With the rise of internet publishing came the rise of the ability to take down an author’s work with a single click.
And, with the rise of Literary Twitter came a way for writers and readers to communicate directly with editors. While the social media platform is a useful tool for lit mags to promote their work and their contributors, it can also be—and often is—a space for readers to express their frustrations with the work a magazine is publishing.
In many instances this is a good thing. Direct communication with journal editors can foster a more transparent environment. When a lit mag is treating contributors poorly, the community can speak out and warn one another against the magazine.
In other cases, the platform can create an intense pressure-cooker environment where some editors may feel compelled to respond to demands within the literary community, and respond quickly.
In recent months, I’ve seen two editors forced off the masthead of lit mags based on opinions they expressed online. I’ve also seen numerous magazines announce the removal of writers’ work, based on things that writer has said on their personal page.
Sometimes the removal of a writer’s work happens quietly and in private. We don’t even know it’s taking place. Other times, journals take to the platform and announce their stance.
(To be clear, the above tweets appeared in the context of a journal defending their decision to not remove a writer from their pages. Yet they also state here that they are willing to do so in the future.)
Such editors are undoubtedly well-intentioned. They aim to let others know where they stand on complex issues and how they are working to keep the community safe.
This magazine’s website adds: “We will immediately investigate and take action on any report of misconduct.”
This journal’s site states: “We will not tolerate any form of abusive behavior or bigotry in the stories we publish, nor the authors who write them.”
In these instances, I’ve removed identifying information from the journals. My own intention is not to highlight specific magazines or talk about any individual writers. Just to offer examples of what is happening.
And, as always, to ask you what you think about it.
Do you feel these actions help protect the literary community?
As a writer, do you appreciate when editors remove the work of writers, based on things they’ve said outside the magazine? Does it make you feel better about the journal, about possibly having your work appear there?
What do you think about these categories? For instance, what constitutes “political extremism”? Who determines whether or not someone is an “abuser” or “hateful”? What is “misconduct”? Are editors qualified to make such decisions or ought they leave it to the discretion of the literary community?
Does this environment make you worry that you might say the wrong thing and thus have your submissions blacklisted or retroactively removed?
As an editor, do you concern yourself with the behavior and opinions of your contributors?
Is publishing a writer’s work an implicit endorsement of other aspects of their lives?
As a writer, have you ever had your work removed from publication based on views you’ve expressed publicly? How has that (or fear of that) impacted your work and career?
I don't like Ezra Pound's poetry because it is boring, not because he supported Mussolini. I adore Knut Hamsun's work as one of my personal treasures even though he sucked up to the Nazi invaders of his country. I am 100% in line with the anti-theist arguments and writings of Christopher Hitchens even though he was wrong on Iraq and women comedians (and his brother Peter is wrong about everything except his distrust of political absolutism, which I agree with totally). I'm against shutting down right-wing speakers scheduled to make a speech on your college campus and the list of "Words That May Not Be Spoken," but I feel as strongly about that as I do against the crypto-fascists on the Right who just make shit up.
The problem with censorship isn't only its arbitrariness or its shape-shifting as times and morés change, it also raises the question of who gets to decide. Who do you want to appoint as the arbiter of what may or may not be said, or written, or even thought? Who are you willing to give that power to?
That said, an editor can do whatever she wants with the vehicle she created and/or runs. And writers looking for places to put their work are always best advised to find venues that use their "kind" of work. A lot of the problems addressed in the OP can potentially be solved by a writer actually (and for once) taking the advice of older heads and truly scouting things out before submitting anywhere.
But the general pearl-clutching atmosphere of the present era (visible on every side) betrays a kind of cowardice that is unbecoming of people who say they are for free thought but are actually too afraid to have one.
(edited to add: "Literary Twitter" is an idea that needs to burn in a fire. The two concepts are not compatible and even sound lazy)
I was taken aback a few months ago when a litmag’s Submittable page required me to note whether any of my poems contained language dealing with violence or abuse. One of them did. It was an ekphrastic poem expanding on a superb and horrifying photo that was taken by a Nazi photographer during a 1942 pogrom in Lviv, then in Poland. Imagine being the (probably unknowing) subject of that photograph. Now imagine living in the relative security and comfort of the USA and needing a trigger warning before you can read, 80 years later, a poem about that photograph. I knew then that the poem would be rejected (and of course it was) but submitted it anyway in a spirit of defiance. F^ck these people.
Yes!!! We are soo f***ing spoiled in America! I've lived in countries where owning a pair of shoes--real shoes, not sandals, was a status symbol, and people seemed happier or at least more contented than so many in the richest country the world has ever known. [And on a personal note, XPC, I admire you for sending that poem--I've done the same more than once. i think that's called integrity.]
You are 100% right. If you you call yourself a writer, you know that censorship is a dead end that stifles originality. You should have the confidence to believe that your words can respond and combat ideas and language you don’t like. But you cannot shut anyone else up. Shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater should mark the line of censorship. Anything less will produce third- rate literature
I agree with you, especially about the 'fear' behind the 'self-righteous'--I just wondered why so many are sheep, prey to whatever the contemporary wolf might be....
That’s a good question. I don’t know the answer—is there only one?—but I suspect that the advent of 24/7 cable “news” had something to do with it. Fear porn sells like crazy, and the networks have a lot of advertising slots to fill.
Yes, XPC, but the real 'slot' that is filled is human nature, and we are broken beings, everyone of us to one extent or another-- because when you think on it, it's really weird being a sentient being with free will.
However well-intentioned this kind of editorial policy is, I think it’s creating a horrible environment for writers and for creative writing in general. Art doesn’t flourish under these conditions: it shrivels and cowers in fear that it’s going to “offend.”
One of the reasons it’s wrong is that it’s creating a horrible atmosphere for literary artists, which will result in a diminution of their art. That’s good enough for me.
I disagree with removing work after the fact, and I don't think publishing someone's work is an endorsement for all that they stand for. This is the age-old question of separating art from artist. Nine times out of ten, I think the art should be judged separately. But there are some exceptions.
It makes me uncomfortable to know a journal can remove work after the fact. As you mention, in our modern moment, removal is as easy as a click. But I think a good rule -- at least what would make me feel better -- is treating anything that is published as if it has been printed. There's no going back, for better or worse. I wouldn't have been exposed to a lot of great writing, probably, if editors could "cancel" authors and their works as easily as they can now -- and, not to mention, according to their own unique moral compass.
Plus, if a writer has said something ugly enough online for an editor to consider removing their work, what kind of weird punishment is removing their story or poem from a journal? Who cares? The work is probably, at that point, old news. And the people who are most upset with the offender will, I'm sure, deal with them summarily online, caring little about the story or poem they once wrote.
