I refer to Paul Mason’s important, but mistaken argument about Cambridge University Press’s agreement with the Chinese authorities to delete 300 articles from China Quarterly (Cambridge University Press had to reverse its self-censorship in China: the west can’t afford to collude with Xi’s assault on truth, G2, 22 August). All societies have their own particular sensibilities; many have positions of sacredness. All societies limit free speech in varying detail. Paul Mason knows this. Western societies are currently limiting criticism of the state of Israel and your editorial of 22 August, discusses limiting free speech regarding hate crime online – rightly so, in my view. These are our sensibilities right now.
I would love Paul Mason to discuss and explain China’s political sensitivities so we could understand them better. As a founder of Zed press who has worked with authors who have lost their jobs because of the books we have published, I have some experience in this field. I don’t believe that bullying or lecturing other societies with different histories leads anywhere.
Roger van Zwanenberg
London
• The current outcry against Cambridge University Press is misguided. The publishers removed content unwanted by the customer. The censorship is by the customer – the Chinese government – not Cambridge. If the Chinese government had asked CUP not to publish a particular work in order to maintain access to their market that would be unacceptable, but that is not what happened here. Cambridge maintains its publishing independence. Meantime, the works remain available and in due course, as government policies inevitably change over time, they will no doubt come back into circulation even in China.
Jessica Lagan
Publisher, Cambridge Archive Edition
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters
