Peter Berkowitz takes up the argument over Yale and, by extension, the rest of the American academy, concerning Yale University Press’s shameful censorship of a book on the Muhammed cartoons – with his usual careful argumentation and coherence. Kudos to Peter; here in the WSJ.
zywotkowitz says:
Yale’s decision is indefensible, and probably is due to a desire to curry favor with Saudi sources of funding.
On the other hand, the lack of outrage no doubt has something to do with the fact that the cartoons are easy to find online if you want to see them.
October 17, 2009, 7:38 pmSteve says:
“Shameful censorship” seems like overkill, since no one would be criticizing them if they had simply declined to publish the book in the first place. No one would even know the basis for the decision.
October 17, 2009, 8:19 pmgeokstr says:
Yeah, sure. Like Yale Press would hesitate for an instant to publish a book about the “Piss Christ” controversy written by a leftist to prove that this type of art is just peachy, or pull the pictures for fear of anything whatsoever.
October 17, 2009, 9:12 pmDavid Welker says:
I disagree with the decision not to include the actual cartoons in the book. Especially in a book entitled “The Cartoons that Shook the World.” It seems logical that the cartoons that are the subject of the book should be included in the book. If I were in charge of Yale University Press, I would have made a different decision.
That said, can this really be said to be about free speech or censorship? Prof. Jytte Klausen was not obligated to publish her book through Yale University Press. She chose to do so. She could have published the book through another publisher or with her own funds or on the Internet. And clearly, Yale University Press has the right to decide what it will or will not publish.
The article asserts that the word “censorship” is the right word, because “Yale suppressed content on moral and political grounds.” But that cannot be right. For example, Regnery Publishing chooses to publish conservative books and not liberal books. In other words, it makes publishing decisions on moral and political grounds. But, it would be incorrect to assert that Regnery Publishing is censoring liberal books; it is merely choosing not to publish them. Here, Yale University Press is not censoring the cartoons; it is merely choosing not to publish them.
I think that neither the phrase “freedom of speech” nor the word “censorship” are applicable in this context.
October 17, 2009, 9:14 pmRichard Nieporent says:
That said, can this really be said to be about free speech or censorship? Prof. Jytte Klausen was not obligated to publish her book through Yale University Press. She chose to do so. She could have published the book through another publisher or with her own funds or on the Internet. And clearly, Yale University Press has the right to decide what it will or will not publish.
Let the rationalization begin!
October 17, 2009, 9:29 pmSuperSkeptic says:
Come on. You present a false dichotomy. The decision, as presented, is not whether to publish the book or not. They are choosing to publish the book, but not the inflammatory part of it that is politically objectionable to some people. This isn’t even about neutral publisher “editing.” It is censorship, plain and simple. Maybe she could pull the book now, I don’t know what the contract looks like. I sure would. But don’t act like it’s not “censorship” in it’s most basic and obvious sense.
–noun 1. CENSOR – an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds. – dictionary.com.
October 17, 2009, 9:32 pmDavid Welker says:
They chose to publish the book. She chose to allow them to.
October 17, 2009, 9:37 pmSuperSkeptic says:
Given (even though I haven’t seen the contract). It’s still censorship.
October 17, 2009, 9:43 pmSG says:
On the other hand, the lack of outrage no doubt has something to do with the fact that the cartoons are easy to find online if you want to see them.
I strongly disagree. I believe the lack of outrage has far more to do with the fact that expressing outrage would place people on the same side as classical liberals/libertarians/conservatives. That is far worse than any infringement of free speech principles.
In other words, modern liberals/leftists have principles that they have to defend.
October 17, 2009, 9:50 pmDavid Welker says:
SG:
The lack of outrage is due to the fact that people recognize that Yale University Press has the right to decline to publish things they do not want to publish.
I am sure that being against torturing and killing puppies would put me on the same side as many classical liberals / libertarians / conservatives. I am still against killing puppies.