An editorial decision is an editorial decision. My concern is the harsh approach utilized by members of literary Twitter to “address” (cancel) a writer/writing current today or writers/writing from times far different from today. That is censorship.
I agree with Bruce re this kind of editorial policy creating a horrible environment for writers. It has to be tough for editors too. Maybe they could post disclaimers saying that they choose work based on the quality of the writing and how well it meets the needs of their publication, period, and they aren't responsible for what the authors say or do elsewhere. That said, the editors would have to be prepared to be attacked for choosing such a position.
I think that we are undergoing severe overcorrection in the literary and publishing world. That's probably not a popular stance — but I would much rather see publications post an acknowledgement that it has been brought to their attention that a writer they've published has made problematic comments elsewhere, yet leave their work available. We are in danger of impoverishing ourselves artistically, culturally, and intellectually if we demand that writers — or, indeed artists in any field — be morally or idealogically pure according to the ever-evolving standards of the day. And I say this as someone who really believes in the importance of those standards continually evolving.
Yes, you're spot on, but that takes courage and all I see is a field of cowards in America, some in the Left field, others on the Right side. We are already impoverishing ourselves, and make our real enemies-- the ones who truly want our destruction--laugh!
Loving the comments here and endorsing most of them, even if I do end up being canceled for saying so. ;-)
A recent example of this madness involved a very minor character in a long story of mine who happened to be a lesbian who hated all men (which was important to the context of another character). The editor liked my story and wanted to publish it but was concerned about that passage because it might be seen by some as reinforcing stereotypes (because of course there no such persons on the planet). That's how gun shy editors have become.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to expunge Moby Dick (whaling), Shakespeare (take your pick) and Kurt Vonnegut (misrepresentation of aliens) from my bookshelves.
PS - Suggested template for mags who are happy to publish and be damned.
'If you've bothered to read our publication before submitting or commenting, you'll know what we publish. If you're offended by what we publish occasionally, here's what you can do.
1. If you are not a subscriber or financial supporter, we don't give a rat's ass what you think.
2. If you are a subscriber or financial supporter, we love you but you don't get to dictate our policies, any more than we get to dictate your tastes, so stay or go, it's up to you.'
Doug, as an editor myself, I can understand your editor’s questioning a stereotype, just as s/he might challenge the use of any other sort of cliché. That is the editor’s job. It’s your job as the writer to vigorously defend your use of the stereotype and to show how it’s vital to the workings of your story—or, alternatively, to see how the stereotype makes your story less than it could be. Whenever I question an author about something like this, I expect and want pushback. I do my job without assuming that my having a question means that the author is wrong.
You're my kind of editor, XPC, and long may you reign. My concern in this case was the implication that a specific character in a story might (and I emphasise might) offend and might (again I emphasise might) perpetuate a stereotype. You will be pleased to know that, because I'd been trying to place this story that I believed in strongly for over 2 years and I'd finally found an editor who 'got' my story and because it was a minor detail, I agreed to re-write the sentence and publication went ahead.
And of course all stereotypes are not equal. If you want to stereotype men, white people, Republicans, christians, capitalists, the military, or the police, you are welcome to it! Those are the kind of stereotypes litmags welcome without fear of recrimination.
True Doug, but don't forget to include God, the soul, eternity, and dips into the 'twilight zone' that are so verboten by the materialist (as in only matter is real) editors.
You are correct that not all stereotypes are equal, but not for the reason you are implying. Men, white people, Christians (in the West), capitalists, the military and the police are all groups that are either in the majority or have power structures behind them. Republicans also fall into that category in certain states and regions. Thus those groups are used to the privilege of representation that either consistently bolsters those power structures or at least recognizes members as individuals and not as representatives of the group en masse. They can afford to weather stereotypes in representation because of this privilege. (Although not without complaining that it’s only “a few bad apples,” and “not all men.”) What’s more problematic--and often literally life-threatening--is stereotypes of traditionally marginalized communities. When stereotypes of lesbians (to use the above poster’s example) as man-hating harpies isn’t mixed in with many many more representations in all types of media of the vast breadth and depth of lesbian individuals, it harms that community in non-trivial ways. Stereotypes at all in literature, as another commenter mentioned, should be viewed with an extremely critical eye as they are often the sign of lazy writing. But not all stereotypes have the same potential consequences for the stereotypee.
I don't feel I can make blanket statements about any of this. Writers, and all artists, can say and do whatever they want (at least to the extent of the laws of the land, although plenty over time have broken those too). Same goes for lit mags, or any other curating venue. But is any action free of consequence? No. Social mores also evolve—behaviors, beliefs or words that are totally normal or even laudable in one era can be deemed cancel-worthy in another, and vice versa. It seems like a pretty slippery slope to claim I have a singular belief about any of it. Then again, if I, a Jewish, queer and nonbinary person living in a diverse community, were an editor, and I happened to find out a contributor to my magazine was, say, a homophobic, transphobic Nazi actively working towards the extermination of people like myself and my friends, would I be tempted to deplatform them by removing their work? And would the thought of keeping their work up turn my stomach? Yes and yes. And then again AGAIN, if ten years down the road it became outré to use the word "queer" (as it sometimes has been), would I be disappointed if my current published pieces containing it were taken down? Or if I were cancelled over its use? Yes and yes. But I'd also argue that actively working towards the annhialation of a group of people versus using a word that becomes "bad" over time are two very different offenses. And thus my point: no blanket statements here.
I can certainly relate to what you're saying here, Goldie. I also think that the best creative writing sometimes grows past its creator. It can be larger than its creator. Bigger spirited. People in social groups the writer may loathe can actually benefit from reading it (I've done so myself) and, in a sense, one-up the writer's bigotry just by doing that. This isn't the same as giving the writer permission to act on his/her loathing. But if the writing reveals, perhaps inadvertently, some other truth that's worth reading, then it's worth reading in spite of what the writer is like as a person.
I think you're on to something here-- the best writing always 'grows past its creator', just as great music and art reach far beyond the human they came from.
This feels so complicated. I am with you on the nausea part. And certainly the "actively working towards the extermination of people" part. But I've run into many folks who on the surface really sound anti-Jewish (and likely are) but I can play music with them (which I did with our group, every week for 10 years). I skipped the weeks after Charlottesville and maybe a month after the 2016 election. Was I right or wrong to keep up with these Trumpians who were not "actively working towards the extermination of people" but were clearly problematic (and potentially dangerous) in their beliefs?
