This week, industry officials and publishing stalwarts came together for one of the largest gatherings in the book world: The London Book Fair 2024. The event was dominated by recurring themes, including free speech and the right to dissent, especially at a time when these are either being curtailed or when social media is overrun with trolls. In recent months, we’ve observed writers being cancelled from various events for various reasons. Simultaneously, the spotlight has also been cast on institutions that may not be as transparent as they should be. Therefore, the question arises: does the publishing industry have a responsibility to protect their authors, and is it ever justifiable to be de-platformed and denied free speech and freedom of expression?

The complex landscape of free speech and political tensions

Of course, this debate leads us into very contentious and murky territory. British-Palestinian writer Selma Dabbagh was among several authors at the fair this week who discussed her experience with being de-platformed. During the English PEN Salon session titled ‘Palestine, Israel, and Free Expression in the UK,’ Dabbagh shared that one week before the British Bristol Palestinian Film Festival was scheduled to occur at the Arnold Feeney venue, the event was cancelled, citing security reasons.

Meanwhile, Yasmin El-Rifae, the producer of the Palestine Festival of Literature, discussed the launch of Nathan Thrall’s book “A Day in the Life of Abed Salama: A Palestine Story” at Conway Hall in London. It was similarly cancelled at short notice following a “recommendation” by the police. Thrall commented, “There’s an atmosphere that is wholly intolerant of any expression of sympathy for Palestinians living under occupation, any discussion of the root causes of the conflict. … For events around that sort of a book to be cancelled… is outrageous.” Artists for Palestine describe this as a ‘new McCarthyism,’ a sentiment echoed by the other panellists at the meeting. Even Oxford University’s Emeritus Professor of International Relations, Avi Shlaim, who identifies as an Arab Jew originally from Iraq, also experienced being de-platformed.

Read: London Book Fair 2024: free expression, tech, and Palestine

On the other side of this issue is the Mayim Bialik incident, where PEN America hosted the “Big Bang Theory” actor, known for her pro-Israel views, at an event during which writer Randa Jarrar was unceremoniously escorted out. Ironically, in 2017, Bialik discussed the line between free speech and hate speech in a post related to the University of California, Berkeley inviting alt-right Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos, sponsored by the campus Republican club.

She wrote in a Facebook post, “Where is the line between free speech and hate speech? The campus Republicans of Berkeley want this guy to speak but protesters forced his speech to be cancelled. He was banned from Twitter for the harassment of actress Leslie Jones and he is known for anti-Muslim, misogynistic, racist alt-right crap (forgive my French).” Yet, seven years later, the situation seems reversed.

PEN America, along with many other prominent literary organisations, has been criticised for remaining neutral while thousands of Palestinians have been killed. While we should rightly mourn all the lives lost on October 7th, the issue is much broader and has historical precedents.

Read: Naomi Klein among writers boycotting PEN World Voices Festival over Gaza

However, PEN has maintained the stance that “as an organization [we are] open to all writers that stands for free expression, it is our role to be home to varied views.” Prominent writers, on the other hand, do not agree with this stance. Figures such as Naomi Klein, Michelle Alexander, and Roxane Gay have all, in one way or another, distanced themselves from the nonprofit.

The right to dissent and supporting authors

In the event focused on free expression and protecting the right to dissent, novelist Guy Gunaratne, former Edinburgh International Book Festival director Nick Barley, and Faber & Faber’s publishing director Hannah Knowles all acknowledged the importance of supporting their authors’ freedom to choose. Barley, whose festival received a barrage of criticism from authors due to its sponsor Baillie Gifford’s investments in fossil fuels, reiterated that despite the backlash, “ours is a place which makes it possible for writers to say what they need to say. Even if that is criticism of us, it’s absolutely right we keep the microphones on and that the writers have their say.”

Read: Edinburgh Book Festival urged by 50 authors to drop sponsors

Barley, who is also a professor at Durham University, added “I think that the situation in Gaza is a disgrace and it has been for at least the last 50 years last 75 years. There maybe people in the room who passionately disagree with that, but the fact that I  believe that shouldn’t mean that I can’t talk to somebody who has the opposite view.”

Knowles admitted that she was uncertain about her stance on businesses commenting on political issues. However, she mentioned that Faber, as a company, reportedly would not prevent their writers from attending protests or voicing their opinions. Nonetheless, the company does not necessarily explicitly reserve space for individual viewpoints.

Professor Shlaim also commented on the role of educational institutions and publishers in advocating for free speech and called for them to be “courageous” in defending their talent. He said: “There is a lot that University leaders in this country can do to stand up for their writers because individuals get picked on and demonised and some are fired.”

However, in the UK, he attributes much of the blame to the government, accusing it of being deliberately vague about distinguishing between free speech and hate speech. This ambiguity complicates advocacy for writers because the unclear definitions put institutions at risk.

Read: Frankfurt Book Fair: open letter supports cancelled Adania Shibli

Professor Neve Gordon, Vice President of the British Society for Middle Eastern Studies, said that as an Israeli, white, Jewish man himself, “we have much more privilege than many of our colleagues. And I think this is the time to use our privilege. This is the time to speak back.”

In 2018, during the peak of Donald Trump’s presidency, Penguin Random House discussed the right to freedom of expression and the protection of writers against censorship and unjust persecution under the First Amendment. At the same time, the Society of Authors states: “freedom of expression is a fundamental human right, and a central tenet of an author’s work and livelihood. We work to protect free speech, and to create an environment where all are afforded an equal voice.

“We oppose in the strongest terms any attempt to stifle or control the author’s voice whether by censorship, imprisonment, execution, hate speech or inappropriate trolling.”

Privilege and platform

In a situation similar to Bialik’s, where she faced calls to be de-platformed for her stance, “Harry Potter” author J.K. Rowling has encountered numerous demands from readers for publishers to stop representing her due to her alleged transphobic views. In an open letter published by “Pride in Publishing,” book workers said that “free speech is a responsibility, not a shield.”

Organised by senior figures in the industry—Nick Coveney, Zainab Juma, and Charlie Morris—they write: “Being a book publisher comes with a set of tough moral responsibilities. You provide livelihoods for authors and booksellers, your hiring decisions can greatly influence how UK culture is shaped, and you’re also a company with a duty of care towards your staff.

“Let’s clarify what free speech is and is not. Free speech does not entitle an author to a publishing contract […] If publishing doesn’t get better at reconciling its moral responsibilities and commercial priorities, don’t blame us as valuable queer, non-white and working-class talent continues to walk out of the door.”

Hate speech vs free speech

And this is where the distinction lacks clarity from the top. In the UK, hate speech falls under hate crime laws, which may not necessarily exist in the same form in the US. The law recognises five types of hate crime based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, and transgender identity.

The crime of inciting hatred arises when an individual engages in threatening behaviour with the intent to provoke hatred. This is demonstrated through various mediums such as words, images, videos, music, and online content. Such hate content may include messages calling for violence against a specific person or group.

Criminalising the incitement of violence or threats “can be seen to be a justifiable limit on freedom of expression”, says Liberty. What is controversial “is the criminalisation of language (or behaviour) which may be unpleasant, may cause offence but which is not inciting violence, criminality etc”, the organisation adds.

Therefore, the question raised is: Why are Palestinian writers being cancelled for calling out state-sanctioned violence against an oppressed group, as defined by Amnesty International and the United Nations? Are some people’s freedom of speech more justified and sacred than others?

The balance of power

While most reasonable people will recognise the appearance and sound of bigotry, it can often be mistakenly seen as an attack on freedom of expression. However, no one is automatically entitled to a platform, and those with privilege bear a responsibility to avoid demonising marginalised groups or inciting conflict between communities. 

The critical takeaway is the need to consider the balance of power in any conversation, recognising that this balance fluctuates depending on the context. Bialik was right to criticise Yiannopoulos’ appearance in 2017, but that doesn’t exempt her from scrutiny now that she commands a much larger platform and her voice is the dominant one, while others are being silenced. Similarly, although Rowling is a woman who has experienced domestic violence, it’s essential to remember that her words reach millions of followers, and she now has far more means to help others.

Helping authors through crisis periods

Lauren R, the lead publicist and founder of Paramour PR, a boutique PR firm catering to both new and established authors, shared her insights with How To Be Books. Her firm exists to bridge the gap often left by traditional publishers, especially when it comes to marketing and publicity support.

Lauren explained the varying levels of support authors receive, stating, “It is important to understand that not all authors working with traditional publishers receive the same amount of resources or attention, which is why firms like mine exist. A well-established author with previous best-sellers is likely to receive more resources in terms of marketing and publicity. In contrast, a debut author, even if a publisher picks them up, is likely on their own when it comes to marketing efforts.” Therefore, she says, the publisher’s responsibility toward protecting their authors is nuanced. 

“If a publisher has invested money and resources to support an author and their catalog, then they have some skin in the game and likely a dedicated team that can handle a media crisis. Often, though, the responsibility falls on the author,” she added.

The fear of cancel culture in publishing

Writing for the Guardian in 2021, Alison Flood interviewed several young editorial staff on “cancel culture” within publishing. One junior staffer told her that they were “slightly bemused by the fact that freedom of speech is so often being equated with the right to a book contract”, adding: “Those in senior positions are forgetting that there is surely a duty of care to their staff that must be considered when asking them to work on books by authors with views that might potentially directly oppose their identity and existence”.

The reality is that publishers have always been on slippery ground. “Publishers, while knowing that controversy sells, have always exercised the right to reject problematic books,” Rupert Heath of Dean Street Press told Flood, pointing to “innumerable cases of publishers refusing to publish a book,” such as HarperCollins cancelling Chris Patten’s contract over his book’s anti-China line in 1998, at a time when Murdoch was seeking a deal in China.

Enjoying our opinion pieces? Check out: Women of colour still underrepresented in publishing

The bottom line is that we all bear the responsibility to scrutinise the distribution of power between those with platforms and those without. Publishers are equally accountable for supporting their marginalised authors, especially when governments are putting them in the firing line. While certain books sell because of the name behind them, we must ensure they do not target groups already facing discrimination. Of course, free speech is paramount at a time when books are being banned and people are being de-platformed, however, the publishing industry needs to remember who is being removed and why.