Shut down what?

Jan 8th, 2019 11:32 am | By

A sobering thread:

https://twitter.com/BonnieKRobinson/status/1081930516469899264

https://twitter.com/LRow15/status/1082065241993891840

You don’t even have to be a federal worker, you can be affected if your work depends on some furloughed bit of the federal government or of course if some aspect of your life depends on some furloughed bit of the federal government.

Like that. Oh well, it’s only cancer meds being delayed.

https://twitter.com/phiala/status/1081940501404807170

https://twitter.com/avamariegeorge2/status/1082041121751134209

Oh, so crop losses then. Oh well, it’s just food.

And so on. The thread is probably infinite.



Noticeably dainty and high-pitched

Jan 8th, 2019 11:11 am | By

James Gheerbrant wrote a profile of a trans woman, Sandra Forgues, which is getting some attention on Twitter, not all of it warmly complimentary.

Beneath the surface, she was fighting currents unseen. The face that periodically appeared in local newspaper articles, the name proudly emblazoned on lacquered clubhouse boards, were pieces of an identity that did not match the self she felt deep in her soul.

“At the core of my being, I have always felt like a woman,” she says. “I have a woman’s mind, but I did not have the body of a woman.”

I have to wonder if anyone would feel like that in a world where sex differences were not so exaggerated and value-laden and enforced. I have to wonder what the point would be. I have to wonder what anyone would think “I have a woman’s mind” could possibly mean.

More basically, I don’t believe there is any such thing as a self one feels deep in one’s soul. The self is almost as mystical a concept as the soul, and both are illusory.

Her voice, even by the standards of the female sex, is noticeably dainty and high-pitched. Later she explains that during male-to-female transition, the pitch of the voice is unaffected by hormone therapy — a woman’s voice has to be learnt and polished through hours of painstaking work with a speech therapist. Before, whenever she opened her mouth, the deep pitch of her speech did not match the feminine tenor of her thoughts and feelings. Now, a day of ordinary conversation consists of a thousand semi-conscious efforts to ensure that her innermost and outer selves are on the same wavelength.

So…in order to be the self she feels deep in her soul, she has to make the effort to talk in an artificial mannered way in any ordinary conversation. Is there perhaps a contradiction there?

Also…”dainty and high-pitched”? So, like, affected? That’s what women are? Thanks, guys.

“I could slip back into my old voice and you’d fall out of your chair!” She says with a high, trilling laugh.

As we gurlz do.

“To feel female deep inside, in all my characteristics, brings me peace,” Sandra says. “Often when we talk about transition, we talk about the look, but in hormone therapy what changes very quickly and very starkly are all the smells, the pheromones, the senses, the entire functioning of the brain: emotions, perceptions, fears.

“I now have fears that I never had before.”

Yes, that’s definitely one of the great joys of being a woman: the fears.

Sandra Forgues is the same person as Wilfrid Forgues: they share one Wikipedia page, one passport number, one consciousness. And yet she is also fundamentally, neurologically different. She is not simply a repackaged female version of her former self. Her character is altered, her reaction to things around her changed. In order to set up the interview, two armchairs need to be moved from the ground floor to an upstairs conference room. Before she would automatically have lent a hand; now she demurs bashfully as the photographer and I haul them up the staircase.

That’s the one that really got the Twitter attention.

If she could have another life, would she transition early? Would she trade a life of glory and anguish for a life of happy anonymity? Would she give away the years when she was somebody, to have more years as herself?

“The woman that I am today is much more accomplished than the woman that I would have been if I’d transitioned very early,” she says. “I would never have been Olympic champion, I would never have had that social status. Being Olympic champion brought me many other things. You learn about yourself. And that self-learning has made me the woman I always dreamt of.”

Well quite. Gather the rewards of being male for the first few decades and then “become” a woman.



A false economy

Jan 8th, 2019 9:48 am | By

Huh, guess who is “required” to work without pay during the government shutdown. (I put scare quotes on “required” because that’s slavery and as Katha Pollitt pointed out on Twitter the other day, slavery is a violation of the 13th Amendment.) The Secret Service, that’s who.

