What always makes me truly appreciate the First Amendment (what's left of it) is news stories about restricted speech in foreign countries. Not, as you might imagine, the wholesale censorship that goes on in autocratic countries -- which is too run-of-the-mill to get my blood flowing -- but the minor incidents that crop up in otherwise democratic nations like Canada.
"VANCOUVER - Some lucky readers who were accidentally allowed to purchase the new Harry Potter novel before its release date are under a court order to clam up and not reveal the plot. The judge has even ordered the 'small number' of Potter fans involved to return the book to the Raincoast Books store near Vancouver that jumped the gun on this weekend's release date."
I understand that many people don't want the plot of the new book spoiled for them (though I've bristled at the subtext of this in the past) and that the publishers have a huge marketing blitz staked on preserving secrecy -- but since when are citizens obliged to assist a corporation in its publicity schemes? Buying a book from a book store is not a contract with a publisher to help it promote that book on its own terms, and any individual who purchased the book legally, albeit early, should have the absolute right to speak and publish freely about it. This is not a matter of national security after all; it's a freakin' kids' book.
Besides, I'm sure Bloomsbury doesn't want people spoiling the ending immediately after the book goes on sale either, so should a judge be allowed to prevent reviewers from publishing spoilers (or kids from telling their friends) for the first week after the book is on sale? The first month? Canada should be ashamed of itself, and I hope some courageous Canuck blogger tells Raincoast to shove its thank you gifts up its ass and posts a big fat review of HP6.
Update: Well, how about that... "It appears that the accidental sale of 14 copies of the latest Harry Potter book at a Coquitlam store last week may have been a marketing blessing in disguise." A store spokesman has the gall to say: "The people who have returned it are 'honourable and obviously have the Harry Potter ethic.'" That's nice coming from someone with the Dolores Umbridge ethic. If you wanted to appeal to the Harry Potter ethic, why didn't you just do that, politely, without making it a legal requirement.
I mentioned in a comment that it galls me that a publishing company is complicit in this restriction on speech. It also kind of pisses me off that news outlets -- which have some stake here -- are treating the whole story as a lighthearted Hey Martha, without even questioning the propriety.
Update: The blogosphere is roiled! Canadian law-guy Michael Geist has several informed posts (as opposed to my own, which, blindly following the article I cited, mixes up the names of publisher and the store). Colby drops the f-bomb ("fascist").
Update: Meanwhile, in the land of the free and the home of the brave...
