As I mentioned recently, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s plans for his presidency (unlike though that is to happen, thank god) including having the Executive Branch lean on scientific and medical journals that reject or retract anti-vax papers: “We’re gonna say we’re fixing to file some racketeering lawsuits if you don’t start telling the truth in your journals.” Because, as I’ve observed before, RFK knows the truth — he doesn’t need to do science to learn it!
I’ve heard variations of this for a long time: to refuse to publish something is censorship! If you’re committed to free speech, all views should be heard! Back in the 1990s, for instance, Piers Anthony grumbled at a con that there were bookstores that refused to stock his books; he could understand if they didn’t sell but how dare they turn him down because they disapprove of his themes (which are, shall we say, problematic). Later, about a decade ago, after a huge flap about sexism in SFWA’s bulletin, David Gerrold argued the magazine shouldn’t hold back: publish stuff that’s controversial, then let people argue back!
One of the standard arguments in these discussions is the First Amendment and its freedom of speech guarantee; one of the standard responses is that this is a restriction on the government, not businesses or individuals. Which is true, but I think it dodges the point. If public criticism on social media convinces a publisher not to put out X (whatever X is), that may not fit the legal definition of censorship but I still think it’s a valid description. Whether it’s good or bad depends on what’s being censored, just as self-censorship is sometimes a good thing. If a publisher backs off Pedophilia With Your Kid Is A Good Thing! in the face of withering criticism (note: made-up example), I’m cool with it
But we’re not even talking about that here, I think. What Anthony, Kennedy and Gerrold are arguing in different ways (I’m not suggesting they’d agree with each other) is that freely choosing not to publish something or sell it is inherently bad. If you’re a magazine you shouldn’t turn down anything, even if it’s offensive; if you’re a bookstore, you should stock anything if it will sell, whether or not you think it’s good or moral. Then let someone else argue back and publish that!
Bollocks.
For starters, as I pointed out back in 2020, gatekeeping is why people want to be published by traditional publishing, SFWA Journal or other magazines or on the editorial page of the New York Times. It’s prestigious (to some extent) precisely because they don’t take everything offered. If a magazine accepted every possible submission, however badly argued, it would be no better than an online forum. They may publish stuff that does not express their views but there are always limits to how far they’ll go. Maybe The Federalist printing a column about how right-winger Roy Moore was doing a good thing hitting on teenagers didn’t express the editors’ views (I’m not convinced) but it’s obviously more acceptable than, say, me writing a pro-choice piece.
Second, free speech includes the right not to speak. A magazine has the right not to publish something they think falls outside the acceptable limits; much as I despise The Federalist I don’t think there’s any oppression in them not publishing my liberal views (not that I’ve ever bothered to submit to them). A bookstore has every right to decide “I don’t like Piers Anthony’s books and I won’t sell them.” Nobody thinks Christian bookstores are obligated to sell atheist or Muslim works; nobody thinks it’s censorship if Cosmopolitan or Teen Vogue don’t publish articles about wildlife biology. The same applies even to venues that don’t have obvious off-limits signs, like a general interest bookstore.
In the case of Kennedy’s threats, that’s outright government censorship, forcing a magazine to publish something that conforms to government orthodoxy. But even without that aspect, he’d still be wrong.
