Publishers who never wanted to publish Milo Yiannopoulos’ 'Dangerous' book are having a field day right now
One publishing house was fiercely critical of Simon & Schuster's original rationale
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.After months spent defending him, publisher Simon & Schuster finally aborted its plans to put out former alt-right hero Milo Yiannopoulos’ new book Dangerous yesterday, following the unearthing of controversial comments he previously made about paedophilia.
“They canceled my book,” Yiannopoulos sulked on Facebook, to a host of angry face emoji reactions from his followers.
Publisher Canongate, however, was very upbeat about the news:
It was over the moon, in fact:
After its posts picked up a fair few retweets, even children’s book publishers were joining the fray:
Melville House meanwhile, had a serious point to make, taking issue with Simon & Schuster’s original assertion that it was publishing Dangerous in the name of free speech:
The house's decision has not affected Roxanne Gay's own to not work with S&S:
After the footage of Yiannopoulos discussing the age of consent and his own abuse circulated, the Breitbart senior editor posted that he regretted the “imprecise language” he used, but stood by what he said.
“I'm partly to blame,” he wrote in a statement on Facebook. “My own experiences as a victim led me to believe I could say anything I wanted to on this subject, no matter how outrageous.
“But I understand that my usual blend of British sarcasm, provocation and gallows humor might have come across as flippancy, a lack of care for other victims or, worse, "advocacy." I deeply regret that. People deal with things from their past in different ways.
“As to some of the specific claims being made, sometimes things tumble out of your mouth on these long, late-night live-streams, when everyone is spit-balling, that are incompletely expressed or not what you intended.
“Nonetheless, I've reviewed the tapes that appeared last night in their proper full context and I don't believe they say what is being reported.”
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments