I’m pleased to be the first to report that the newly founded Voltaire Press at Duke University has just published Muhammad: The “Banned” Images. The book includes all the images that were omitted by the Yale University Press from Jytte Klausen’s The Cartoons That Shook the World — including the 12 Mohammed cartoons — plus many more historically significant items (a total of 31), together with brief discussions of the context behind each work. The images, reproduced in high quality and in full color, include works by William Blake, Gustave Dore, and Salvador Dali, as well as Muslim artists from the Ottoman, Safavid, and Mughal empires.
If you’re interested in reading the book, you can order it here. [UPDATE: Amazon has the book listed as “Temporarily out of stock,” but the publisher assures me that copies are available and are being shipped by Amazon; so you can just ignore the message and order the book, and you’ll get it promptly.] You can also ask your local public or university library for it, which I think will increase the chances that the library will buy it, and make it available not just to you but to others.
The book includes an Introduction by Prof. Gary Hull, Director of the Program on Values and Ethics in the Marketplace at Duke University, who has been the driving force behind the book. It also includes as an afterword, a Statement of Principle, which I am honored to have been asked to sign. (The Statement is followed by a disclaimer that “The above signatories agree with the ideas expressed in the Statement of Principle. However, they were not involved in the creation of Muhammad: The “Banned Images”, and have no responsibility for its contents.” I think this disclaimer is sound, among other things because most of the signatories — not being art historians — can’t vouch for the accuracy of the book’s discussion of various images, and because there are some Objectivist arguments in the Introduction that many signatories would likely not agree with. But I entirely support the creation of the book, and the publication of the images.)
Here is the Statement of Principle, followed by the names and affiliations of the signatories; the first three, Joan Bertin, Cary Nelson, and Gary Hull, deserve the credit for drafting the Statement:
Free Expression at Risk, at Yale and ElsewhereA number of recent incidents suggest that our long-standing commitment to the free exchange of ideas is in peril of falling victim to a spreading fear of violence. Not only have exhibitions been closed and performances cancelled in response to real threats, but the mere possibility that someone, somewhere, might respond with violence has been advanced to justify suppressing words and images, as in the recent decision of Yale University to remove all images of Muhammad from Jytte Klausen’s book, The Cartoons that Shook the World.
Violence against those who create and disseminate controversial words and images is a staple of human history. But in the recent past, at least in Western liberal democracies, commitment to free speech has usually trumped fears of violence. Indeed, as late as 1989, Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses continued to be published, sold, and read in the face of a fatwa against its author and in the face of the murder and attempted murder of its translators and publishers. In 1998, the Manhattan Theater Club received threats protesting the production of Terrence McNally’s play Corpus Christi, on the ground that it was offensive to Catholics. After initially canceling the play, MTC reversed its decision in response to widespread concerns about free speech, and the play was performed without incident.
There are signs, however, that the commitment to free speech has become eroded by fears of violence. Historical events, especially the attacks of September 2001 and subsequent bombings in Madrid and London, have contributed to this process by bringing terrorist violence to the heart of liberal democracies. Other events, like the 2004 murder of Dutch film director Theo Van Gogh in apparent protest against his film Submission, and the threats against Hirsi Ali, who wrote the script and provided the voice-over for the film, demonstrated how vulnerable artists and intellectuals can be just for voicing controversial ideas. Under such threats, the resolve to uphold freedom of speech has proved to be lamentably weak: in the same year as Van Gogh’s murder, Behzti, a play written by a British Sikh playwright, was cancelled days after violence erupted among protesters in Birmingham, England on opening night.
In response to rising concerns about fear-induced self-censorship, in 2005 the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published an article, “The Face of Muhammad,” which included twelve cartoon images. The cartoons became the focus of a series of violent political rallies in the Middle East in February 2006 and a subject of worldwide debate pitching free speech against “cultural sensitivity.”
