NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
As the head of a public relations agency, I write for a living. Most of my days are spent creating content—from press releases to op-ed columns like this one.
And, as a fan of the James Bond franchise, I have read all of Ian Fleming’s original books. Censoring them, which Ian Fleming Publications Ltd. (the owner of the author’s work) recently decided to do, is a step in the wrong direction. While the company’s desire to “remove racist references” in reissued editions may be well-intentioned for so-called “modern audiences” in the short term, it will only undermine free speech and the free flow of information in the long run. Public discourse—a staple of Western democracy—will suffer as a result.
The censorship of Bond begs two pertinent questions: What is racist? And who decides that?
In some cases, the answer to the first question is easy. The word “n*****”—often used in the Bond books—is obviously racist and deplorable. That goes without saying (or writing).
However, other cases of “racism” are murkier. In one instance, Fleming describes characters’ accents as “straight Harlem-Deep South with a lot of New York thrown in.” In another, he claims that African gold and diamond smugglers are “pretty law-abiding chaps I should have thought, except when they’ve drunk too much.”
Both lines will now be scrubbed. But are they even racist?
Potentially, or perhaps not. It definitely isn’t 100 percent clear—enter the gray area.
Now, am I “racist” for even daring to write these last 100 words? Who would decide that? The same “sensitivity readers” who censored Fleming? Why do they have the power to exert influence over language and, by extension, content consumers en masse?
When the words “men” and “women” in Roald Dahl stories—written by a former Bond screenwriter no less—draw the ire of censors, it doesn’t inspire confidence in the “sensitivity readers” making decisions for the rest of us. When the line “fat little brown mouse” becomes offensive, it’s clear that the goalposts of offensiveness have been moved quite far.
JAMES BOND ‘CAN BE OF ANY COLOR, BUT HE IS MALE,’ SAYS LONGTIME FRANCHISE PRODUCER
Because the reasons for censorship are always subjective, based on the individual thoughts and biases of censors, that road is one laced with landmines. The costs outweigh the benefits, in large part because the group of supposed beneficiaries is much smaller than the censors tend to believe.
Freedom of speech is an imperfect democratic experiment, but it is the best one at our disposal.
The overwhelming majority of readers are left bearing the costs without reaping clear rewards—in Bond’s case, most readers who don’t turn to Fleming for racial commentary or moral clarity in the first place.
The least risky move is to leave the goalposts untouched. There is an alternative, more risk-free approach—one immune to groupthink, bias, and subjectivity. It’s called free speech absolutism: Don’t censor language. Either love it or hate it. Like it or loathe it. Be offended by it, despise it, and then criticize it. Make the case for that language’s offensiveness by—you guessed it—using your own speech in return.
If what came before you is outdated or repulsive, then use it as a framework to be better now and into the future—with free expression squarely in your corner, like it was in the original author’s.
Freedom of speech is an imperfect democratic experiment, but it is the best one at our disposal.
Some of Fleming’s writing is indeed objectionable, and I’m not here to defend it. Even Bond fans admit as much, and that’s exactly the point.
People can be exposed to objectionable views without condoning them since they don’t necessarily overshadow the bigger picture—that the Bond character is fun, flawed, and heroic at the same time. Readers can come across content and condemn it simultaneously
Why? Because we can walk and chew gum at the same time. Existence doesn’t have to mean endorsement.
Of course, Ian Fleming Publications Ltd.—a private company—has every right to draft, edit, and publish Bond-related content as it deems fit. As a form of government overreach and suppression of individual liberty, state censorship is even more problematic. But a private entity possessing the power to censor does not mean that they should; to the contrary, those with that power make for the most powerful opponents of censorship by not exercising it.
Enjoy the Bond novels (as I do), or don’t. The choice is yours. But, above all else, fight for them to exist as originally written. Defend your right to read.
