http://www.qbproduction.com/QB_PRODUCTION/Save_The_Bridge.html

Sasha Volokh: 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.

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

Dennis N: I, personally, found some of them to be distasteful, defamatory, vile, etc. That is why it is important they not be suppressed.

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.

D.O.: 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.

I, personally, found some of them to be distasteful, defamatory, vile, etc. That is why it is important they not be suppressed.

I’ve sent my signatory request to the address you kindly provided.

SuperSkeptic: 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.

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.

D.O.: 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.

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.

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.

Not and keep the book under wraps until publication — a critical goal lest we revisit the YUP debacle.

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.

We always viewed recruiting signatories for the Statement as an on-going activity. (For more on that, go to http://www.muhammadimages.com.) Those on the version included in the back of the book were recruited in about a week, just in time to meet the publisher’s deadline.

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.

We always viewed recruiting signatories for the Statement as an on-going activity. (For more on that, go to http://www.muhammadimages.com.) Those on the version included in the back of the book were recruited in about a week, just in time to meet the publisher’s deadline.

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.

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.

In response to rising concerns about fear-induced self-censorship

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

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.

I think this entitles my side of the debate to a modest appeal to authority.

If you would like to be considered as a signatory to the Statement of Principle, please email us signatory@muhammadimages.com. You may add a brief comment, if you would like.

(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.)

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, …

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,

Perhaps there should be a web location where others could add their own (virtual) signature to the statement.

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.

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.

but it is a sad reflection upon our society that this had to happen at all