Back in the day, I don’t think anyone would have described many of the most popular authors as ‘moral.’ Alcoholics like Hemingway and F. Scott Fitzgerald were rockstars, the abusive Lord Byron was a sex icon, and Rudyard Kipling was racist yet beloved by children and adults alike. Publishers largely weren’t concerned with the reputations of their contracted writers as long as the work they produced was profitable and timely (Mullins). Many character flaws, which some people might dismiss as attitudes reflective of their time period, didn’t taint the reader’s opinion of an author’s work, and to some extent, that still applies today to the same historical authors. However, beginning in the 21st century, publishing houses began to re-examine their legal agreements and impose stricter rules of etiquette for writers in their book deals, which are known as morality clauses (Deahl). While there are several advantages for publishers in including these clauses in contracts, there’s a growing movement against morality clauses spearheaded by the authors who are most impacted by the numerous disadvantages.

​

In publishing, the morality clause, by definition, is an added caveat to an author’s contract outlining the publisher’s expectations for their public behavior. This legal stipulation allows a company to terminate its contract with a writer if they’re found to have engaged in illegal activities, made controversial statements, or generally tarnished their own reputations to the point where it would impact their book sales or damage the public’s perception of the publishers (“Pen America on ‘Morality Clauses’”). It can range from being very specific to as vague as “Publisher may terminate… if Author’s conduct evidences a lack of due regard for public conventions and morals, or Author commits a crime or any other act that will tend to bring Author into serious contempt, and such behavior would materially damage the Work’s reputation or sales,'' (“Why We Oppose Moral Clauses in Book Contracts”). The concept of a morality clause was developed in the 1920s after film star Roscoe “Fatty” Arbuckle was convicted of rape and murder and lost Universal Studios a significant amount of both money and respect from the public due his talent contract (Epstein). While the film and music industry quickly began utilizing the clause for artist agreements, it wasn’t until 2018 that publishers widely began including morality clauses in response to the #MeToo movement (Deahl). 

​

With the zeitgeist in mind, it’s easy for outsiders to understand the logic behind the contract provisions; as many famous figures, including authors, were being outed as being sexual predators, publishers did not want to be associated as the company working to spread their ideas. Some of the most notable oustings that directly resulted from the #MeToo movement included journalist Mark Halperin and Pulitzer Prize winner Junot Diaz, but there have been other reported invocations of morality clauses due to similar poor behavior (Harris). With the growth of this social movement also came the evolution of cancel culture, a decidedly controversial trend to expose and condemn celebrities, politicians, and even average people for their offensive behavior from the past or present. Author Milo Yiannopoulus had his book deal terminated by Simon & Schuster due to past remarks he made about pedophilia resurfacing, and while the cancellation wasn’t directly accomplished by using the morality clause, it resulted in an increase of stricter morality clauses being added to author contracts (Gonzales). Writers like the men above are why the morality clause was popularized: to prioritize their victims, to punish the predators, to protect the publishers, and to prevent the mass distribution of their ideas. 

​

Even with the evident positive impact of the morality clause in publishing, the pushback against its propagation by authors is immense. Many believe, including the Author’s Guild, that morality clauses are in direct violation of our first amendment right to free speech. Because of how ambiguous the typical morality clause is in a publishing agreement, it’s difficult for a writer to officially determine the exact way to act, speak, and present themselves (Mullins). There are constantly changing standards for social acceptability, especially in the age of technology and global interconnectedness, which would mean that an author could always face the threat of dropped book deals. While cancel culture has had its successes in penalizing abusive celebrities, a lot of people now insist that we’ve come to a point where the monitoring and standards are excessive, causing backlash against individuals who don’t necessarily deserve it. The jump from becoming a social pariah to legally being fired for a viral hate movement against oneself is a big argument against signing morality clauses altogether (“Pen America on ‘Morality Clauses’”). Another concern that authors have is that the context of public outcry against an author could be favorable or unfavorable, yet publishers don’t specifically indicate the difference. There could be criticism about a social justice activist author that becomes popular because of internalized prejudices of the audience, or even the instance of an author defending themselves on social media against trolling, both of which could make the author face repercussions at the hands of the publisher due to the vague nature of the morality clause (“Why We Oppose Morals Clauses in Book Contracts”). 

​

There are clearly many strong arguments in support of and against morality clauses in the publishing industry, but the contention in my mind boils down to two simple questions: do publishers have the right to control the public image of their authors? And does the importance of an author’s autonomy outweigh the reputation of a publisher? Time has shown that industry trends have changed and evolved in reflection of societal values, which could influence the industry to drop the inclusion of morality clauses altogether, if the conditions allowed in the future, or make them even stricter. A potential compromise for both parties, who are equally as important to the other’s success, would be to clarify the provisions significantly and to add specific details to the contract in order to check the power of the publisher and grant more freedom to writers, but this still could be biased. The ultimate solution will depend on the new generation of professionals entering the industry and what they value because, in the end, the morality clause is based on opinion, which is what the publishers depend on to legally cut ties with predators and criminals, and what the authors hate so much.