Two thoughts re: freedom of speech & @BloomsburyIndia.

First, think of rights as a bundle: if I have a right to do something, it means
- someone else has "no right" to prevent me from doing it
- if they try, the State has an "obligation" to step in & support me / stop them

1/n

So for instance, I want to write something criticising a certain politician.

That person has, in the first instance, no right to stop me.

If they try - for instance, by sending a mob of their supporters to threaten me - then the police have an obligation to protect me.

2/n

This politician could prefer more subtle forms of pressure. They might want to convey their displeasure to my employer, with an implied threat that my employer's business will suffer if they do not silence or fire me.

In theory, they have no right to do this.

3/n

My employer now has a choice: refuse the politician's demand, & seek legal recourse in case of retaliation, or fire me.

If they pick the latter, I could in theory sue them for wrongful dismissal. If I could prove it was done under pressure, in theory, I'd win.

4/n

In other words, the courts have a duty to protect me.

This politician can also go to court against me, with either a civil or a criminal defamation complaint (a la M.J. Akbar.)

Could work, could backfire: I get to criticise them on the record, under oath.

5/n

Either way, though, it is the only lawful mode through which they can object to or suppress my speech.

So far, we've only looked at 3 actors: me (the speaker), the politician (the person who opposes my speech), & the entities they turn to achieve such suppression.

6/n

We have not looked at the platform. That is, we have not asked, where is it that I plan to publish this writing, & where is it that potential audiences will encounter it.

In this 3-layer story of right + no right + obligation, where do these platforms fit in?

7/n

I think the answer is nowhere.

I do not have a right to speak *on a particular platform*.

The state does not have an obligation to protect my right to speak *on a particular platform*.

The platform itself has no obligation to publish my speech.

8/n

Of course, the platform may have voluntarily incurred such an obligation, by entering into a contract with me. If so, they can also follow the procedures provided in the contract for withdrawing from it. If they don't, I can sue them for breach of contract.

9/n

Unless this is specified in the contract, the platform does not owe me any explanation for why they decided not to publish my speech.

I am also free to approach any other platform, and the same set of mutual rights / lack thereof will apply.

10/n

The platform itself may face criticism, internal or external, for each of these decisions: when they agreed to publish my speech, and when they reversed that agreement, and when they reversed that reversal etc.

All of this is their problem, not mine (the speaker's).

11/n

If the platform has declared certain policies to guide such decisions, & is found to have deviated from them in my case - that's still their problem.

I may crib about it, but I do not gain any additional rights, unless their own policies require it in such a case.

12/n

In short: inasmuch as not getting to speak on a particular platform is an attack on freedom of speech, it is far less severe than:
- the State coercing me unlawfully
- the State coercing me lawfully
- my employer coercing me
- private citizens coercing me

13/n

And inasmuch as people trying to coerce the platform itself is an attack on free speech, the severity of such an attack will depend on
- the existence of alternate platforms
- the identity of the people doing the coercing, especially any State ties
- the mode of coercion

14/n

An economic boycott of the platform by private citizens is almost certainly not an attack on freedom of speech. Even if it is one, it is so firmly within the rights of those citizens to choose what they read or what they buy, that the State cannot offer any remedy.

15/n

On the other hand, if private citizens threaten violence against the platform - think of every time people in India have threatened to burn theatres or bookstores - then yeah, absolutely an attack on freedom of speech, because those people have "no right" to do that.

16/n

If, in the face of such threats or attacks, the State does not protect the platform & prosecute the attackers - yeah, absolutely an attack on freedom of speech, because the State has an "obligation" to do that.

17/n

An economic boycott by the State is tricky. Are there legal obligations for the state to treat platforms equally when, say, allocating advertising budgets?

Unlike a private entity, procedures followed by the State are presumptively subject to public scrutiny.

18/n

The State has "no right" to take an arbitrary action. (This is part of the bundle that gives citizens a "right" to equality - which in this context is a "right to due process".)

If the State followed due process, there is presumably no attack on freedom of speech.

19/n

Recap, if you're wondering why "right", "no right", and "obligation" are in quotes in the last few tweets, this was at the top of the thread: https://twitter.com/Kianayema/status/1297478943344218112?s=19

Now coming to thought #2:

Let's not pretend all platforms are equal.

Let's not pretend the choice of platforms available to a would-be speaker is irrelevant.

20/n

If we think about newspapers / news websites: they differ both on tangible metrics, like readership size & demographics, & intangible ones like reputation & prestige.

Remember Marshall McLuhan. The masthead lends both visibility & credibility to the content.

21/n

A headline (or byline) in The New York Times means something. A TV interview on BBC World means something. In academia, being published in a prestige journal, or by Cambridge University Press means something.

The platform lends legitimacy to the speaker.

22/n

This isn't just intangible. The quality of editorial process & staff has a hearing on quality of output.

There is a reason publishers themselves run different imprints. They wouldn't want their bestsellers & heavyweights to get mixed up with their vanity / paid projects.

23/n

In that sense, what I haven't seen discussed so far is why these authors approached @BloomsburyIndia.

You can bet everything you own that if the book came out under that banner, they would use it as a marker of credibility.

24/n

One can picture the conversations. "Do you think an international publishing house of such repute would agree to carry any random thing?

You think they don't have lawyers, editors, fact-checkers?

You think you know more / are smarter than them?"

25/n

It would be far too late for @BloomsburyIndia to get off the tiger by then. They'd have to either ignore the entire matter, or double down on saying the book is credible.

In contrast, their dismount in the past week was awkward but bloodless.

26/n

When @nytimes came under criticism, including from their own employees, for running that Tom Cotton op-ed, they had to fire James Bennett from his editorial position & publish a reflection on their mistakes.

At least Bloomsbury has escaped without high-level firings.

27/n

The book can no doubt still be published. At this point, the authors could probably even crowdfund to self-publish it.

(I was going to say Kickstart, but folks at Kickstarter may have some qualms about giving them a platform now!)

28/n

It will not be published with the halo of a prominent publisher. It will have to find an audience, & be assessed, on its own unaided merits.

For all we know it will still find huge circulation, & the authors might become TV panel debate stars.

29/n

Will be interesting to watch the choices all these platforms make in the near future. Who will host these writers/speakers, and how will they frame that decision?

Will also be interesting to see what today's freedom of speech champions have to say at that time : ]

n/n. (n=30.)