Secret Service agents are growing increasingly anxious and angry about the shutdown, according to several current and former agents. The Secret Service protects 42 people associated with the Trump White House, 11 more than were given details during the Obama administration. In August 2017, the agency’s new director, Randolph D. Alles, told an interviewer that the sprawling Trump entourage was putting unprecedented strains on his agents, in terms of staffing and budgeting.

Now add just plain not getting paid to that, and imagine how you would feel.

“They are asking you to put your life on the line and not paying you — it’s ridiculous,” said Donald Mihalek, 49, a 20-year Secret Service veteran whose own retirement paperwork has yet to be processed because of the shutdown.

The motivation to put your life on the line for Trump or his greedy children or his “I really don’t care” wife must get very feeble in those conditions.

“Morale is a serious issue,” said Mr. Mihalek, who served on the presidential detail during George W. Bush’s and Barack Obama’s administrations. “This is an incredibly stressful job that requires your full attention, and if you are standing there thinking about your mortgage, or your credit card bills, or the fact that you are burning through your savings, you are distracted, you not able to give 100 percent.”

Plus you feel less like it anyway.



Fake emergency

Jan 8th, 2019 9:17 am | By

Hahahaha national emergency hahahahahahaha this is all so hilarious.



Oh well if they’re uncomfortable

Jan 8th, 2019 8:57 am | By

The damn fools at the major US tv networks have agreed to air Trump’s stupid EMERGENCY DANGER DANGER LOOK OUT speech.

Mr. Trump’s request that the major networks broadcast his speech live set off a day of tense deliberations at ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox. By Monday evening, they had all agreed to broadcast the president’s address live at 9 p.m. Eastern. Cable news channels, including CNN and Fox News, will also carry the speech.

Some journalists worry that handing Mr. Trump a chunk of network prime time could allow the president to assert falsehoods to tens of millions of viewers. But several network producers said privately on Monday that they were uncomfortable turning down the president amid a national event affecting millions like the government shutdown. Declining Mr. Trump’s request could also open the networks to accusations of partisan bias.

Oh fuck off. Trump is a dangerous authoritarian maniac, so the fact that network producers are “uncomfortable” telling him no is hopelessly beside the point.

Ted Koppel, the veteran ABC anchor, said in an interview that given that Mr. Trump had not previously requested time for an Oval Office speech, the networks ought to give him “the benefit of the doubt.”

“When the president of the United States asks for airtime, you’ve got to do it,” Mr. Koppel said. “If what he has to say is clearly just in his self-interest and does not address the greater national interest, then the next time the White House comes around, I might not be inclined to offer it.”

 Christ he sounds like fucking Chamberlain. “Mr Hitler gave me his word, all he wants is the Sudetenland, he will never ask for another thing if we just give him that.”


Navratilova did not feel the need to back down

Jan 7th, 2019 5:00 pm | By

DOCTOR Rachel McKinnon wrote a piece explaining what people should do when they annoy DOCTOR Rachel McKinnon, with particular reference to Martina Navratilova.

Last month, tennis legend Martina Navratilova wrote some now-deleted, unfortunate tweets about trans-women athletes.

Her initial tweet was about trans women athletes competing as women while having a penis. It read:

Clearly that can’t be right. You can’t just proclaim yourself a female and be able to compete against women. There must be some standards, and having a penis and competing as a woman would not fit that standard…

Two days later, I weighed in by retweeting the offending tweet: “Welp, guess Navratilova is transphobic.” I also said, “No, you are not ‘pro- trans people’ if you say that trans women with a penis must not compete in women’s sport.” I made the points [sic] that her position is transphobic. Genitals do not play sports.

Saying her position is transphobic is not so much making a point as it is repeating a bit of stale jargon. What Navratilova said is not “transphobic” just because Rachel McKinnon says so. Saying that people with male bodies should not compete against women is not transphobic, it’s just an obviously reasonable claim about fairness in physical competition. Wear skirts, call yourself Jenny, giggle fetchingly all you like, but don’t force your way into women’s sport.

Many others confronted her, but Navratilova did not feel the need to back down from her position.

Imagine that! Some people disagreed with her, some people agreed with her, and she went ahead and felt entitled to think what she thought. She didn’t “feel the need to back down from her position” because no one had succeeded in convincing her her position was wrong. That happens sometimes.

What Navratilova failed to see was that her tweets, whether they were intentional or not, were doing harm to trans women. Her comments were immediately picked up by anti-trans publications and used as justification for their own positions.

What McKinnon fails to see is that much of the shit he talks is doing harm to women, to say nothing of the harm his competing against women in cycling does to those women.

The doc then gets to the instructions on what to do if you trip and say something transphobic. They’re predictable enough: cop to it, apologize, mean it, delete it all, listen to the abuse criticism and thank people for it, commit to doing better and do the work.

(Wouldn’t it be nice to see Rachel McKinnon do that? Ever? Isn’t it interesting that that apparently never happens? We have to nod in agreement at whatever “criticism” is flung, but Rachel can skip through life without being re-educated every five minutes.)

I still have hope for Navratilova.

Nobody is perfect. I’m not perfect. I don’t expect anyone to be perfect. But we should be held accountable for our actions, especially when we hurt people. When people say that something you said or did hurt them, believe them. Don’t try to minimize it or point to what you ‘intended.’

Again, this is a philosopher talking, making it a general and absolute rule that when people say that something you said or did hurt them, you have to believe them. No exceptions, no qualifications, no warnings – just believe them. But what if they are psychopaths, or narcissists, or whiny entitled brats, or con artists, or people who work for Trump, or people who want to do you harm?

Don’t try to minimize it or point to what you ‘intended.’

Here’s an analogy: suppose that you accidentally break my favorite coffee mug. Sure it’s worse if you intended to break it, but even if was an accident, you still broke my mug. You should acknowledge that you broke it, apologize, do something to fix the harm, and then promise to be more careful in the future.

And you should mean it.

Wow – don’t ever drop in at McKinnon’s place. But more to the point, don’t ever go near McKinnon at all. Guess what: that’s not how you treat people. If somebody breaks your favorite whatever, they already feel bad about it, and if you’re not an asshole you don’t want to make them feel even worse.

And I mean it.



Looking strongly

Jan 7th, 2019 4:16 pm | By

Can Trump give himself emergency powers if there’s no emergency?

“We are looking at it very strongly,” Trump told reporters on Sunday. “We’re looking at a national emergency, because we have a national emergency.”

How do you look at something “very strongly”? He can’t even word, and he wants emergency powers.

Also, we don’t have a national emergency of the kind he means. We have a national emergency that Trump is president.

Congress could reject the president’s emergency declaration with a vote in both the House and Senate. But the Republican-controlled Senate seems unlikely to take that step. Instead, critics would very likely pursue a legal challenge.

“I think the president would be wide open to a court challenge saying, ‘Where’s the emergency?’ ” Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, told ABC.

“Emergency” doesn’t mean “more people seeking asylum than Donald Trump would like.”

[Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice] also cautioned that a resort to emergency powers in the current situation — in the midst of a standoff with lawmakers that has produced a partial government shutdown — could be considered an abuse of the president’s power.

“Emergency powers are intended to be used for emergencies, not to settle political disputes or to shortcut the political process,” Goitein said.

Would a wall be just a great thing?

Trump has insisted since the 2016 campaign that a physical barrier along the U.S. border with Mexico is the solution to what he sees as a crisis.

“Walls work,” the president wrote in a letter to lawmakers last week. “That’s why rich, powerful, and successful people build them around their homes. All Americans deserve the same protection.”

He means himself when he says “rich, powerful, and successful people.” He thinks that’s the only kind of people to be, and he thinks he’s the most rich, powerful, and successful person of all.

But not all rich, powerful, and successful people do build walls around their houses, and of the ones who do, not all of them think that therefore there should be a wall keeping Mexico and points south out of our nice shiny expensive stuff.



The return of blasphemy bans

Jan 7th, 2019 12:10 pm | By

Jacob Mchangama and Sarah McLaughlin at Foreign Policy also argue that Europe is going backward on free speech and free thought.

But despite the unanimous rhetorical support for free speech after Charlie Hebdo, blasphemy bans have become more firmly anchored in some parts of the continent in recent years. In a recent case, the European Court of Human Rights even reaffirmed that European human rights law recognizes a right not to have one’s religious feelings hurt. The court based its decision on the deeply flawed assumption that religious peace and tolerance may require the policing rather than the protection of “gratuitously offensive” speech. Accordingly, it found that Austria had not violated freedom of expression by convicting a woman for having called the Prophet Mohammed a “pedophile.”

And yet, of course, talking about Mohammed and pedophilia is not necessarily gratuitous. It may be done in the spirit and style of Trump, but it may be done in the spirit and style of Salman Rushdie or Maryam Namazie or Taslima Nasreen or many many other secular critics of Islam.

Moreover, laws against blasphemy and religious insult frequently protect the majority against minorities and dissenters. In Spain, the actor and activist Willy Toledo was arrested and now faces prosecution for “offending religious feelings” after being reported to the police by an association of Catholic lawyers. Toledo had written a particularly salty Facebook post: “I shit on God and have enough shit left over to shit on the dogma of the holiness and virginity of the Virgin Mary.” Toledo’s Facebook rant was provoked by the criminal investigation of three Spanish women’s rights activists who paraded a giant effigy of a vagina through the streets of Seville, imitating popular Catholic processions.

It’s not as if Spain needs to protect the feelings of Catholics, is it, when Catholic reactionaries ran the place until all too recently.

These cases stand in stark contrast to how European democracies have approached the question of blasphemy and free speech at the United Nations. For more than a decade, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) attempted to introduce a global blasphemy ban by passing annual resolutions against “defamation of religions.” But in 2012, the OIC’s then-secretary-general, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, had to admit defeat under pressure from democracies, human rights organizations, and activists, with the United States and European democracies taking the lead. “We could not convince them,” Ihsanoglu said. “The European countries don’t vote with us, the United States doesn’t vote with us.” This crucial victory for free speech was followed by statements from U.N.European UnionOrganization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and Council of Europe bodies and experts, all stressing the incompatibility of blasphemy bans with free speech under international human rights law.

By breaking with this consensus and failing to crystalize the protection of blasphemy and religious insult into legally binding human rights norms, the court has failed to offer an expansive protection of free speech for Europeans affected by such laws. But the court’s reasoning and the continuous enforcement of blasphemy bans in European democracies also help lend legitimacy to laws punishing blasphemy and religious offense in states where blasphemy is a matter of life and death.

If it’s good enough for the UN, why isn’t it good enough for Europe?



Vous êtes encore là?

Jan 7th, 2019 11:33 am | By

France24 tells us the Charlie Hebdo people say things have only gotten worse.

Charlie Hebdo’s commemorative cover this week depicts both a Catholic bishop and a Muslim imam blowing out a candle flame that represents the light of reason. The headline bemoans a French society it says has become anti-enlightenment (“anti-lumières“).

In an interview with AFP, Charlie Hebdo’s editor-in-chief Riss, who was the artist behind the cover drawing, said public attitudes had only grown less tolerant since the attacks.

Not only has the tragedy faded from memory but so has the social significance of the event, he said.

“One gets the impression that we have turned our backs to it, so in our opinion the antiquated attitudes are still there, even more so than four or five years ago.”

“The hostility no longer only comes from religious extremists but now also from intellectuals,” he observed.

In an editorial for the memorial edition – entitled “Are you still there?” – Riss put it even more bluntly: “Everything has become blasphemous.”

On its double-page centrefold spread this week, the magazine depicted a host of world figures (whom it called “obscurantistes”) celebrating the anniversary of the attacks, from far-right leader Marine Le Pen to Pope Francis to US President Donald Trump.



Not forgotten

Jan 7th, 2019 11:17 am | By

Charlie Hebdo, four years ago today.



