Literary Group Calls for Cancelation of Amy Coney Barrett Book, Yet ‘Cares Deeply About Freedom of Speech’

Literary Group Calls for Cancelation of Amy Coney Barrett Book, Yet ‘Cares Deeply About Freedom of Speech’

In this episode of Blatant Hypocrisy for Dummies…

More than 500 literary figures signed an open letter protesting Penguin Random House’s publication of Supreme Court Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett‘s forthcoming memoir, while simultaneously declaring: “It is imperative that publishers uphold their dedication to freedom of speech with a duty of care.”

Makes your head spin, right?

As reported by The Guardian, the signatories began the letter by declaring they “care deeply about freedom of speech,” but apparently that “deep caring” only goes so deep:

We recognize that harm is done to a democracy not only in the form of censorship, but also in the form of assault on inalienable human rights. As such, we are calling on Penguin Random House to recognize its own history and corporate responsibility commitments by reevaluating its decision to move forward with publishing Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s forthcoming book.

The letter claims that Coney Barrett violated her judiciary role by “inflicting her own religious and moral agenda” on the American public and that Penguin Random House’s decision to move forward with her book is a violation of “international human rights.” International human rights? [ROFL emoji]

The signatories also claim that the upcoming book, for which Barrett reportedly received a $2 million advance, violates the publisher’s own code of conduct.

This is not just a book that we disagree with, and we are not calling for censorship. Many of us work daily with books we find disagreeable to our personal politics. Rather, this is a case where a corporation has privately funded the destruction of human rights with obscene profits.

In the twisted minds of the collective hypocritical left, “assault on unalienable human rights” does not apply to the rights of unborn humans to not be murdered, including up to the moment of would-be birth.

The group continued, citing “proof sources” that agree with the members of the group. How “objective.”

International human rights organizations widely recognize abortion access as a fundamental human right and have condemned the supreme court decision.

“In fact, Human Rights Watch, founded by Random House’s second publisher, Robert L Bernstein … notes that ‘the human rights on which a right to abortion access is predicated are set out in the [United Nations’] Universal Declaration of Human Rights’, a document to which Penguin Random House parent company Bertelsmann commits itself in … its code of conduct.”

So what?

In fact, the June 5-4 majority SCOTUS opinion that effectively overturned Roe v. Wade held that the original 1973 Roe decision got it wrong; that the issue of abortion was never a right protected under the U.S. Constitution, with Associate Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett voting to send the controversial abortion issue back to the states, as the Founders intended.

The signatories then really tried to have it both ways, in a transparent attempt to save face:

Many of us work daily with books we find disagreeable to our personal politics.

Barrett is free to say as she wishes, but Penguin Random House must decide whether to fund her position at the expense of human rights in order to inflate its bottom line, or to truly stand behind the values it proudly espouses to hold.

We … cannot stand idly by while our industry misuses free speech to destroy our rights.

Yeah, I got nothin’ — except this: The above crock of crap goes beyond hypocrisy: it’s a blatant lie. 

The notion that Amy Coney Barrett and other conservatives can freely express views contrary to the left’s narrative without consequences is preposterous. A quick look at Twitter, Facebook, Google, Amazon, and other Big Tech companies’ treatment of conservative opinion and conservative reporting belies the claim.

And to paraphrase Hillary Clinton, what difference does it make if a corporation refuses to censor conservative content while corporations like Nike and Disney openly support radical left-wing agendas?

Where is the condemnation from literary liberals of those corporations and dozens more like them? No doubt cheering on every left-wing activist or activist corporation they can find.

Trending on Redstate Video

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *