Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Cancelling a book deal is "Orwellian oppression"???
Now I'm starting to get why you guys think basic government policy is Marxist.
Also, yeah, where's the personal responsibility?
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bertwrench
You made quite the leap there. CBS owns S and S. CBS is known liberal mouthpiece. I’m sure some of that influence filters down. Also S and S publishes all sorts of books why would anyone think they are Christian? Also my life is not pitiful at all, but way to bring us all together with your rhetoric. Just another example of the HATEFULL left.
The book is about the tyranny of big tech. The same big tech that is in league with the democrat party to silence all opposition. Doesn't that smell fishy to anyone? That looks like the democrat controlled government indirectly silencing a critic and it could be seen as a first amendment violation for that reason. How do we know Simon and Schuster wasn't just caving into some pressure by Biden and dems? We need a lawsuit and discovery to get documents to find out what happened.
I think Hawley, an attorney, is well-qualified and fully capable of disputing the publisher's decision. "We" don't enter into it at all, since "we" are not parties to the original contract. In fact, if he sues the publisher and the suit is settled, "we" won't necessarily have the right to know the terms of the settlement.
Maybe you should pour yourself a nice warm drink of something and relax.
When the government starts banning books, I'll be right there with you, sporting all of the "I Read Banned Books" buttons I've collected over the years. Until then, I'm content to let the parties to a private contract mind their own business.
The book is about the tyranny of big tech. The same big tech that is in league with the democrat party to silence all opposition. Doesn't that smell fishy to anyone? That looks like the democrat controlled government indirectly silencing a critic and it could be seen as a first amendment violation for that reason. How do we know Simon and Schuster wasn't just caving into some pressure by Biden and dems? We need a lawsuit and discovery to get documents to find out what happened.
Not, it’s not fishy, and it’s not a first amendment issue at all. You are really stretching here. There’s no evidence that this has anything to do with Biden.
Thus is the problem with social media. Anybody can just make up any story no matter how outlandish. All it takes is continually repeating it and spreading it around until people start believing it. It’s exactly what happened with the supposed “election fraud”.
It starts with someone who’s imagination gets them a little carried away, and the next thing you know, we have a sizeable amount of the population believing stories that have no basis in reality.
Not, it’s not fishy, and it’s not a first amendment issue at all. You are really stretching here. There’s no evidence that this has anything to do with Biden.
Thus is the problem with social media. Anybody can just make up any story no matter how outlandish. All it takes is continually repeating it and spreading it around until people start believing it. It’s exactly what happened with the supposed “election fraud”.
It starts with someone who’s imagination gets them a little carried away, and the next thing you know, we have a sizeable amount of the population believing stories that have no basis in reality.
Could there ever come a day where some story that’s actually true gets purged because it offends the right people and their version of truth? Such a slippery slope...especially looking out long term.
He supported free speech and now his free speech is getting cancelled.
Isn't Simon & Schuster a private business? If it's ok for a bakery to deny a wedding cake to a gay couple, then it's ok for Simon & Schuster to decide to not publish Hawley's book.
I think Hawley, an attorney, is well-qualified and fully capable of disputing the publisher's decision. "We" don't enter into it at all, since "we" are not parties to the original contract. In fact, if he sues the publisher and the suit is settled, "we" won't necessarily have the right to know the terms of the settlement.
Maybe you should pour yourself a nice warm drink of something and relax.
I've been trying.
But I know eventually anything I drink will be deemed unhealthy and banned by the drink nazis.
Josh, let me explain Capitalism to you. Sometimes people decide not to do business with you. It’s their decision. You know the whole ‘No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service’ thing ? In your case it happens to be ‘No Principles, No Honesty, No Book’ thing. Feel free to Self-Publish.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 8 days ago)
35,634 posts, read 17,975,706 times
Reputation: 50662
Well, one thing. This just created a market for his book, if he were to self-publish.
I had never heard of him, or his book, before last week.
File this under the heading of all publicity is good publicity.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