It is complicated. I don't think that playing music (or any other sort of collaborative interaction) with those people is wrong, per se; however, I'd have a different opinion if you were, say, a venue owner actively booking them to play shows that you knew were fundraisers for some blatantly nefarious organization. Chances are, everyone interacting with others out in the world crosses paths with people whose beliefs would make us squeamish—it's not like we can know everything about everyone (nor would I want to). However, I would say that hearing someone spout antisemitic conspiracy theories and not speaking out against those would be wrong (not saying that's what happened, just using an example of where I feel the potential right/wrong line is).
You are raising a fascinating complex issue here, the vulnerability of on-line writing in general. In the novel 1984, Truth is very malleable, and texts fall victim to competing political regimes. With computerized texts the permanence of written Truth is even more at risk. Words may easily disappear into the Memory Hole or be altered. It's good that the American Constitution exists as a written parchment, otherwise we may wake up one decade and find new amendments to everything we believed to be carved in stone. Copyrights may not mean anything when a text can be altered or even removed at will. What protections do writers have against such manipulations? What laws exist right now that prevent an editor from changing the text or removing it altogether? History books published on-line are most vulnerable to these powers. RT
Maybe things are a bit different here. We have robust free-speech rights enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution, but right now those rights are arguably under threat in a way that hasn’t been the case for six or seven decades. And many American writers are concerned.
The writer was making a point about preserving certain ideas and principles, no matter who happens to be in power at any given moment—a point that was entirely germane to this discussion.
Excellent discussion. From my point of view (as an old hippie) just want to add that I've noticed in the last 50 or 60 years that I've been around, I've noticed a growth of Victorianism. Somebody mentioned "pearl-clutching." There is definitely fear involved in these reactions. And in censoring "bad" ideas, there is an absurd belief that these ideas will go away. They won't. They will go underground, leaving a saccharine hypocrisy behind. Really? Ending racist language ends racism? What a corporate (classist) pretence. Words easily eel in and out of insulting meanings--all you need is a sneer, when you say a supposedly benign word to make it hateful; and words invented to be hateful are best seized and used by the victim as badges of honor, like queer, Hebrew (which once upon an ancient time was used as insult, believe it or not), cunt, which originally was a common , not-insulting term, etc. There are many effective ways to deal with hate and hate language, especially with humor. When infantile persons are attempting to shock--don't be shocked. The price of admission to the pages of any literary journal should be literary merit, not mealy-mouthed gentility and goody-two shoes morality. A little challenge is good for the intellectual immune system.
I'm a former hippie too, Mary [and how I miss the pony tail now!] Victorianism? I think it's worse, a new Puritanism, a self-righteousness on both Left and Right. Your final couplet is right on, girl!!! [oops, sorry, was 'girl ' not PC?]
I came of age in the '60's when free speech was a big thing, and organized protest entered the mainstream, yet we never developed the depressing cancel culture I see permeating young, and some older minds today. Thought control is nothing new: see the Inquisition , the Reign of Terror in the French Revolution, Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, or just read Animal Farm, 1984, Brave New World, The Gulag Archipelago, The Trial, To Kill A Mockingbird, and on and on. It's easy to see how any prejudice can hurt those it is directed against, but what seems not generally recognized is the tremendous damage it does to the 'righteous' PC crowd, sure that they have found the 'truth' and so are superior. First their brains will atrophy as they become more rigid, intolerant, judgmental...the essence of fundamentalism. And fundamentalists are not always 'religious': there are 'true believers' who espouse atheism, or a brand of politics or a culture or life style and are certain, it seems , that anyone who does not share their ideology is less than human. The real question is why? Why do we humans tend to make other humans 'the other', somehow less than we are? Think about this, because this is how we allow ourselves to do terrible things to other human beings, who are really much more similar to us than different, no matter how they look, or talk or believe. If we didn't de-humanize the 'other', could there be any crime, poverty, alienation, genocide, WAR! Each time we make someone else 'less', we harm ourselves, our minds, our hearts, and our souls--as those of us who have experienced such, suspect.
It’s dispiriting to be living in/through a time when such a question even has to be asked—emphasis here on “through” because this moral panic will burn out in time, as such public frenzies tend to do. That said, I canceled my subscription to Poetry when Michael Dickman’s “Scholls Ferry Rd.” was scrubbed from the magazine’s website (after a single NPC on Twitter objected to the poem’s “offensive” language) and Don Share resigned as editor. Cowards, despite sitting on an endowment of more than $100 million.
Sometimes the throughtime lasts decades, even a lifetime: Franco's Spain, Iran, the USSR. (Yes, I know we're not talking about governmental censorship but something more insidious that is nonetheless damaging and wrong.)
Michael Dickman is from Portland, so it’s probably the same road. The poem can be found in the print edition of the July/August 2020 issue of Poetry, but only because Poetry’s editors and board chose not to use any portion of their $100+ million endowment to send out a posse to each subscriber’s home and confiscate the offending issue or at least tear out the pages contaminated by Dickman’s poem. You may be able to find that issue at your local library, in a locked case.
The desire to avoid publishing abusers and people who use bigoted speech comes from a real problem, which is the fact that people who are serial-abusers / rapists are often not held accountable in our society. Because the disciplinary systems don't seem trustworthy, individuals feel that they must act themselves for there to be any justice. Though there are downsides to this, I understand it in the context of the world we're in now. I do feel that if someone behaves abusively (which is not a mere political disagreement, but an act), they should be given less status.
In the context of literary journals, I do have some confusion: what does it mean for fiction to express bigotry? You could have a bigoted character (and you may need bigoted characters to comment on an unjust society), but that doesn't mean that the author condones the values of those character. This ambiguity creates a bit of a difficulty for me.
I came here to say something like this. Sometimes writing about evil does more to expose and demonstrate the importance of fighting evil than it does to endorse the behaviour. Would online journals cleanse Sophie's Choice? Would online journals cleanse Shylock or Iago? "Must we Burn De Sade?" as Simone De Beauvoir famously wrote.
To answer your questions: yes, yes, and yes, these days. Some twenty years ago I published a translation of a critical study on Sade. Even then, and even in the French original, a large portion of the text was devoted to pleading the case for regarding Sade as a writer rather than a monster. I cannot imagine that book being published today, since Sade, except for a brief period, never acquired the cultural/political cachet that Foucault enjoyed (and Foucault in his personal life was quite monstrous himself).
I don’t agree with taking down an author’s work because the Twitter people get worked up about something. I’m really tired of all the policing out there. I don’t even read Twitter. Yesterday I was on there for a second and saw Buffy the Vampire Slayer was trending. I love Buffy so I clicked. I never figured out why it was trending, but I ran into a lot of tweets where people bitched about different characters or episodes, mainly concerning how the male characters treated the female characters. Would it be better going forward if all guys stopped acting like guys? I mean, come on. I realize Buffy is not a lit mag deleting work, but it’s just the idea (or fact) that a lot of people seem to be so anxious to neuter reality. Reality is not always pretty or fair. Pretty and fair doesn’t make interesting writing (or shows).