I should point out that the idea that Yale University Press, a private actor, has the right to utilize its physical and intellectual property to publish only what it wants to and nothing else is something most libertarians should agree with in principle.
October 17, 2009, 10:01 pmSuperSkeptic says:
Again, haven’t seen the contract, but the fact that they may have the right to not publish this book – or even a small part of it – does not mean that their censorship should not produce outrage. It should.
They do. They should use that private right better. The issue isn’t the right of a private actor, and mentioning it is a distraction from the issue – censorship by that private actor.
Furthermore, imagine if every conceivable “private actor” succumbed to the same pressures as Yale, would your position be the same? You are trying to use the voluntary contract argument here, but I wonder whether you would be so absolute about that in, say, the employment context, if say, one signed a non-compete agreement that precluded them from work in their specialized field for 50 years after their employment with that particular employer, they worked there for a year, quit, and the employer sought to impose it. Would you still say, “They chose to
publish the book[hire her]. She choseto allow them to[to take the job]“?But again, that is a side-issue; the issue is censorship. It’s present. And it is outrageous and shameful.
October 17, 2009, 10:16 pmricky says:
“I am sure that being against torturing and killing puppies would put me on the same side as many classical liberals / libertarians / conservatives. I am still against killing puppies.”
But would you express that opinion in public, knowing that all of your potential employers in academia/media are pro-puppy-killing? If being anti-puppy-killing would get you labeled as a knuckle-dragging reactionary bigot?
October 17, 2009, 10:20 pmAriel says:
As a reasonably libertarian person, I most certainly agree with this principle. BUT… and you know there’s a but coming… the reason given by Yale is that they were afraid of what would happen if they allowed publication. Is there a positive right in the First Amendment? i.e., does the government have to provide security to allow to speak and say controversial things? In general, I’m very much opposed to just about any kind of positive rights, but how free is speech going to be if unpopular ideas can be censored by threat of violence? The whole point of having a government is to have a monopoly on the use of force. If government is not stepping into its role – and Yale’s actions demonstrate that at least at the Yale University Press they seem to think it is not – that may well be the bigger problem.
It is certainly cowardly of the private actor to not publish something but it has the choice to publish or not publish things. However, if the government is not able to keep the citizenry free to express their views, however distasteful or outlandish they may be – and the cartoons are far less bad than many other things out there – what’s the point of having the government at all?
October 17, 2009, 10:22 pmricky says:
“The lack of outrage is due to the fact that people recognize that Yale University Press has the right to decline to publish things they do not want to publish.”
And would there be the same lack of outrage if Yale University Press exercised its right to not publish things written by people of a certain skin tone? (Of course they don’t have that right, because making certain business decisions is against the law)
October 17, 2009, 10:22 pmSG says:
David Welker:
I did not assert that overwhelming silence on the left is entirely due to an unwillingness to be align with the right, but I stand by my claim in general. Now, perhaps you are the exception or perhaps I overestimate how much “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” mentality is applicable, but it’s my opinion that that if you’re believe it isn’t at all applicable then you’re either willfully ignorant or a liar.
BTW, do you also support every private business owner’s right to refuse service to black people? Or can I add hypocrisy to my list of insults?
October 17, 2009, 10:23 pmEricPWJohnson says:
I wonder if a study of zionist nationalism and its origins from Stalinist Russia would also be printed by Yale – or by anyone?
But its fun to pick on uneducated desperately poor Muslims that are manipulated by clever clerics into thinking that Mohammed had been defiled most vilely?
This is a deep work worthy of navel gazing bloody obviousness.
October 17, 2009, 10:25 pmSteve says:
It still seems to me that the publisher is incurring far more grief than they would have if they had declined to publish the book at all. The preceding comments have not persuaded me that there is any logic to this position at all.
Watership Down was rejected by 26 publishers. Are they all guilty of censorship?
October 17, 2009, 10:30 pmEricPWJohnson says:
And let me clarify something, the “right” to publish is not a part of free speech – to publish means “acceptance” – If I were the decision maker at Yale and someone wanted to publish a study of zionist nationalism and its origins from Stalinist Russia – not only would I say NO – I would ban them FOREVER from the University – because its a free country and I am free to express my opinion any way I want
And so is Yale
October 17, 2009, 10:32 pmricky says:
I don’t know. Was the author from a protected group? That’s what really matters. If it was just some run-of-the-mill heterosexual Christian white male, then obviously not.
October 17, 2009, 10:33 pmDavid Welker says:
I was thinking about this, and I want to say that I think this decision by Yale University Press and Yale University President Richard Levin is very problematic and they should be criticized. However, just not on the grounds of censorship or freedom of speech. Instead, they should be criticized for being too timid to publish these cartoons just because they are offensive to some people when they are so clearly relevant to this book. I don’t think that someone could really understand the controversy without seeing the actual images. Someone who is going to pay for and read an entire book on this subject should have everything at their fingertips to understand that controversy–even if they don’t have access to the Internet. Publishing the images is not really equivalent to endorsing their message.
Perhaps this is really a case of political correctness run amok. (A concept that is valid, although overused and misapplied.) Political correctness does not always imply censorship of others or concerns about freedom of speech, as this case illustrates.
October 17, 2009, 10:36 pmBABH says:
I disagree with the Yale Press decision, but agree with those who say that private entities cannot censor. Private actors may suppress information, but censorship is a government action. This is a linguistic distinction worth preserving.
October 17, 2009, 10:41 pmSuperSkeptic says:
Steve, like David before you, you seem to be distracting us with a side-issue and the false dichotomy as well: “the publisher [] incurring [] grief” and “if they had declined to publish the book at all.”
The “grief” goes to their motivation for censorship – whether it is purely political (or monetary as one extra cynical commenter suggested) or purely practical doesn’t matter.
And the choice, as presented, is not whether to publish at all or not – it’s whether to censor or not, so your Watership Down example doesn’t fit. Moreoever, I don’t know what Watership Down is, so if you’d care to explain, I’ll weigh in on the unrelated matter of whether or not that is censorship for you.
October 17, 2009, 10:42 pmPerseus says:
Yale is an academic press, not a commercial one like Regnery, and thus it is a more serious violation of the principle of academic free speech for the editors to suppress a portion of the manuscript due to concerns that certain people will find that portion offensive.
October 17, 2009, 10:44 pmSuperSkeptic says:
So, in order to avoid applying the broad principle against censorship, you wish to limit your critique by narrowing it to the exact circumstances in this case.
To be clear, I’m not saying it’s unlawful, just outrageous and shameful.
October 17, 2009, 10:50 pmDavid Welker says:
SuperSkeptic:
No, my position would not be the same then. If all private actors colluded in not publishing the book, I would agree that the term “censorship” is applicable. Sort of. The fact that she could publish it herself on the Internet would make me second-guess this point to some extent.
I also think that outrageous contract terms, such as your hypothetical non-compete agreement, should not be enforced by a court as being repugnant to public policy.
SG:
You can either add hypocrisy on to your list of insults, or realize that this is a silly argument.
That one thinks that property rights should have limits does not imply that property rights are meaningless. I can support the freedom of Yale University Press to publish only what it wants why opposing the freedom of racist business owners to discriminate on the basis of race.
Believe me, I will be the first to admit that contract and property rights have limits. However, limits are not the same as arguing that these concepts are meaningless and have no applicability. Obviously.
October 17, 2009, 10:51 pmSG says:
I want to say that I think this decision by Yale University Press and Yale University President Richard Levin is very problematic and they should be criticized.
I apologize for the implication that you might be lying. I was mistaken on that.
I still think that the overwhelming reason for silence on the left is that they would rather oppose the right than defend free expression, and I think that best explains your first instinct in defending Yale University Press.
