By “people”, you mean “only progressives”, actually. Conservatives certainly never met a work of controversial art they wouldn’t happily ban or burn.
And yet you’re surprised that progressives won’t defend the things they abhor? Here’s a hint - the ACLU, with its “defend the Nazis” attitude and ignorance of Popper’s Paradox, doesn’t actually speak for all progressives. It never did.
Yes. Conservatives, especially those who demand blind patriotism and the religious conservatives who are against all sorts of freedom of expression also behave problematically. I don’t think I have ever denied that.
There was no censorship. The Dr. Seuss Foundation, copyright owner, decided they would no longer publish some problematic titles.
If you’re complaining about a book being in a library, that’s a really… odd… definition of “censorship”.
No doubt you must have must confused this with some other cancel grievance story.
So you think defending racist art aimed at children would be a good thing?
So, in order to appease you, you think that a publisher should be required to continue to print a book that they don’t want to print?
I applaud your commitment to your chosen narrative, but who in this instance are the “movement that will never be satisfied”? Because as repeatedly noted, nobody forced this company to do what they did, and the assertion that they would have been forced to if they hadn’t done it is…entirely speculative.
Remember that conservatives also believe that private social media companies should be forced to provide free services to them without oversight or consequence, and that refusal to do so is “censorship” and “silencing them”.
When practically anything and everything can be labeled as racist the mere labeling of something as racist no longer has much meaning.
Funny how the pendulum swings on things like the 9th and 10th amendments, the free market, destruction of private and state property, etc. when ideologically convenient. Private companies and the state for that matter should never act to appease a mob. It only empowers illiberal radicals.
You know there is a big difference between stopping the publishing of a book as it doesn’t sell or is outdated, and not published one due to criticism.
Altho certainly the publisher bowed to some complaints (and with some of the illustrations, valid complaints) the publisher may indeed give in to public demand and decide to keep published. Maybe with a a stciker or overleaf explaining the history and problematic issues.
So, that is why we are having this discussion.
Should the publisher keep publishing these books if there is a demand, or stop due to public pressure? Is there more public pressure to print or stop print?
However, if there is a outcry over the cancelation, then it would also be free market, eh?
And if the publisher is worried about public opinion, then why not give another publisher the right to print- with normal reasonable fees, of course?
That has to due more with the FCCs legal control over broadcast TV and radio.
I’m not sure the nature of your little passive aggressive accusation here. Would you like to actually explain yourself, maybe with an example, or just fecklessly make mouth noises and declare internet victory?
Great. The only mob here is the ones demanding that they continue to publish a book that they have decided they no longer wish to publish. Glad we are on the same side as that.
Piers Anthony writes children’s books. Go get Firefly and read it to your children. If you don’t, the illiberal radicals will be empowered.
Because they’re responsible for the legacy of Dr Seuss, and they feel that these 6 books are inappropriate and distract from his message. They are the product of a bygone time.
More about advertisers. FCC doesn’t regulate 24/7, you can get away with things at night you cannot during the day. It also does not regulate cable channels at all.
The amount of content that is actually regulated by the FCC is actually a pretty small percentage, and yet, most of it still conforms to “community standards”.
I do not understand the significance of this question. Yes. That would be the free market. And if the Dr. Seuss Foundation decides to revisit their decision about stopping publication of the titles and republish them, whether in their original or in a modified form, so be it.
If they have the intellectual property rights (which they do), and don’t want to give another publisher the rights to print, that’s their choice. I expect they are also entrusted in maintaining Dr. Seuss’s legacy, which I believe the estate is, and they have the right to decide that publishing those books are harmful to the estate and the Dr. Seuss legacy and not sell publishing rights.
Chip Delany’s Hogg is family-friendly bedtime reading too!
Right? The publisher is saying “these books don’t reflect our values or Dr. Seuss’s values as time went by.” It wouldn’t make sense for them to also say, “Oh, another publisher wants to publish it? Sure, just pay us and go right ahead. I’m sure that won’t reflect poorly on us or the good Dr.”
BTW, according to this, popular books like Green Eggs & Ham or One Fish, Two Fish sold more than 300,000 copies according to BookScan (they track sales at certain retailers). Mulberry Street sold 5,000 copies at those retailers and McElligot’s Pool and Cat Quizzer hasn’t sold at all at those places for years. So, the publisher is likely thinking that these aren’t very popular books anyway and they reflect badly on Seuss and us, so why continue publishing them?
Do YOU, octopus, think that the illustrations in each of these six titles deserve the description “racist” or instead are they worthy of defending as appropriate for young readers in 2021?
I did specify “broadcast”- I know quite well what comes under FCC.
And yes, they do regulate 24/7 but certainly late at nite things are looser.
Hardcore pron is not allaowed at all on braodcast TV, no matter the hour.
Some “legit” nudity can be allowed, depending.
NO! THE PUBLISHER IS NOT SAYING THAT! THE SEUSE FOUNDATION (the actual copyright holders now that Dr. Seuse is dead) IS PULLING THEM!
This is not a case of the publisher bowing to pressure; it is the AUTHOR (or now, his estate) that is pulling them from publication. And, as far as I can tell, there was not huge external pressure - they decided this on their own. This is EXACTLY what should be happening - there is no “woke” crowd screaming for change; there is the author’s estate saying “Ya know, things have changed. These might not be appropriate any more, so we’re pulling them.”
And they’re right.
The “Chinaman” (or, in the revised version “Chinese man”) is no longer “exotic”, and the impressionable youngsters will no longer see the racial stereotype. Its’s old, it’s past it’s date. It’s no longer relevant to society. Little children (aged 4-6) do not need to be exposed to it, putting just that little bit of racism into their still forming societal mind.
So you’re saying all these examples are not racist? Including the Blacks in If I Ran The Zoo?