Negative, sir

Jan 7th, 2019 11:08 am | By

Now Trump wants to take over the airwaves to tell us lies.

President Trump wants to address the nation about the government shutdown on Tuesday night, and later in the week plans to travel to the southern border as part of his effort to persuade Americans of the need for a border wall — the sticking point in negotiations with Democrats who are eager to reopen shuttered agencies.

The White House did not immediately respond to questions about a request to television networks to carve out time for an Oval Office address. A person familiar with the request said the White House had asked to interrupt prime time programming on Tuesday.

So that he can lie to us about a SCARY EMERGENCY on the border. The answer should be no.



Full clemency

Jan 7th, 2019 9:54 am | By

And at the same time, I saw Julie tweet.



Thanks to the MASSIVE FUSS

Jan 7th, 2019 9:50 am | By

Rahaf tweeted her barricade.

https://twitter.com/rahaf84427714/status/1082212804549959687

Help was on the way.

Australia director of Human Rights Watch urges Australia to step up.

ABC News Middle East correspondent on the scene.

Sophie McNeill joined her in the barricaded room.

https://twitter.com/rahaf84427714/status/1082297101239836672

Human Rights Watch is still on the case.



A safe location in Bangkok

Jan 7th, 2019 9:25 am | By

It looks as if Thailand is not going to hand Rahaf Alqunun over to her father after all.

Rahaf Mohammed Alqunun, 18, will be taken to a safe location in Bangkok, a hotel where U.N. staff members will interview her and process her status determination in coming days. She originally was set to be deported back to Kuwait, where her family was waiting for her.

Thai authorities had detained her at an airport hotel in Bangkok’s Suvarnabhumi Airport since Saturday night and had initially planned to send her back to Kuwait on a flight departing at 11:15 a.m. local time Monday. Alqunun, however, barricaded herself in her room and demanded to meet with the U.N. refu­gee agency, missing the flight.

Hours later, agency officials were granted access to her “to assess her need for international refugee protection and find an immediate solution for her situation,” according to an emailed statement from Caroline Gluck, a spokeswoman for the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).  Immigration officials released photos of her leaving the small hotel room in the airport’s transit area where she was being held, escorted by U.N. officials and Thai authorities.

The Thai authorities have given her back her passport.

Alqunun began a social media campaign late Saturday on Twitter chronicling her detention and even posting a photocopy of her passport to prove her identity. The young woman, who is from the city of Hail, in northwestern Saudi Arabia, suffered physical and psychological abuse at the hands of family members, including her brother, according to a 19-year old woman who said she and Alqunun have been friends for several years.

The woman said Alqunun’s family locked her up for months at one point as punishment for cutting her hair.

The woman, who lives in Sweden and spoke on the condition of anonymity, said she also fled Saudi Arabia two years ago because her family was abusing her. Alqunun was in contact as she planned her escape, the woman said.

Sometimes Twitter is a literal life-saver.

The dramatic scenes and Alqunun’s pleas for help echoed those of other women who have tried to flee abusive or restrictive conditions in Saudi Arabia. In 2017, Dina Lasloom, a 24-year-old Saudi woman, was similarly attempting to seek asylum in Australia when she was stopped at an airport in Manila. She was forced to return to Saudi Arabia and has not been publicly heard from since.

Better luck to Rahaf.

H/t What a Maroon

Updating to add: on Dina Lasloom



The flight leaves in 5 hours

Jan 6th, 2019 3:30 pm | By

https://twitter.com/miss9afi/status/1082032113069756418

https://twitter.com/JenDegtjarewsky/status/1082054336383860736



Bzzzt

Jan 6th, 2019 3:00 pm | By

Oh, how thoughtful.

Women in Saudi Arabia divorced by their husbands will now be sent a text message to inform them of their new status.

The move is designed to stop the practice of men ending marriages without telling their wives.

That nice Saudi Ministry of Justice tweeted it.

https://twitter.com/MojKsa_EN/status/1081894180908134400

So nice for her, as she’s walking around in her abaya (which she wouldn’t be, because women aren’t supposed to be walking around on their own) she gets a text telling her she’s divorced. I’m glad it’s such a nice blue-sky day.