Also, editors should not step down for literary Twitter. Even if they get slammed, any publicity is good publicity! Don’t let the Twitter police push you around. My best advice on this is not respond to complainers. Takes two to tango, and if you don’t give them anything to keep the dance going, they don’t have much to work with, which is boring for the side who wants to fight. So they will move on to their next crusade.
Censorship is bad. "Hateful" comments are not usually published (if ever) by literary magazines, and I suspect this removal has to do with now-taboo words. Think of Tony Hoagland and his poem, "The Change," which Claudia Rankine insisted was racist but which is exactly the reverse: it's the exposure, with some humor, of a white man confronting his own racism. You might even call it "doing the work" in Robin diAngelene terms--though I am no fan of her work.
The answer is really simple: No. I am wildly progressive, but unpublishing people is unthinkably shoddy. You can choose not to publish them again, of course. I agree with RW in his dislike of shutdown of speech on college campuses and elsewhere. I also assert that if you like my story, you like my story. That an editor disagrees with an essay (or tweet, or whatever) that I publish later and elsewhere should have no bearing whatsoever on the original piece. None. It is unethical.
Let me begin by saying that all feedback is a gift and everyone has a right to their opinion, and moves toward transparency are generally constructive and worthy of appreciation. All that said, it seems to have gotten so you can't even be sharp or snarky about anything but "the Man." Even oneself! For example, I was told I (or my poetic persona) must not refer to myself/herself as an "idiot." Also in one poem I have cop characters I depicted (the specific characters, not in general) as clownish and inept, and was told this was "too positive and humorous" and they should only ever be depicted as dangerous, lest I appear contrary to the zeitgeist. (Also my references to classic musicals like Brigadoon, Carousel, Music Man, and State Fair were not contemporary enough and people would "not have ever heard of them"). I believe writers can and probably should depict a lot of realistically negative things-- without condoning or glorifying them, yet they cannot control anyone's reactions. So, yeah, my feelings are mixed, on those policies, because this information is illuminating, but given I write primarily to express myself, not as a professional per se, and I read to see if anyone shares my views, as well as to expand my horizons, I feel a bit stymied, frustrated and sad.
Yep. All of your personal examples support the argument that this kind of censorious environment is hurtful to artistic expression and to the integrity of the individual artist.
The rest of your comment disproved your initial point; all feedback is not a gift. Especially feedback that highlights the personal limits of the reader more than anything in your words.
There’s a saying: “Take what you need and leave the rest.” As for myself, if a journal’s editors have particular crotchets, and if they make those known, I can avoid wasting my time and theirs.
'Music Man' Julie? You're dating yourself, and the biggest discrimination America practices is ageism-- by far-- we old folks aren't hated, it's worse--we're ignored!
Well, maybe I'll start my own movement: The P.O.G. [the Proud Old Grouches]
I mean, I saw a production of it a couple summers ago and it's a classic film...I would think a few youngsters would have seen it. Its not like I was alive when it was written, either!
Sorry, I shouldn't have assumed-- the problem is my body is 75 years old but my mind is only 24--which was the year I almost drowned, so I relate to the young more than the old [except when the arthritis acts up!]
I'm not interestd in Twitter. In fact "Bugger Twitter" and bugger all superficial instant-speak, was my immediate reaction to Becky's piece today. I've already replied to a few of the comments below. I say here only that I deplore racism and all the other isms piously condemned in litmag guidelines and elsewhere, just as I deplore the position of those who set themselves up as the arbiters of righteous or right-thinking writing. It's especially obnoxious when a piece is deleted, not for what it contains, but for something its writer has published or said elsewhere.
“[M]any who work in journalism, universities, or publishing are now more concerned to avoid offending than to test the limits of what can be said. In this context, arguing for free speech often arouses suspicion. Defenders are said to be aligned with racists, transphobes, deplorables. And no one wants that. Rather than publish and be damned, the message is to self-censor . . .”
A really interesting topic and discussion. It's the age-old dilemma of can you separate the art from the artist? While it seems from the outside we are now a far more progressive society, the constant cries of horror over everything on social media can make you feel like you're back in the pearl clutching days of the past. Just this time you have slightly different pearls.
If you censor stuff on the main social media/media sources, do you just send it underground and to a deeper part of the web? Do you ground the possibility of discussion? Or should certain things simply not be heard?
I don't have an answer or a defined opinion, as it's a delicate topic in many ways. But whether you agree or disagree with all sides of the argument, it certainly gives you food for thought.
It seems to me that hate and bigotry ought to be answered and refuted publically and immediately. I have seen it go underground and fester. Just look at the surprise in many quarters when the tiki-torch squad marched in North Carolina the other year. People were going; "where did all THAT come from?" The "philosophy" (so-called) behind these things is so easily argued against it is almost a crime to let it walk away unchallenged. I would let them write and speak and then show those observing just how stupid they are in response.
The selective nature of the censorship is worth noting. The same editors who will cancel you for saying something “hateful” on Twitter condoned the hateful things said in the summer of 2020 by the people who were rioting, tearing down statues, attacking federal courthouses, attacking the police, and burning the flag. All of that was their right, said the Left. It was all protected under freedom of expression.
I think that this is too broad of a topic to simply come down on to "is censorship bad, yes/no". I think Rowan captured it best in the comments, in saying "The desire to avoid publishing abusers and people who use bigoted speech comes from a real problem, which is the fact that people who are serial-abusers / rapists are often not held accountable in our society. "
I do think that twitter - including literary twitter - can often be too fast to jump on a perceived wrong, without looking into details, instead reacting/retweeting something that looks bad in a screenshot, or getting angry when the response from a journal isn't the exact wording that they feel it should've been. I think the idea that editors should go on a deep dive through a person's publishing history to check if they've ever written something problematic is kinda ridiculous, yet I see some people thinking editors really should do that. And I don't think we're talking about censorship here on the level of "this is a swear word that makes me uncomfortable so you should be removed."
But there are people who *are* being harmful to others, and so yes, I'm okay with them being held accountable. That editor who threatened to drive across states to shoot another writer? I'm okay with him losing his role as an editor at a lit mag (and then eventually, quietly, a press dropping his planned book). The poet who writes using Nazi imagery because of being a bit, well, Nazi himself? I'm okay if a journal decides they don't want his work once they learn about the meaning behind it. Personally I'm currently feeling really uncomfortable that you've got a talk lined up with the editor of a journal that's known for publishing AND supporting the work of a poet writing about raping living women poets, along with recurrent issues around racism in the journal, plus bullying and harassment of women poets. I think he and his journal should be given as little air-time as possible.
