As soon as Casey Morrissey opened the box of books, they were furious. [DS\u2013\u201cthey\u201d pronoun, of course<\/em>]<\/p>\n The title at the top of the stack was Abigail Shrier\u2019s \u201cIrreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters,\u201d<\/span>a contentious tome that has sparked cries of transphobia since its release last summer.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cDo you know how that feels, as a trans bookseller and book buyer?\u201d Morrissey, who works at Greenlight Bookstores in Brooklyn tweeted Wednesday. \u201cIt isn\u2019t even a new title, so it really caught me in the gut. Do better.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n The American Booksellers Association quickly apologized for including the nonfiction book, which it characterized as \u201canti-trans,\u201d in its July mailing to its 750 member bookstores<\/strong>. The trade organization\u2019s monthly \u201cwhite box\u201d<\/a> includes marketing materials, advance copies of books and finished titles the ABA wants booksellers to consider stocking.<\/p>\n \u201cThis is a serious, violent incident that goes against ABA\u2019s \u2026 policies, values, and everything we believe and support,\u201d the ABA wrote on Twitter. \u201cIt is inexcusable.\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n The organization also vowed to take concrete steps to remedy the harm it said it had caused.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n Sending out a book is \u201cviolent,\u201d if it is the wrong book. Yet books that instruct children in oral sex, sadomasochistic practices, and other obscenities must be in elementary school classrooms because doing otherwise is censorship.<\/p>\n The open letter is a hoot, twisting around itself to insist that demanding the book not be published is not censorship, but upholding basic human rights.<\/p>\n WE DISSENT<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cNow there will be those who will argue that this could all too easily drift into a form of censorship, albeit self-censorship, but I don\u2019t buy that argument. It has to be possible to balance freedom of expression with wider moral and social responsibilities.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n \u2013 David Puttnam,<\/span>\u201cDoes the media have a duty of care?\u201d (TED Talk)<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n As members of the writing, publishing, and broader literary community of the United States, we care deeply about freedom of speech. We also believe it is imperative that publishers uphold their dedication to freedom of speech with a duty of care.<\/span><\/p>\n We recognize that harm is done to a democracy not only in the form of censorship, but also in the form of assault on inalienable human rights. As such, we are calling on Penguin Random House to recognize its own history and corporate responsibility commitments by reevaluating its decision to move forward with publishing Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett\u2019s forthcoming book.<\/span><\/p>\n On June 24, 2022, Coney Barrett joined Justices Alito, Roberts, Kavanaugh, Thomas, and Gorsuch in<\/span>overturning the landmark ruling\u00a0<\/a><\/span>Roe v. Wade<\/a><\/span>, dismantling protections for the human rights to privacy, self-determination, and bodily autonomy along with the federal right to an abortion in the United States. International human rights organizations widely recognize abortion access as a fundamental human right and have condemned the U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s decision. In fact, Human Rights Watch\u2014founded by Random House\u2019s second publisher, Robert L. Bernstein, who held nascent meetings in Random House\u2019s offices\u2014<\/span>notes<\/a><\/span>\u00a0that\u00a0<\/span>\u201cthe human rights on which a right to abortion access is predicated are set out in the [United Nations\u2019] Universal Declaration of Human Rights,\u201d a document to which Penguin Random House parent company Bertelsmann commits itself in Section 2.2.1 of its<\/strong><\/span>Code of Conduct<\/a><\/span>.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Presumably this means that any book that dissents in any way from the current position of abortion absolutists should never be published because doing so is equivalent to gassing people.<\/p>\n The literary industry has always had a tilt to the Left. That\u2019s unsurprising, of course, as creative people in general tend to be more open to utopianism than most of us, and often have a bit of trouble distinguishing between fantasy and reality. But the publishing business has until recently been pretty good about promoting intellectual diversity for ideological reasons, for self preservation (prevailing attitudes change, so opposing censorship is vital to their business), and for pecuniary reasons\u2013reach the largest possible markets to make money.<\/p>\n That has changed recently, as ideology has crept into publishing more and more. The science fiction publishing world has been going woke<\/a> (ironically, since it used to be conservative to libertarian in the main), and as intellectuals have moved from liberal to Leftists the impulse to suppress dissent has spread far and wide.<\/p>\n There is still money to be made in publishing books conservatives will read, so there is little danger that those books will be totally suppressed. Somebody will sell them.<\/p>\n But don\u2019t be surprised if getting access to them will get more difficult. As booksellers go woke, alternative venues for purchase will likely have to spring up. If Amazon caves to the woke mob completely (they have had to adjust to satisfy their workforce<\/a>) it will be difficult \u00a0to buy anything written by a conservative.<\/p>\n In any case, every time you hear a Leftist accusing people of \u201cbanning books,\u201d remember this: they aren\u2019t bothered by censorship, because they are the chief censors in our society.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n