![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
You’ll Never Work In This Town Again!
Aug. 6th, 2015 09:20 amVarious of the Sad Puppies, and specifically in this case Lou Antonelli, have said that certain criticisms of their actions “crossed the line in attacking some authors into that's called "exaction" under organized crime statutes. They threatened someone's income or livelihood.” In comments, Lou says the specific attack is the “you’ll never get published again” and/or “you’ll have to write using a pen name.”
Perhaps not surprisingly, I beg to differ. I think Lou (in particular) and Sad Puppy-dom in general is wrong both on the law and morality side of the issue. I intend to address both. (Disclaimer – I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.)
Law
On the legal side of the issue, groundless threats are not actionable. If a five-year-old threatens to kill you, unless he’s actually holding a gun his statement is not a credible threat. So, for anybody other than a senior acquisitions editor at a publishing firm, that “you’ll never work here” threat is not credible. Of course, common sense and an understanding of the English language and our use of hyperbole would suggest as much, but the law is a funny beast.
In any event, even a senior acquisitions editor could get away with saying “you’ll never work here.” First, there is no requirement on the senior editor to buy anything from any particular author, and second, as there are multiple publishers and houses in the world, the editor’s opinion is only valid as pertains to their scope. Unless the author can show that the editor is actively working to prevent the author from getting a contract by spreading false information, there is no legal problem.
Morality
The Sad Puppies seem collectively upset at negative comments “threatening someone’s income or livelihood.” There’s an assumption baked into that, namely that the author is entitled to making a living by writing. But while everybody has a right to work, nobody has a right to work at their chosen profession. Actions that may prevent one from making a living as a writer don’t prevent that person from making their living as a baker.
More importantly, I as a reader am under no obligation, morally or legally, to assist, support or help a writer make a living. I as a reader am free to buy or not buy a writer’s work for whatever reason, good or ill. I as a reader am free to express my opinion of a writer, informed or otherwise, in any forum that allows me entrance.
Substitute “restaurant” for “writer” in the paragraph above. The opening of a restaurant imposes no obligation on me to try the place, patronize it, or refrain from negative comments on the establishment or its ownership. Saying “I’ll never go to that restaurant again” or “that restaurant will close in a week because their food sucks” or even “they ought to shut down that restaurant” is not actionable morally or legally. As long as one doesn’t lie about matters of fact, there is no problem.
The above is perhaps a long-winded way of saying I really wish the Puppies would grow up.
Perhaps not surprisingly, I beg to differ. I think Lou (in particular) and Sad Puppy-dom in general is wrong both on the law and morality side of the issue. I intend to address both. (Disclaimer – I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.)
Law
On the legal side of the issue, groundless threats are not actionable. If a five-year-old threatens to kill you, unless he’s actually holding a gun his statement is not a credible threat. So, for anybody other than a senior acquisitions editor at a publishing firm, that “you’ll never work here” threat is not credible. Of course, common sense and an understanding of the English language and our use of hyperbole would suggest as much, but the law is a funny beast.
In any event, even a senior acquisitions editor could get away with saying “you’ll never work here.” First, there is no requirement on the senior editor to buy anything from any particular author, and second, as there are multiple publishers and houses in the world, the editor’s opinion is only valid as pertains to their scope. Unless the author can show that the editor is actively working to prevent the author from getting a contract by spreading false information, there is no legal problem.
Morality
The Sad Puppies seem collectively upset at negative comments “threatening someone’s income or livelihood.” There’s an assumption baked into that, namely that the author is entitled to making a living by writing. But while everybody has a right to work, nobody has a right to work at their chosen profession. Actions that may prevent one from making a living as a writer don’t prevent that person from making their living as a baker.
More importantly, I as a reader am under no obligation, morally or legally, to assist, support or help a writer make a living. I as a reader am free to buy or not buy a writer’s work for whatever reason, good or ill. I as a reader am free to express my opinion of a writer, informed or otherwise, in any forum that allows me entrance.
Substitute “restaurant” for “writer” in the paragraph above. The opening of a restaurant imposes no obligation on me to try the place, patronize it, or refrain from negative comments on the establishment or its ownership. Saying “I’ll never go to that restaurant again” or “that restaurant will close in a week because their food sucks” or even “they ought to shut down that restaurant” is not actionable morally or legally. As long as one doesn’t lie about matters of fact, there is no problem.
The above is perhaps a long-winded way of saying I really wish the Puppies would grow up.