I don't like Ezra Pound's poetry because it is boring, not because he supported Mussolini. I adore Knut Hamsun's work as one of my personal treasures even though he sucked up to the Nazi invaders of his country. I am 100% in line with the anti-theist arguments and writings of Christopher Hitchens even though he was wrong on Iraq and women comedians (and his brother Peter is wrong about everything except his distrust of political absolutism, which I agree with totally). I'm against shutting down right-wing speakers scheduled to make a speech on your college campus and the list of "Words That May Not Be Spoken," but I feel as strongly about that as I do against the crypto-fascists on the Right who just make shit up.
The problem with censorship isn't only its arbitrariness or its shape-shifting as times and morés change, it also raises the question of who gets to decide. Who do you want to appoint as the arbiter of what may or may not be said, or written, or even thought? Who are you willing to give that power to?
That said, an editor can do whatever she wants with the vehicle she created and/or runs. And writers looking for places to put their work are always best advised to find venues that use their "kind" of work. A lot of the problems addressed in the OP can potentially be solved by a writer actually (and for once) taking the advice of older heads and truly scouting things out before submitting anywhere.
But the general pearl-clutching atmosphere of the present era (visible on every side) betrays a kind of cowardice that is unbecoming of people who say they are for free thought but are actually too afraid to have one.
(edited to add: "Literary Twitter" is an idea that needs to burn in a fire. The two concepts are not compatible and even sound lazy)
I was taken aback a few months ago when a litmag’s Submittable page required me to note whether any of my poems contained language dealing with violence or abuse. One of them did. It was an ekphrastic poem expanding on a superb and horrifying photo that was taken by a Nazi photographer during a 1942 pogrom in Lviv, then in Poland. Imagine being the (probably unknowing) subject of that photograph. Now imagine living in the relative security and comfort of the USA and needing a trigger warning before you can read, 80 years later, a poem about that photograph. I knew then that the poem would be rejected (and of course it was) but submitted it anyway in a spirit of defiance. F^ck these people.
Yes!!! We are soo f***ing spoiled in America! I've lived in countries where owning a pair of shoes--real shoes, not sandals, was a status symbol, and people seemed happier or at least more contented than so many in the richest country the world has ever known. [And on a personal note, XPC, I admire you for sending that poem--I've done the same more than once. i think that's called integrity.]
You are 100% right. If you you call yourself a writer, you know that censorship is a dead end that stifles originality. You should have the confidence to believe that your words can respond and combat ideas and language you don’t like. But you cannot shut anyone else up. Shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater should mark the line of censorship. Anything less will produce third- rate literature
I agree with you, especially about the 'fear' behind the 'self-righteous'--I just wondered why so many are sheep, prey to whatever the contemporary wolf might be....
That’s a good question. I don’t know the answer—is there only one?—but I suspect that the advent of 24/7 cable “news” had something to do with it. Fear porn sells like crazy, and the networks have a lot of advertising slots to fill.
Yes, XPC, but the real 'slot' that is filled is human nature, and we are broken beings, everyone of us to one extent or another-- because when you think on it, it's really weird being a sentient being with free will.
However well-intentioned this kind of editorial policy is, I think it’s creating a horrible environment for writers and for creative writing in general. Art doesn’t flourish under these conditions: it shrivels and cowers in fear that it’s going to “offend.”
I've 'liked' this, but, for me, the problem isn't that 'it's creating a horrible atmosphere', but that it's wrong, for reasons spelt out elsewhere.
One of the reasons it’s wrong is that it’s creating a horrible atmosphere for literary artists, which will result in a diminution of their art. That’s good enough for me.
AMEN!!!
I disagree with removing work after the fact, and I don't think publishing someone's work is an endorsement for all that they stand for. This is the age-old question of separating art from artist. Nine times out of ten, I think the art should be judged separately. But there are some exceptions.
It makes me uncomfortable to know a journal can remove work after the fact. As you mention, in our modern moment, removal is as easy as a click. But I think a good rule -- at least what would make me feel better -- is treating anything that is published as if it has been printed. There's no going back, for better or worse. I wouldn't have been exposed to a lot of great writing, probably, if editors could "cancel" authors and their works as easily as they can now -- and, not to mention, according to their own unique moral compass.
Plus, if a writer has said something ugly enough online for an editor to consider removing their work, what kind of weird punishment is removing their story or poem from a journal? Who cares? The work is probably, at that point, old news. And the people who are most upset with the offender will, I'm sure, deal with them summarily online, caring little about the story or poem they once wrote.
Yeah, in the 'old days' it was harder for the control freaks: they had to have a book burning. Now they just have to use a finger....
Good point, Matt: work should be treated as if it had been printed.
An editorial decision is an editorial decision. My concern is the harsh approach utilized by members of literary Twitter to “address” (cancel) a writer/writing current today or writers/writing from times far different from today. That is censorship.
I agree with Bruce re this kind of editorial policy creating a horrible environment for writers. It has to be tough for editors too. Maybe they could post disclaimers saying that they choose work based on the quality of the writing and how well it meets the needs of their publication, period, and they aren't responsible for what the authors say or do elsewhere. That said, the editors would have to be prepared to be attacked for choosing such a position.
You can’t disclaimer away stupidity and short-sightedness.
I think that we are undergoing severe overcorrection in the literary and publishing world. That's probably not a popular stance — but I would much rather see publications post an acknowledgement that it has been brought to their attention that a writer they've published has made problematic comments elsewhere, yet leave their work available. We are in danger of impoverishing ourselves artistically, culturally, and intellectually if we demand that writers — or, indeed artists in any field — be morally or idealogically pure according to the ever-evolving standards of the day. And I say this as someone who really believes in the importance of those standards continually evolving.
Yes, you're spot on, but that takes courage and all I see is a field of cowards in America, some in the Left field, others on the Right side. We are already impoverishing ourselves, and make our real enemies-- the ones who truly want our destruction--laugh!
Loving the comments here and endorsing most of them, even if I do end up being canceled for saying so. ;-)
A recent example of this madness involved a very minor character in a long story of mine who happened to be a lesbian who hated all men (which was important to the context of another character). The editor liked my story and wanted to publish it but was concerned about that passage because it might be seen by some as reinforcing stereotypes (because of course there no such persons on the planet). That's how gun shy editors have become.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to expunge Moby Dick (whaling), Shakespeare (take your pick) and Kurt Vonnegut (misrepresentation of aliens) from my bookshelves.