For all the prominence of Islam in such debates, threats of violence against words and images are not the sole province of religious extremists. In 2005, a politically controversial professor’s scheduled speech at Hamilton College in Clinton, NY was cancelled in response to alleged threats of violence. In 2008, the San Francisco Art Institute closed a controversial video exhibition in response to threats of violence against faculty members by animal rights activists. Later that year, the University of Nebraska-Lincoln canceled a speech by former Weatherman and education theorist William Ayers, citing security concerns.
The possibility of giving offense and provoking violence has entered the imagination of curators, publishers and the public at large, generating more and more incidents of preemptive self-censorship: in 2006, for instance, London’s Whitechapel Gallery declared twelve works by Surrealist master Hans Bellmer too dangerous to exhibit because of fears that the sexual overtones would be offensive to the large Muslim population in the area; and publisher Random House canceled the 2008 publication of Sherry Jones’ The Jewel of Medina because “it could incite acts of violence.” The suppression of images in Jytte Klausen’s book is the latest, but not likely to be the last in the series of such incidents.
Words and images exist in complex socio-political contexts. Suppressing controversial expression cannot erase the underlying social tensions that create the conditions for violence to begin with, but it does create a climate that chills and eventually corrupts the fundamental values of liberal democracy.
A Call to Action
The incident at Yale provides an opportunity to re-examine our commitment to free expression. When an academic institution of such standing asserts the need to suppress scholarly work because of a theoretical possibility of violence somewhere in the world, it grants legitimacy to censorship and casts serious doubt on their, and our, commitment to freedom of expression in general, and academic freedom in particular.
The failure to stand up for free expression emboldens those who would attack and undermine it. It is time for colleges and universities in particular to exercise moral and intellectual leadership. It is incumbent on those responsible for the education of the next generation of leaders to stand up for certain basic principles: that the free exchange of ideas is essential to liberal democracy; that each person is entitled to hold and express his or her own views without fear of bodily harm; and that the suppression of ideas is a form of repression used by authoritarian regimes around the world to control and dehumanize their citizens and squelch opposition.
To paraphrase Ben Franklin, those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, will get neither liberty nor safety.
Joan E. Bertin, Executive Director, National Coalition Against Censorship
Cary Nelson, President, American Association of University Professors
Gary Hull, Director, Duke University Program on Values and Ethics in the MarketplaceFoundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE)
Sarah Ruden, Professor, Yale Divinity School
Michael Munger, Professor and Chair, Department of Political Science, Duke University
Eugene Volokh, Professor of Law, UCLA
Steve Simpson, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice
Flemming Rose, Opinion and Culture Editor, Jyllands-Posten
Nadine Strossen, Professor of Law, New York Law School
First Amendment Lawyers Association (FALA)
American Society of Journalists and Authors
Duke University Saves Academic Freedom « Shay 2.0 says:
[...] From the Volokh Conspiracy: I’m pleased to be the first to report that the newly founded Voltaire Press at Duke University has just published Muhammad: The “Banned” Images. The book includes all the images that were omitted by the Yale University Press from Jytte Klausen’s The Cartoons That Shook the World — including the 12 Mohammed cartoons — plus many more historically significant items (a total of 31), together with brief discussions of the context behind each work. The images, reproduced in high quality and in full color, include works by William Blake, Gustave Dore, and Salvador Dali, as well as Muslim artists from the Ottoman, Safavid, and Mughal empires. [...]
James Craig Ziegler says:
Perhaps there should be a web location where others could add their own (virtual) signature to the statement.
Quote
November 9, 2009, 9:29 amFred Weiss says:
I would be pleased and honored to add my signature to this statement.
Fred Weiss, Publisher
The Paper Tiger, Inc.
Quote
November 9, 2009, 9:57 amGrover_Cleveland says:
You can also see more about the images on their Wikipedia page
Quote
November 9, 2009, 10:16 amDennis N says:
I am a (virtual) Danish Cartoonist. I would like to sign on to that. The images should be preserved as historically significant.