The message will include the divorce certificate number and the name of the relevant court where the women can pick up the documentation.
Women can also inquire about their marital status through a website and view details of any probate certificates.

Notice what women can’t do, which is refuse to be unilaterally divorced. Women have no say in the matter, but the government is kindly seeing to it that they will be told they’re divorced.

Such progress; much reform.



Equal time for men in feminism now?

Jan 6th, 2019 2:46 pm | By

https://twitter.com/tommykinda/status/1081984250054889473

Nope, that’s exactly what it is. “Feminism isn’t about the liberation of women, it’s about the liberation of people.” That is All Lives Matter in a different outfit. But, you know, it’s only women, so it doesn’t matter.

NO to that question. NO in thunder.



Get out your wrenches

Jan 6th, 2019 12:22 pm | By

We haven’t seen enough starvation lately, let’s have more of that.

The partial government shutdown glided into its third week Saturday with no end in sight. If the government is not reopened before February, millions of Americans who receive benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) — the nation’s food stamp program — could have their assistance disrupted.

But they can just make an adjustment. Trump said so.

According to the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 42 million Americans received SNAP benefits in 2017. More than 68 percent of participants were in families with children, and more than 44 percent were in working families.

Other programs are in even more immediate danger than SNAP. The Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) are not receiving federal funds at all during the shutdown, but “can continue to operate at the State and local level with any funding and commodity resources that remain available,” according to the USDA.

In the first five months of 2018, around 7 million Americans received WIC benefits each month. WIC is provided for pregnant, postpartum and breastfeeding women, infants, and children up to age 5 who fall within the poverty index and are at “nutritional risk.” The WIC program granted nearly $5 billion to every U.S. state and territory in 2018, as of September.

It’s ok. They can make an adjustment.



Rahaf Mohammed al-Qunun

Jan 6th, 2019 12:08 pm | By

Human Rights Watch:

(Bangkok) – Thailand authorities should immediately halt the planned deportation of a Saudi woman who says she is fleeing domestic abuse and fears for her safety if forcibly returned to Saudi Arabia, Human Rights Watch said today. The authorities should also allow her unrestricted access to make a refugee claim with the Bangkok office of the United Nations refugee agency (UNHCR) and should respect UNHCR’s decision under the agency’s protection mandate.

Rahaf Mohammed al-Qunun, 18, told Human Rights Watch that she arrived at Suvarnabhumi Airport in Bangkok on the evening of January 5, 2019, en route from Kuwait to Australia, but was met by a representative of the Saudi embassy who seized her passport to prevent her from traveling to Australia. Saudi and Thai officials told her she would be forced to return to Kuwait on the morning of January 7, where her father and brother are awaiting her.

“Saudi women fleeing their families can face severe violence from relatives, deprivation of liberty, and other serious harm if returned against their will,” said Michael Page, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “Thai authorities should immediately halt any deportation, and either allow her to continue her travel to Australia or permit her to remain in Thailand to seek protection as a refugee.”

Al-Qunun said she fled while her family was visiting Kuwait, which unlike Saudi Arabia, does not require a male relative’s approval for an adult woman to depart the country. She said that she was fleeing abuse from her family, including beatings and death threats from her male relatives, who also forced her to remain in her room for six months for cutting her hair.

Al-Qunun began tweeting about her situation beginning at 3:20 a.m. Bangkok time via a Twitter account she created in January. In an English-language tweet, she wrote, “I’m the girl who run away from Kuwait to Thailand. I’m in real danger because the Saudi embassy trying to forcing me to go back to Saudi Arabia, while I’m at the airport waiting for my second flight.”

She also tweeted a video in which she says that Saudi embassy officials stopped her after arriving in Bangkok, and she later posted a copy of her passport.

She tweeted that she was being held in an airport hotel and that Saudi embassy officials told her she would be returned to her family in Kuwait in the late morning of January 7.