PS - Suggested template for mags who are happy to publish and be damned.
'If you've bothered to read our publication before submitting or commenting, you'll know what we publish. If you're offended by what we publish occasionally, here's what you can do.
1. If you are not a subscriber or financial supporter, we don't give a rat's ass what you think.
2. If you are a subscriber or financial supporter, we love you but you don't get to dictate our policies, any more than we get to dictate your tastes, so stay or go, it's up to you.'
This. Thank you. Essentially, if you don’t like what you read in our pages, too bad and good thing there are plenty of other things to read.
By publishing your six-word story, we are not, in fact, endorsing anything you may do or be with the rest of your damn life.
Doug, as an editor myself, I can understand your editor’s questioning a stereotype, just as s/he might challenge the use of any other sort of cliché. That is the editor’s job. It’s your job as the writer to vigorously defend your use of the stereotype and to show how it’s vital to the workings of your story—or, alternatively, to see how the stereotype makes your story less than it could be. Whenever I question an author about something like this, I expect and want pushback. I do my job without assuming that my having a question means that the author is wrong.
You're my kind of editor, XPC, and long may you reign. My concern in this case was the implication that a specific character in a story might (and I emphasise might) offend and might (again I emphasise might) perpetuate a stereotype. You will be pleased to know that, because I'd been trying to place this story that I believed in strongly for over 2 years and I'd finally found an editor who 'got' my story and because it was a minor detail, I agreed to re-write the sentence and publication went ahead.
And of course all stereotypes are not equal. If you want to stereotype men, white people, Republicans, christians, capitalists, the military, or the police, you are welcome to it! Those are the kind of stereotypes litmags welcome without fear of recrimination.
True Doug, but don't forget to include God, the soul, eternity, and dips into the 'twilight zone' that are so verboten by the materialist (as in only matter is real) editors.
You are correct that not all stereotypes are equal, but not for the reason you are implying. Men, white people, Christians (in the West), capitalists, the military and the police are all groups that are either in the majority or have power structures behind them. Republicans also fall into that category in certain states and regions. Thus those groups are used to the privilege of representation that either consistently bolsters those power structures or at least recognizes members as individuals and not as representatives of the group en masse. They can afford to weather stereotypes in representation because of this privilege. (Although not without complaining that it’s only “a few bad apples,” and “not all men.”) What’s more problematic--and often literally life-threatening--is stereotypes of traditionally marginalized communities. When stereotypes of lesbians (to use the above poster’s example) as man-hating harpies isn’t mixed in with many many more representations in all types of media of the vast breadth and depth of lesbian individuals, it harms that community in non-trivial ways. Stereotypes at all in literature, as another commenter mentioned, should be viewed with an extremely critical eye as they are often the sign of lazy writing. But not all stereotypes have the same potential consequences for the stereotypee.
I don't feel I can make blanket statements about any of this. Writers, and all artists, can say and do whatever they want (at least to the extent of the laws of the land, although plenty over time have broken those too). Same goes for lit mags, or any other curating venue. But is any action free of consequence? No. Social mores also evolve—behaviors, beliefs or words that are totally normal or even laudable in one era can be deemed cancel-worthy in another, and vice versa. It seems like a pretty slippery slope to claim I have a singular belief about any of it. Then again, if I, a Jewish, queer and nonbinary person living in a diverse community, were an editor, and I happened to find out a contributor to my magazine was, say, a homophobic, transphobic Nazi actively working towards the extermination of people like myself and my friends, would I be tempted to deplatform them by removing their work? And would the thought of keeping their work up turn my stomach? Yes and yes. And then again AGAIN, if ten years down the road it became outré to use the word "queer" (as it sometimes has been), would I be disappointed if my current published pieces containing it were taken down? Or if I were cancelled over its use? Yes and yes. But I'd also argue that actively working towards the annhialation of a group of people versus using a word that becomes "bad" over time are two very different offenses. And thus my point: no blanket statements here.
I can certainly relate to what you're saying here, Goldie. I also think that the best creative writing sometimes grows past its creator. It can be larger than its creator. Bigger spirited. People in social groups the writer may loathe can actually benefit from reading it (I've done so myself) and, in a sense, one-up the writer's bigotry just by doing that. This isn't the same as giving the writer permission to act on his/her loathing. But if the writing reveals, perhaps inadvertently, some other truth that's worth reading, then it's worth reading in spite of what the writer is like as a person.
I think you're on to something here-- the best writing always 'grows past its creator', just as great music and art reach far beyond the human they came from.
Thanks. I am glad this resonated for you.
I love your clear thinking, Goldie.
This feels so complicated. I am with you on the nausea part. And certainly the "actively working towards the extermination of people" part. But I've run into many folks who on the surface really sound anti-Jewish (and likely are) but I can play music with them (which I did with our group, every week for 10 years). I skipped the weeks after Charlottesville and maybe a month after the 2016 election. Was I right or wrong to keep up with these Trumpians who were not "actively working towards the extermination of people" but were clearly problematic (and potentially dangerous) in their beliefs?
It is complicated. I don't think that playing music (or any other sort of collaborative interaction) with those people is wrong, per se; however, I'd have a different opinion if you were, say, a venue owner actively booking them to play shows that you knew were fundraisers for some blatantly nefarious organization. Chances are, everyone interacting with others out in the world crosses paths with people whose beliefs would make us squeamish—it's not like we can know everything about everyone (nor would I want to). However, I would say that hearing someone spout antisemitic conspiracy theories and not speaking out against those would be wrong (not saying that's what happened, just using an example of where I feel the potential right/wrong line is).
Goldie, I tried a few times to "like" this comment, but my click didn't take. So consider it liked. :-)
This is a glitch with Substack I need to look into. Sometimes it doesn't let users like replies. Thanks for noting this.
You are raising a fascinating complex issue here, the vulnerability of on-line writing in general. In the novel 1984, Truth is very malleable, and texts fall victim to competing political regimes. With computerized texts the permanence of written Truth is even more at risk. Words may easily disappear into the Memory Hole or be altered. It's good that the American Constitution exists as a written parchment, otherwise we may wake up one decade and find new amendments to everything we believed to be carved in stone. Copyrights may not mean anything when a text can be altered or even removed at will. What protections do writers have against such manipulations? What laws exist right now that prevent an editor from changing the text or removing it altogether? History books published on-line are most vulnerable to these powers. RT
You raise some good points.
Reference to the American Constitution is perhaps unfortunate in this context. I say no more, except that I write as a non-American.
Odd for you to suggest that an American writer shouldn’t refer to his own Constitution, in any context.
I don't regard the British or Irish contitutions as in any way relevant to what I or any other British or Irish writer writes.
Maybe things are a bit different here. We have robust free-speech rights enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution, but right now those rights are arguably under threat in a way that hasn’t been the case for six or seven decades. And many American writers are concerned.
The writer was making a point about preserving certain ideas and principles, no matter who happens to be in power at any given moment—a point that was entirely germane to this discussion.
Fair enough, Bruce.
Excellent discussion. From my point of view (as an old hippie) just want to add that I've noticed in the last 50 or 60 years that I've been around, I've noticed a growth of Victorianism. Somebody mentioned "pearl-clutching." There is definitely fear involved in these reactions. And in censoring "bad" ideas, there is an absurd belief that these ideas will go away. They won't. They will go underground, leaving a saccharine hypocrisy behind. Really? Ending racist language ends racism? What a corporate (classist) pretence. Words easily eel in and out of insulting meanings--all you need is a sneer, when you say a supposedly benign word to make it hateful; and words invented to be hateful are best seized and used by the victim as badges of honor, like queer, Hebrew (which once upon an ancient time was used as insult, believe it or not), cunt, which originally was a common , not-insulting term, etc. There are many effective ways to deal with hate and hate language, especially with humor. When infantile persons are attempting to shock--don't be shocked. The price of admission to the pages of any literary journal should be literary merit, not mealy-mouthed gentility and goody-two shoes morality. A little challenge is good for the intellectual immune system.
I'm a former hippie too, Mary [and how I miss the pony tail now!] Victorianism? I think it's worse, a new Puritanism, a self-righteousness on both Left and Right. Your final couplet is right on, girl!!! [oops, sorry, was 'girl ' not PC?]
You typed the C-word! Now I’m triggered.
I came of age in the '60's when free speech was a big thing, and organized protest entered the mainstream, yet we never developed the depressing cancel culture I see permeating young, and some older minds today. Thought control is nothing new: see the Inquisition , the Reign of Terror in the French Revolution, Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, or just read Animal Farm, 1984, Brave New World, The Gulag Archipelago, The Trial, To Kill A Mockingbird, and on and on. It's easy to see how any prejudice can hurt those it is directed against, but what seems not generally recognized is the tremendous damage it does to the 'righteous' PC crowd, sure that they have found the 'truth' and so are superior. First their brains will atrophy as they become more rigid, intolerant, judgmental...the essence of fundamentalism. And fundamentalists are not always 'religious': there are 'true believers' who espouse atheism, or a brand of politics or a culture or life style and are certain, it seems , that anyone who does not share their ideology is less than human. The real question is why? Why do we humans tend to make other humans 'the other', somehow less than we are? Think about this, because this is how we allow ourselves to do terrible things to other human beings, who are really much more similar to us than different, no matter how they look, or talk or believe. If we didn't de-humanize the 'other', could there be any crime, poverty, alienation, genocide, WAR! Each time we make someone else 'less', we harm ourselves, our minds, our hearts, and our souls--as those of us who have experienced such, suspect.
It’s dispiriting to be living in/through a time when such a question even has to be asked—emphasis here on “through” because this moral panic will burn out in time, as such public frenzies tend to do. That said, I canceled my subscription to Poetry when Michael Dickman’s “Scholls Ferry Rd.” was scrubbed from the magazine’s website (after a single NPC on Twitter objected to the poem’s “offensive” language) and Don Share resigned as editor. Cowards, despite sitting on an endowment of more than $100 million.
Sometimes the throughtime lasts decades, even a lifetime: Franco's Spain, Iran, the USSR. (Yes, I know we're not talking about governmental censorship but something more insidious that is nonetheless damaging and wrong.)
Patricia, at first I misread “throughtime” as “thoughtcrime.” LOL.
I used to know a Scholls Ferry Road when I lived in Oregon years ago. Will have to see if I can find Dickman’s poem elsewhere.
Michael Dickman is from Portland, so it’s probably the same road. The poem can be found in the print edition of the July/August 2020 issue of Poetry, but only because Poetry’s editors and board chose not to use any portion of their $100+ million endowment to send out a posse to each subscriber’s home and confiscate the offending issue or at least tear out the pages contaminated by Dickman’s poem. You may be able to find that issue at your local library, in a locked case.
The desire to avoid publishing abusers and people who use bigoted speech comes from a real problem, which is the fact that people who are serial-abusers / rapists are often not held accountable in our society. Because the disciplinary systems don't seem trustworthy, individuals feel that they must act themselves for there to be any justice. Though there are downsides to this, I understand it in the context of the world we're in now. I do feel that if someone behaves abusively (which is not a mere political disagreement, but an act), they should be given less status.
In the context of literary journals, I do have some confusion: what does it mean for fiction to express bigotry? You could have a bigoted character (and you may need bigoted characters to comment on an unjust society), but that doesn't mean that the author condones the values of those character. This ambiguity creates a bit of a difficulty for me.
I came here to say something like this. Sometimes writing about evil does more to expose and demonstrate the importance of fighting evil than it does to endorse the behaviour. Would online journals cleanse Sophie's Choice? Would online journals cleanse Shylock or Iago? "Must we Burn De Sade?" as Simone De Beauvoir famously wrote.
To answer your questions: yes, yes, and yes, these days. Some twenty years ago I published a translation of a critical study on Sade. Even then, and even in the French original, a large portion of the text was devoted to pleading the case for regarding Sade as a writer rather than a monster. I cannot imagine that book being published today, since Sade, except for a brief period, never acquired the cultural/political cachet that Foucault enjoyed (and Foucault in his personal life was quite monstrous himself).
I don’t agree with taking down an author’s work because the Twitter people get worked up about something. I’m really tired of all the policing out there. I don’t even read Twitter. Yesterday I was on there for a second and saw Buffy the Vampire Slayer was trending. I love Buffy so I clicked. I never figured out why it was trending, but I ran into a lot of tweets where people bitched about different characters or episodes, mainly concerning how the male characters treated the female characters. Would it be better going forward if all guys stopped acting like guys? I mean, come on. I realize Buffy is not a lit mag deleting work, but it’s just the idea (or fact) that a lot of people seem to be so anxious to neuter reality. Reality is not always pretty or fair. Pretty and fair doesn’t make interesting writing (or shows).
Also, editors should not step down for literary Twitter. Even if they get slammed, any publicity is good publicity! Don’t let the Twitter police push you around. My best advice on this is not respond to complainers. Takes two to tango, and if you don’t give them anything to keep the dance going, they don’t have much to work with, which is boring for the side who wants to fight. So they will move on to their next crusade.
