We oppose morals clauses in book contracts (2019)
As someone that has grown to have a more moderate view over free speech over time, I think morals clauses truly do have two sides.<p>There are behaviors that most everyone finds reprehensible, and when someone commits them we want to be able to shun them, to remove our connection.<p>There are many times in the past when this shunning has been abused to censor or otherwise oppress others.<p>Generally people feel like they believe the latter part is the most important part...until something occurs in the former part.<p>As a solution to this dilemma, some advocate strong &quot;non-moral&quot; stances (ala &quot;free speech&quot;) where everyone can do as they want, unrestricted.  That used to be my answer.  But I&#x27;ve come around to believing that if society doesn&#x27;t apply a means of guidance&#x2F;restriction&#x2F;social repercussions the void will be filled with emergent results (i.e. ugliness).  Abused rules are abusive, but a lack of a set of rules doesn&#x27;t lead to peace, it leads to warlords and those least willing to restrain their own actions in the name of empathy gaining the most power.<p>I don&#x27;t have the right answers, but I&#x27;m confident that walking away from the questions is not the right answer.