazon, or one of the other third party publishing platforms. And for that matter, anyone can promote their agenda on their blog or website, for free. They don't even have to sell their writing to make their point. The best anyone can do in that instance is report the site or the blog to the hosting company, as most of them have rules in their teams of service against certain types of posts. Even reporting books to Amazon will sometimes lead to the book being removed. Sometimes.
Am I saying any of this is acceptable or should simply be taken in stride? No. Of course not. But it's been going on well before any of us were born, and I suspect it will continue because human beings are human beings. Perhaps one day it will change. We can certainly hold out hope that it does. But if history proves anything, it proves that hate and violence have always existed among human beings. No matter which ancient texts you read, across cultures and religions, you will find instances of hate for other groups, other cultures, other people. You will find violence against fellow man. You will find fear of those who are different. You will find instances where a dominant culture or religion has attempted to "force" people to become just like them - to convert them, if you will. All in the name of their supreme being.
What I'm saying is that none of what you're suggesting we ban from all writing is new to people. It's as ancient as we as a race are. That doesn't make it right. Not at all. I don't have any answers for eradicating it. We have access to all the education in the world at our fingertips, but you can't get inside someone's head. You can't force them to think a certain way. Until our HEARTS change, the hate and the violence will exist.
But, seriously, I think it's a great thing. I also really like how the writers interviewed there seem to not be interested in avoiding popularity/financial loses by publishing something that might be an offensive misrepresentation—it's rather a genuine concern to not do any harm. That's really important, especially when providing products meant for young audience! Also, extremely interesting point about cultural appropriation. Indeed, wouldn't it be better if we had more minority authors published, than to pay minority readers to help create the works of the privileged majority?