Censorship is bad. "Hateful" comments are not usually published (if ever) by literary magazines, and I suspect this removal has to do with now-taboo words. Think of Tony Hoagland and his poem, "The Change," which Claudia Rankine insisted was racist but which is exactly the reverse: it's the exposure, with some humor, of a white man confronting his own racism. You might even call it "doing the work" in Robin diAngelene terms--though I am no fan of her work.
I'm old. I wouldn't twitter without a court order!
Ha! Wise.
The answer is really simple: No. I am wildly progressive, but unpublishing people is unthinkably shoddy. You can choose not to publish them again, of course. I agree with RW in his dislike of shutdown of speech on college campuses and elsewhere. I also assert that if you like my story, you like my story. That an editor disagrees with an essay (or tweet, or whatever) that I publish later and elsewhere should have no bearing whatsoever on the original piece. None. It is unethical.
Let me begin by saying that all feedback is a gift and everyone has a right to their opinion, and moves toward transparency are generally constructive and worthy of appreciation. All that said, it seems to have gotten so you can't even be sharp or snarky about anything but "the Man." Even oneself! For example, I was told I (or my poetic persona) must not refer to myself/herself as an "idiot." Also in one poem I have cop characters I depicted (the specific characters, not in general) as clownish and inept, and was told this was "too positive and humorous" and they should only ever be depicted as dangerous, lest I appear contrary to the zeitgeist. (Also my references to classic musicals like Brigadoon, Carousel, Music Man, and State Fair were not contemporary enough and people would "not have ever heard of them"). I believe writers can and probably should depict a lot of realistically negative things-- without condoning or glorifying them, yet they cannot control anyone's reactions. So, yeah, my feelings are mixed, on those policies, because this information is illuminating, but given I write primarily to express myself, not as a professional per se, and I read to see if anyone shares my views, as well as to expand my horizons, I feel a bit stymied, frustrated and sad.
Yep. All of your personal examples support the argument that this kind of censorious environment is hurtful to artistic expression and to the integrity of the individual artist.
The rest of your comment disproved your initial point; all feedback is not a gift. Especially feedback that highlights the personal limits of the reader more than anything in your words.
IDK. Depends how you look at it. It's information. May be better to know, even if the truth is undesirable.
But there’s no objective truth in feedback, only individual opinion, right? Is an opinion always worth knowing and valuing?
There’s a saying: “Take what you need and leave the rest.” As for myself, if a journal’s editors have particular crotchets, and if they make those known, I can avoid wasting my time and theirs.
'Music Man' Julie? You're dating yourself, and the biggest discrimination America practices is ageism-- by far-- we old folks aren't hated, it's worse--we're ignored!
Well, maybe I'll start my own movement: The P.O.G. [the Proud Old Grouches]
I mean, I saw a production of it a couple summers ago and it's a classic film...I would think a few youngsters would have seen it. Its not like I was alive when it was written, either!
Sorry, I shouldn't have assumed-- the problem is my body is 75 years old but my mind is only 24--which was the year I almost drowned, so I relate to the young more than the old [except when the arthritis acts up!]
I'm not interestd in Twitter. In fact "Bugger Twitter" and bugger all superficial instant-speak, was my immediate reaction to Becky's piece today. I've already replied to a few of the comments below. I say here only that I deplore racism and all the other isms piously condemned in litmag guidelines and elsewhere, just as I deplore the position of those who set themselves up as the arbiters of righteous or right-thinking writing. It's especially obnoxious when a piece is deleted, not for what it contains, but for something its writer has published or said elsewhere.
“[M]any who work in journalism, universities, or publishing are now more concerned to avoid offending than to test the limits of what can be said. In this context, arguing for free speech often arouses suspicion. Defenders are said to be aligned with racists, transphobes, deplorables. And no one wants that. Rather than publish and be damned, the message is to self-censor . . .”
—Joanna Williams, “How Woke Put Paid to Publishing,” City Journal, 28 August 2022, https://www.city-journal.org/the-woke-takeover-of-publishing?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Organic_Social
Such an important discussion. Thanks so much for the courage to take it on - despite what blowback you might get.
A really interesting topic and discussion. It's the age-old dilemma of can you separate the art from the artist? While it seems from the outside we are now a far more progressive society, the constant cries of horror over everything on social media can make you feel like you're back in the pearl clutching days of the past. Just this time you have slightly different pearls.
If you censor stuff on the main social media/media sources, do you just send it underground and to a deeper part of the web? Do you ground the possibility of discussion? Or should certain things simply not be heard?
I don't have an answer or a defined opinion, as it's a delicate topic in many ways. But whether you agree or disagree with all sides of the argument, it certainly gives you food for thought.
It seems to me that hate and bigotry ought to be answered and refuted publically and immediately. I have seen it go underground and fester. Just look at the surprise in many quarters when the tiki-torch squad marched in North Carolina the other year. People were going; "where did all THAT come from?" The "philosophy" (so-called) behind these things is so easily argued against it is almost a crime to let it walk away unchallenged. I would let them write and speak and then show those observing just how stupid they are in response.
The selective nature of the censorship is worth noting. The same editors who will cancel you for saying something “hateful” on Twitter condoned the hateful things said in the summer of 2020 by the people who were rioting, tearing down statues, attacking federal courthouses, attacking the police, and burning the flag. All of that was their right, said the Left. It was all protected under freedom of expression.
I think that this is too broad of a topic to simply come down on to "is censorship bad, yes/no". I think Rowan captured it best in the comments, in saying "The desire to avoid publishing abusers and people who use bigoted speech comes from a real problem, which is the fact that people who are serial-abusers / rapists are often not held accountable in our society. "
I do think that twitter - including literary twitter - can often be too fast to jump on a perceived wrong, without looking into details, instead reacting/retweeting something that looks bad in a screenshot, or getting angry when the response from a journal isn't the exact wording that they feel it should've been. I think the idea that editors should go on a deep dive through a person's publishing history to check if they've ever written something problematic is kinda ridiculous, yet I see some people thinking editors really should do that. And I don't think we're talking about censorship here on the level of "this is a swear word that makes me uncomfortable so you should be removed."
But there are people who *are* being harmful to others, and so yes, I'm okay with them being held accountable. That editor who threatened to drive across states to shoot another writer? I'm okay with him losing his role as an editor at a lit mag (and then eventually, quietly, a press dropping his planned book). The poet who writes using Nazi imagery because of being a bit, well, Nazi himself? I'm okay if a journal decides they don't want his work once they learn about the meaning behind it. Personally I'm currently feeling really uncomfortable that you've got a talk lined up with the editor of a journal that's known for publishing AND supporting the work of a poet writing about raping living women poets, along with recurrent issues around racism in the journal, plus bullying and harassment of women poets. I think he and his journal should be given as little air-time as possible.