October 17, 2009, 10:53 pmSG says:
I can support the freedom of Yale University Press to publish only what it wants why opposing the freedom of racist business owner’s to discriminate on the basis of race.
No one has argued that YUP didn’t have the right to censor the cartoons, only that it was cowardly and a dereliction of the principles it purports to expound. Your defense of a heckler’s veto over free expression on the grounds of property rights while denying property rights in other circumstances reeks of situational reasoning. That’s certainly your right, but don’t claim you’re upholding some underlying principle – it’s any weapon to hand.
October 17, 2009, 11:00 pmNo One in Particular says:
Given that the publication of the images is obviously of grave importance, I wonder why the author (or WSJ) decided not to publish them as a part of their editorial?
October 17, 2009, 11:59 pm11-B/20.B4 says:
I realize that this is a legal blog….but you guys got to stop thinking so literally all the time. Not everything bad is illegal, and not everything good is legal. Was this censorship in the strictest legal sense? No, of course not. It should still merit the outrage of the academic community at least, that their own are craven enough to pull a stunt like this. Personally, I have come up with a reasonable reaction.
During the period of the Punic wars, Cato, the Roman statesman, used to finish every speech he gave with the phrase “Besides, I still think Carthage should be destroyed”.
I think I’ll finish all my academic papers for the next several years with “Besides, Yale is for people without testicles”.
October 18, 2009, 9:51 amChrisTS says:
11-B/20.B4:
And when no academic journal will include that line, will you shout “Censorship!”?
October 18, 2009, 11:36 amChrisTS says:
David Welker has made a sensible point about what ‘censhorship’ means and noted that he thinks Yale U. Press made a serious mistake. Others seem to think that this constitutes covering up for cowardly lefties.
Of course, if all one wants to do is beat up on those ‘enemies’ one happens to have, making intelligent distinctions is besides the point. But that does not mean that those who do wish to make such distinctions are playing the same beat-up-my-enemies game.
October 18, 2009, 11:39 am11-B/20.B4 says:
Wow, you really know how to miss a point. Do you practice?
October 18, 2009, 12:03 pmChrisTS says:
A premise of some comments, here, is that lefties are not critics of Yale Press. Here are some ‘lefties’* criticizing Yale Press for its decision about the book:
Cary Nelson, president of the American Association of University Professors: ” ‘We do not negotiate with terrorists. We just accede to their anticipated demands’. That is effectively the new policy position at Yale University Press
“
Reza Aslan: “This is an academic book for an academic audience by an academic press,” he continued. “There is no chance of this book having a global audience, let alone causing a global outcry.” He added, “It’s not just academic cowardice, it is just silly and unnecessary.”
Christopher Hitchens: “The capitulation of Yale University Press to threats that hadn’t even been made yet is the latest and perhaps the worst episode in the steady surrender to religious extremism—particularly Muslim religious extremism—that is spreading across our culture.”
One can also peruse the comments from academics posting about this matter:
http://chronicle.com/article/The-Book-That-Shook-Yale/48634/?action=flagComment&commentId=5961
http://m.insidehighereducation.com/news/2009/08/13/qt
*I’m assuming that ‘academics’ is an acceptable substitute for ‘lefties’ for many. Certainly Nelson ought to meet the requirements.
October 18, 2009, 12:05 pmyankee says:
What confuses me is that the author clearly finds the publisher’s decision highly objectionable. I agree. So why didn’t the author just find another publisher? Was nobody else even willing to take the book? Did every publisher willing to take the book insist that the cartoons be excised?
October 18, 2009, 12:19 pmChrisTS says:
I wonder why my 12:05 comment is ‘awaiting moderation’?
I linked to a number of academics criticizing the Yale Press.
Is there a limit to how many links one is permitted to include in a comment? (None of them said anything nasty.)
October 18, 2009, 2:57 pmLeo Marvin says:
Exactly.