Quote
November 9, 2009, 10:26 amPeteP says:
I’m glad someone is showing the backbone to do this !
As long as ‘Jesus in Urine’ is considered ‘protected speech’, the ‘freedom of speech community’ ( ACLU et al ) should be up in arms that little caricatures of Mohamed with a funny hat on are protected, too.
Quote
November 9, 2009, 10:30 amRandy says:
Hurray! Thanks for doing this — it’s important to remind people that free speech trumps hurt feelings.
Quote
November 9, 2009, 10:32 amJavert says:
The link for “Voltaire Press” goes to the wrong Voltaire Press. [Whoops, sorry, removed the link, thanks. –EV]
Quote
November 9, 2009, 10:32 amJoseph Slater says:
PeteP:
Re the ACLU, did you not notice Nadine Strossen’s name on the list?
I think we can all agree this is a Good Thing.
Quote
November 9, 2009, 10:34 amCornellian says:
“Voltaire Press” is a great name.
Quote
November 9, 2009, 10:50 amTK75 says:
Bravo!
but it is a sad reflection upon our society that this had to happen at all
Quote
November 9, 2009, 10:52 amPLR says:
I’m fine with publication of blasphemous comics.
I’m also fine with journalists who faithfully report what government is doing, without interference from outside interests. Maybe that cause will interest the Dukies when they’re done reading the funny pages.
Quote
November 9, 2009, 11:24 amSherry Jones says:
What so many of us have been calling for — courage! Makes me proud to be from North Carolina.
Quote
November 9, 2009, 11:31 amJavert says:
The “Statement of Principle” will be at the website, soon. (www.muhammadimages.com). And there will be a means by which to become a signatory.
Quote
November 9, 2009, 11:34 amzuch says:
Prof. Volokh:
Has anyone looked at endowments and donations to see if that might play a role? Just curious.
And I’d note it’s nice to see Prof. Strossen’s name there on the list. She was until recently the long-term ACLU president (and FWIW, she’s also active in NORML).
Cheers,
Quote
November 9, 2009, 11:50 amgeokstr says:
Wow! It looks like finally we have a concensus here of pretty much everybody, left and right, so we do have at least one thing in common, anyway. Maybe that’s as good a place to start as any other.
Quote
November 9, 2009, 12:59 pmEugene Volokh says:
I just noticed that the online Statement of Principles page now says that
(I take it from the wording that the publishers are not committing themselves to including all the signatures that they get, which of course makes sense.)
Quote
November 9, 2009, 1:02 pmSuperSkeptic says:
Kudos, Professor!
I would only like to note, for others who engaged in the intial semantic debate over whether Yale’s actions amounted to “censorship” or not, that the Statement of Principle (ahh, don’t you just love that?) mentions the act of “censorship” three times, and I think certainly implies that it was, in fact, censorship.
I think this entitles my side of the debate to a modest appeal to authority.
Quote
November 9, 2009, 2:36 pmJavert says:
A note from Voltaire Press:
We have 4,000 copies of the book in our warehouse, and can print thousands within a week. Please ignore Amazon’s message: “Temporarily out of stock.” We have been trying for over a week to get Amazon to remove that statement.
Quote
November 9, 2009, 2:58 pmProfessor Chaos says:
Thanks for doing this, Eugene. I only regret that the list of signatories isn’t longer. There are an awful lot of names that should be on that list, but aren’t. Perhaps many of them weren’t asked — but if not, why not?!
Quote
November 9, 2009, 2:59 pmJavert says:
Thanks for doing this, Eugene. I only regret that the list of signatories isn’t longer. There are an awful lot of names that should be on that list, but aren’t. Perhaps many of them weren’t asked — but if not, why not?!
Quote
November 9, 2009, 3:16 pmRichard Aubrey says:
Is caving to the heckler’s veto the same as censorship?
Reports purporting to be inside stories make this a matter of a Saudi benefactor; as in, don’t shoot the golden goose.
That Muslim violence was the handiest and supposedly the most plausible excuse says a couple of things.
Among them, why aren’t Muslims protesting being so quickly and vilely stereotyped? Why aren’t Muslims objecting to being used to cover up a matter of greed?
Quote
November 9, 2009, 3:55 pmADF Alliance Alert » Muhammad: The “Banned” Images says:
[...] Volokh writes at the Volokh Conspiracy: “I’m pleased to be the first to report that the newly founded Voltaire Press at Duke [...]
Professor Chaos says:
Understood, but I would’ve hoped that in a week you could get a hundred signatories from academia alone, just by sending an email to a few known sympathizers like Eugene.
Quote
November 9, 2009, 4:27 pmys says:
Having recently visited both the Ottoman and the Mughal empires, that is to say some of their former domains (the Safavid one being justly off limits for now), I can attest to the high level of mastery of their artistic class. To also mention that they were rewarded by their respective rulers, puts Yale to shame. Congrats to Duke for saving the face of the western democracies.
Quote
November 9, 2009, 5:10 pmSasha Volokh says:
SuperSkeptic: I don’t see how this statement of principles endorses the view that the initial failure to publish was “censorship.” The first two uses of “censorship” are in the special term “self-censorship.”
Lots of people use the term “self-censorship” without endorsing the view that this is a form of “censorship.” Some people feel that adding the word “self” in front is necessary to make clear that this _isn’t_ censorship. Others might say that “self-censorship” is a species of “censorship,” but not one that’s in any way comparable to real “censorship.”
This is underscored by the third use of “censorship” — that such “self-censorship” _grants legitimacy to censorship_. In other words, they’re essentially stating that self-censorship is bad not because it’s censorship, but because it will grant legitimacy to other acts which, themselves, _will_ be censorship.
That’s essentially my view. If the government fines me even a nickel for publishing something, that’s censorship and reprehensible. But if I, out of a fear of hurting people’s feelings, decide not to publish stuff, we may call that self-censorship if we like, but it’s not censorship or anything like it, nor is it even necessarily reprehensible. In fact, it’s a choice that I’m fully entitled to make, which ought to be at least as protected as actual publication. Of course the hypothetical terrorists Yale might have been afraid of — well, _they_ are censoring, provided they’re real. The only reason we might want to discourage actions like Yale’s is that somewhere, somehow, someone might seize on this, and other similar acts, as evidence that hurting feelings is bad and use it to advance some other agenda.
Note that my views on the subject may or may not coincide with Eugene’s.
Quote
November 9, 2009, 5:24 pmD.O. says:
In the spirit of free debate, it would be interesting to hear from someone who thinks that the original cartoons were distasteful, defamatory, vile etc.
Quote
November 9, 2009, 5:43 pmTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Muhammad: The “Banned” Images -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Walter Olson and Peter Cresswell, sherryjones. sherryjones said: Duke press pubs book of “banned” Muhammad images: http://bit.ly/YTwhm [...]
Muhammad: The “Banned” Images at Volokh Conspiracy « Muhammad: The "Banned" Images says:
[...] Volokh at the Volokh Conspiracy has a post about the book that begins: I’m pleased to be the first to report that the newly founded Voltaire Press at Duke [...]
Javert says:
Not and keep the book under wraps until publication — a critical goal lest we revisit the YUP debacle.
Quote
November 9, 2009, 9:06 pmTallulahdahling says:
It might be interesting, but I think it would be beside the point, really. I was disgusted and offended by the exhibit called “P*ss Christ” years ago, as well as an image of the Virgin Mary with actual elephant dung stuck on it (and I’m not even Christian), but revolting as that was, I recognize the right of the, um, ‘artist’ to express him/herself whether I am offended or not.