Al-Qunun told Human Rights Watch that at about 5 p.m. on January 6, Thai immigration officers took her from her hotel room and informed her that she could not enter Thailand because her visa was “rejected” and that she must return to Kuwait on January 7. She then returned to her room. However, she had not applied to enter Thailand because her passport was taken, along with her plane ticket to Australia.

Thai authorities have so far prevented Al-Qunun from having access to UNHCR to make a refugee claim even though it is evident she is seeking international protection. Under customary international law, Thailand is obligated to ensure that no one is forcibly sent to a place where they would risk being subjected to persecution, torture or ill-treatment, or other serious human rights violations. As a party to the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Thailand has a treaty obligation not to return anyone to a territory where they face a real risk of torture or ill-treatment.

The risk doesn’t get much more real than that.

#SaveRahaf



Who are the groups subjected to the most public vitriol for their published work?

Jan 6th, 2019 10:31 am | By

Judith Shulevitz at the Times points out that publishers are starting to add morality clauses to their contracts.

This past year, regular contributors to Condé Nast magazines started spotting a new paragraph in their yearly contracts. It’s a doozy. If, in the company’s “sole judgment,” the clause states, the writer “becomes the subject of public disrepute, contempt, complaints or scandals,” Condé Nast can terminate the agreement. In other words, a writer need not have done anything wrong; she need only become scandalous. In the age of the Twitter mob, that could mean simply writing or saying something that offends some group of strident tweeters.

Here’s one problem with that: not all strident tweeters are reasonable. We wouldn’t want Adrian Harrop having a veto over what gets published, for instance.

Jeannie Suk Gersen, a Harvard Law School professor who writes regularly for The New Yorker, a Condé Nast magazine, read the small print, too, and thought: “No way. I’m not signing that.” Ms. Gersen, an expert in the laws regulating sexuality, often takes stands that may offend the magazine’s liberal readers, as when she defended Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’s rollback of Obama-era rules on campus sexual-assault accusations. When I called Ms. Gersen in November, she said, “No person who is engaged in creative expressive activity should be signing one of these.”

It’s not that a company should have to keep on staff a murderer or rapist, she added. But when the trigger for termination could be a Twitter storm or a letter-writing campaign, she said, “I think it would have a very significant chilling effect.”

Twitter being what it is. Would we want Jordan Peterson shutting us down? He’s suing those university inquisitors who said hostile things about him in their meeting with Lindsay Shepherd, after all.

Masha Gessen, another New Yorker writer, also said she wouldn’t sign her new contract, at least not as it was originally worded. Ms. Gessen, a Russian-American journalist who won the 2017 National Book Award for “The Future Is History,” about the return of totalitarianism in post-Communist Russia, has spent her career challenging prevailing nostrums.

Last year, as prominent men fell like bowling pins after being accused of sexual misconduct, Ms. Gessen published columns on the New Yorker website describing the #MeToo movement as an out-of-control “moral panic” bent on policing sexual behavior by mob justice. Needless to say, many readers did not agree.

“I’m extremely uncomfortable with it,” Ms. Gessen said about the contract, “because I have in the past been vilified on social media.” Having once been fired from a job as the director of Radio Liberty in Russia after what she called a disinformation campaign, she added, “I know what it’s like to lose institutional support when you most need it.”

It’s not as if disinformation campaigns are unknown to Twitter and Facebook.

Over the past four years, I’ve published articles criticizing the concept of safe spaces and deploring the lack of due process in campus rape hearings. I’ve been called transphobic for an essay I wrote in 2016 about the tension between transgender rights and the right to privacy, and I’m still being called that. If I’d had a book contract with a morality clause when I wrote those, I might have thought twice before indulging my fondness for picking fights.

It’s remarkably easy to get called (and labeled and forever convicted as) transphobic.

After our conversation, Ms. Gersen sent me an email pointing out a possible unintended consequence of the Condé Nast clause. Who are the groups subjected to the most public vitriol for their published work, she asked? Who is most viciously trolled? Women and members of minorities. “That is one of the realities of publishing while a woman or minority in this age,” she wrote. “The clause is perversely posing more career risk to women and minorities than to white males.”

Funny how that works.