October 18, 2009, 3:22 pmLeo Marvin says:
You (Chris) also made a very good, unrelated point in the now closed Limbaugh thread, and I hope it wasn’t lost in the trollfest. VC should reinstate mandatory registration for commenting. The first thing that occurred to me when the website was updated without the registration requirement was I didn’t see how a troll could be prevented from posting under another commenter’s screen id. Now that that seems to have happened, I hope the Conspirators will fix that glitch in what I think was an otherwise positive site update.
October 18, 2009, 3:40 pmLeo Marvin says:
I’ve had a few comments marked for moderation, and also wondered how that happens. Could the software analyze purged comments, and flag new comments containing similar words or phrases? That occurred to me when all that was controversial about one of my moderated comments were the words “Danger” and “Mouse.”
October 18, 2009, 4:01 pmPerseus says:
Nor does it mean that the distinctions are anything more than ad hoc rationalizations.
October 18, 2009, 4:24 pmChrisTS says:
Leo:
:-) Were the two words, you know, connected?
October 18, 2009, 5:20 pmChrisTS says:
Perseus:
As a general matter, you are quite correct. I guess it’s that ‘tu quoque’ thing.
In this case, I see no reason to think that David’s saying (1) he thinks the Press messed up and (2) what it did is not aptly named ‘censorship’ is a distinction that attempts to rationalize anything.
October 18, 2009, 5:23 pmChrisTS says:
Yes, I hope the Conspirators will look into that. Lots of blogs require one to register and offer alternative ways to do it. That other thread was the most bizarre thing I’ve seen on VC. I’m watching balkanization slowly recover from trolls; I can’t imagine their allowing that to happen here.
October 18, 2009, 5:25 pmepeeist says:
Thank you, you seem to be one of the few people who gets this in this thread. Libertarian = not wanting undue government interference; it does NOT = everything not illegal is good and should be defended.
To use an obvious example, in most situations/U.S. jurisdictions, there’s no duty to help or even call 911 even if e.g. you see your next-door-neighbour murdering a child, you can ignore it and have broken no laws (think Kitty Genovese for a real-life example).
That doesn’t mean I won’t “condemn” that person, call them nasty names, etc. Another immoral/legal example, Lori Drew insofar as I am aware of the facts and law, should not have been convicted; but what she did was in my view, on a moral scale, worse than assault, not as bad as murder (manslaughter, maybe, given she knew of the child’s psychological problems?). I can and do object to overbroad criminal laws that would catch such behaviour (as well as much more innocuous speech), but that certainly doesn’t mean I defend her actions out of some misplaced equating libertarianism with amorality.
Incidentally, I’d be happy if someone could draft a precise law that would capture this sort of behaviour without being overbroad, but I’m not holding my breath.
Outside situations calling for extreme precision, I call something “censorship” even if there’s no government censor, call O.J. Simpson a murderer, etc. I dislike things and behaviours that aren’t illegal, and (more rarely) may applaud or at least sympathize with those committing certain illegal actions.
October 18, 2009, 5:26 pmLeo Marvin says:
He explained the distinction quite clearly. If you want to convince anyone it’s a rationalization, you’ll have to have to do more than just say “rationalization,” ipse dixit.
October 18, 2009, 5:55 pmLeo Marvin says:
I don’t think I’ve ever seen them used in close proximity when they weren’t connected, except maybe in a cartoon by a shrieking elephant on a rickety chair.
October 18, 2009, 6:04 pmChrisTS says:
epeeist:
You are quite right to note that we should distinguish between what is lawful and what is right/wrong. I like intelligent distinctions.
I think the discussion of how we ought to use the term ‘censorship’ was not overlooking that distinction; it was simply a discussion about the language of the post and the linked article.
Perhaps we could return to the core issue[s].
It seems that the Press (1) asked ‘experts’ about whether publishing the cartoons in the book would lead to riots/violence/mayhem and (2) was convinced by said ‘experts’ that it would. On that basis, the Press told the author they would not publish the book with the pictures.
As far as I can tell, she could have withdrawn the manuscript and taken it elsewhere (I’m not sure of this). The book was published without the pictures.
So, the question is, “Did Yale U. Press make a bad decision in refusing to publish the manuscript with the pictures it believed might lead to [renewed] violence?”
It would be interesting to discuss that without confusing ‘academics’ with the Yale Press or ‘censorship’ with something else[call it what you will].
October 18, 2009, 6:10 pmSuperSkeptic says:
Yes, particularly in light of the fact that their position as an institution is partly (at least) premised on academic freedom, free thought, free speech, etc. Once they make the decision that “when the experts say it’s dangerous, we
October 18, 2009, 7:01 pmcensorrefuse to publish,” then they have succumbed to pressures that make their stated institutional goals retarded/stunted/backward/ironically pointless.ChrisTS says:
SuperSkeptic:
I’m not sure how you mean ‘retarded.’
I agree with ‘ironically pointless.’
October 18, 2009, 7:13 pmSuperSkeptic says:
I mean retarded in its literal sense, not it’s politically incorrect sense of a disabled person.
October 18, 2009, 7:26 pmSarkozy says:
Hitchens is only a lefty when he criticizes censorship. When he supports the Iraq war, he’s a righty!
October 18, 2009, 10:30 pmChrisTS says:
Yeah, I had doubts about Hitchens. Still, I think he qualifies as a mostly-lefty. :-)
October 18, 2009, 10:59 pmTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Peter Berkowitz on Academics and Free Speech -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by PostRank – Law and Sortis Publishing, U.V. Blue. U.V. Blue said: The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Peter Berkowitz on … http://tinyurl.com/yh8s9dc [...]
October 19, 2009, 1:44 amSarkozy says:
Hitchens is a lefty only when he agrees with me!
October 19, 2009, 11:47 amChrisTS says:
Now you are confusing me. Are you implying that I think of him as being left/right based on whether or not I agree with a specific position? Or, is there some other joke?
I tend to think of him as liberal, based on his attitudes towards religion and academic freedom. I don’t know anything about his views on the Iraq war.
Forgive me if I misinterpreted your first post on this as genuinely good natured.
October 19, 2009, 12:57 pmSarkozy says:
Posts are only genuinely good natured when they don’t contain an implied critique of liberals flip-flopping on whether the likes of Hitchens are liberal or not; otherwise, they’re mean!
October 20, 2009, 2:23 amSarkozy says:
Which is why you said: “Yeah, I had doubts about Hitchens” when I mentioned he supports the Iraq war. Which implies that you “had” known about his views on the Iraq war.
Ingratiating politeness notwithstanding, your replies have been disingenuous from start to finish. I think you fully get the joke. You’re just pretending not to.
:)
October 20, 2009, 2:27 amChrisTS says:
Sarkozy:
I’m sorry if you misunderstand me. I could not care one way or another how we label Hitchens. He was one person I mentioned as criticizing Yale Press.
However, in the interests of being genuinely polite – if no longer good-natured – I will attempt to explain myself to you.
I read your post #50 at about 11 o’clock, after a glass or two of wine, on the way to bed. I believe I misread it, but I only know for sure that I thought you were making a joke about Hitchens as a kind of contrarian. I did not pick up on the, now apparent, snark. So, I responded with a grin and a ‘Yeah, not sure.’ I should have been more careful.
When I read your follow up, I also reread the original. I did not quite get what was going on, but I sensed you were being snide. So, I asked.
Now you have responded, openly and unpleasantly.
I beg your pardon for not realizing you were being unpleasant in the first place. My disingenuousness has consisted in being too ingenuous to recognize your intended rudeness.
I don’t think we need to bother one another further.
October 20, 2009, 3:37 pm