And then I have a right to express what I think of their expression.
But I don’t have the right to threaten or use violence to express what I think of it.
Quote
November 9, 2009, 9:43 pmTallulahdahling says:
Hey, there, SuperSkeptic,
I wasn’t involved in the debate you refer to, so I’m simply going to give my opinion on what is and isn’t censorship.
Censorship is when violence or the threat of violence is what shuts people up. It doesn’t matter whether that threat comes from government, whose ultimate power comes from it’s ability to threaten people with violence in order to make them comply, or whether the threat come from civilians — it’s the threat of violence that endangers freedom of expression, and that must not be allowed.
Self-censorship is when you decide NOT to make public something that you WOULD make public if you weren’t caving in to threats of violence.
Everyone has a right to express their views without being threatened with violence... so long as they don’t *force* some publisher or museum to make those views public by threatening them with violence(and so long as they are not calling for violent acts against non-violent people. There is no right to urge people to violate rights.)
If a publisher, museum, etc. chooses not to present some work because it goes against their policy or their values, that would usually not be censorship, because they are not preventing that expression from being presented elsewhere. They have a right to show and not show what they choose. But if they have made the decision only out of fear of those who might become violent over that work, they are engaging in “self-censorship” — an understandable choice, but one that says to all “If you don’t want something said, threaten violence or DO violence, and you will gain the power of censorship over this society, even if the government refuses to censor!”
It is those who threaten or do violence to shut people up who are the ones committing the actual censorship.
Quote
November 9, 2009, 10:08 pmBarbara Skolaut says:
Thanks for printing this, Eugene — and thanks to Voltaire Press and Professor Hull.
I’ve sent my signatory request to the address you kindly provided.
Quote
November 9, 2009, 10:31 pmDennis N says:
I, personally, found some of them to be distasteful, defamatory, vile, etc. That is why it is important they not be suppressed.
Quote
November 10, 2009, 9:53 amgeokstr says:
It then follows that you just must have found all those thousands of Bush/Hitler posters and cartoons distasteful, defamatory, vile, etc, while also urging that they not be surpressed.
I’ve seen the Mohammed cartoons a number of times, and I’m not sure how you can get much tamer than they are, unless you count the political cartoons lionizing Obama that still show up in all the sycophant media. And let’s not forget that two of the worst of the Mohammed’s were not even among those originally published, they were fakes added by various mullahs and imams as they paraded about the world for months deliberately fanning violence among the adherents to the Religion of Perpetual Outrage.
Quote
November 10, 2009, 10:46 amMike Munger says:
I see Sasha’s point, but Eugene was careful to say that the problem is the threat of violence. There are three situations one might consider....
1. Government tells press it cannot publish
2. Press decides not to publish, because of fear of violent repression by private citizens
3. Press decides not to publish, out of fear of damage to commercial reputation, and reduction of sales due to boycotts.
Now, 1 is censorship. 3 is not a problem; publishers make choices all the time.
But Eugene is quite clear that this is about 2. The state MUST provide protection, against VIOLENCE, for a press that wishes to publish...well, just about anything.
It is fair to say that what Yale did was 3, not 2. But I actually don’t believe that. I believe that it was fear of criticism from a frenzied few, not a real concern about commercial viability.
So, obviously, I think Eugene is correct, and Sasha is being a bit prissy about the distinctions.
Mike Munger
Duke University
Quote
November 10, 2009, 11:16 amDuke University publishes book about Mohammad cartoons » The Daily Cartoonist says:
[...] has published a book “Muhammad: The “Banned” Images” by Dr. Gary Hull that includes reprinting the 12 cartoons that originally ran in the Jyllands-Posten that ignited an international violent reaction in the [...]
New book, Muhammad: The “Banned” Images « Creeping Sharia says:
[...] book being published that, unlike Yale University Press, will include the Muhammad cartoons. The Volokh Conspiracy has the [...]