Comments on: Muhammad: The Banned Images

By: Eugene Volokh

Eugene Volokh — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 22:23:33 +0000

Michael Turton: I heard this claim, and the result does seem odd. But “Mohammed is” yields, among others, the autocompletes “… a false prophet,” “… the antichrist,” “… a liar,” “… satan,” and “… a pig.” “Why are Muslims” yields “… so violent,” “… terrorists,” and “… so stupid.” “Allah is” yields “… satan.” So my tentative guess is that there’s no deliberate human editing involved, but just some odd artifact of the computerized search algorithm. (I realize that maybe there’s just some highly incomplete human editing, but that doesn’t seem to be the likelier explanation, at least unless we see some more evidence.)

By: Michael Turton

Michael Turton — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 14:20:45 +0000

On this topic, Google does it too. If you type “Christianity is” in Google, you get a list of prompts with various common searches (C is bullshit, C is the word of God, C is a religion, etc). Ditto for Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism. Type “Islam is”, however, and you get a blank. Google doesn’t prompt you with additional terms. At All.

By: Freddy Hill

Freddy Hill — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 07:15:32 +0000

Voltaire Press: Thanks… One gets a bit paranoiac when dealing with this topic.

By: Voltaire Press

Voltaire Press — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 05:43:37 +0000

I see that Amazon is carrying the book, but when clicking on the “See Inside” link I get the following warning:

Just so you know…
Some images in this book sample are not displayed per publisher request.

Are you self-censoring?

The rights, which we paid for, limit us to producing the images just in the book.

By: rmd

rmd — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 23:15:32 +0000

Chem_geek: [Comment deleted because of a pointless insult of fellow commenters. Please keep it substantive and polite. –EV]

Dang, I knew I should have taken the RSS feed. I miss all the fun stuff.

By: Freddy Hill

Freddy Hill — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 23:08:44 +0000

To Voltaire Press:

I see that Amazon is carrying the book, but when clicking on the “See Inside” link I get the following warning:

Just so you know…
Some images in this book sample are not displayed per publisher request.

Are you self-censoring?

By: Gracie

Gracie — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 22:21:21 +0000

Also on the shelf of West Tisbury, MA Public Library. That’s the one down the street from where the Obama’s rented this summer. Requested and received within 2 weeks, to my surprise. WTis not as rabidly liberal as Chilmark, but willing nontheless.

By: pete

pete — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 20:55:43 +0000

Voltaire Press: Believe me. We have been trying. They won’t touch the book — for the same reasons that Yale University Press preemptively surrendered, and major publications (such as the NYT) refused to print the Danish cartoons.

You also might want to include the ISBN in a fairly prominent location on your webpage. When I am ordering book suggestions that is the first thing I look for since I can enter the same number on all the different websites I use without hunting for it through a bunch of false positives.

By: Paul McKaskle

Paul McKaskle — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 19:33:31 +0000

Shortly after the controversy broke Harpers Magazine published the Danish cartoons. I don’t have the date and I don’t know if the magazine had an increased sale of that edition. But I suppose some people may have bought a copy to support the magazine’s courage in publishing them.

By: Voltaire Press

Voltaire Press — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 16:34:34 +0000

Fine, but it should only be sold in a multi-pack along with copies of Serrano’s Piss Christ, and something offensive to Jews, and a McDonald’s hamburger (to tweak the Hindus), and something offensive to Buddhists.

Happy to do so -- as soon as anything that is offensive to anyone is also sold as a multi-pack that includes Muhammad: The "Banned" Images.

If you actually want libraries to buy it your best bet is to get it some reviews in either professional sources libraries use or a relatively major newspaper.

Believe me. We have been trying. They won't touch the book -- for the same reasons that Yale University Press preemptively surrendered, and major publications (such as the NYT) refused to print the Danish cartoons.

By: Chem_geek

Chem_geek — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 16:17:50 +0000

[Comment deleted because of a pointless insult of fellow commenters. Please keep it substantive and polite. -EV]

By: JRL

JRL — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 16:03:20 +0000

chem_geek:
I totally agree! As a Christian, I am also deeply offended that so many writers and publishers have targetted me by publishing books about the Crusades without packaging them with books about 9/11.

By: pete

pete — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:54:48 +0000

If you actually want libraries to buy it your best bet is to get it some reviews in either professional sources libraries use or a relatively major newspaper. Also I just checked Baker and Taylor and they do not carry it so lots of libraries won’t be able to buy it or else will have a hard time buying it. Libraries usually have contracts with vendors to buy books and if big ones like Baker and Taylor are not carrying it because it is such a small press do not be surprised when your library does not pick it up.

By: Dennis N

Dennis N — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:22:17 +0000

I hadn’t noticed the Christian Fatwa against Piss Christ. Can you point me to the article about Hindus blowing up McDonalds? Is there anything offensive to Buddhists?

As long as these barbarians continue to murder people because their benighted religion requires them to, then we should plaster anti mohammedan images on every blank wall.

By: Chem_geek

Chem_geek — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 14:52:52 +0000

Fine, but it should only be sold in a multi-pack along with copies of Serrano’s Piss Christ, and something offensive to Jews, and a McDonald’s hamburger (to tweak the Hindus), and something offensive to Buddhists.

Otherwise, its publication and celebration stinks of target religious bigotry.

By: jcm

jcm — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 13:39:39 +0000

In Spain during Franco dictatorship , book were submitted to the government t o get the Nihil Obsta or imprimatur. The conformity of the book with Church and government standards. My first edition of Horace in spanish, like the Harvards Press one ,use an euphemism instead of the c word that Horace use in the second epode. That is censorship
The Venezuelan government, the current do it , the formers did it too, obstruct the buying of paper by newspaper when they did like some news. News like the divorce of the President or his wandering , drunk in a spanish hotel. Or like the current when his relations with terrorist groups like the FARC are exposed. They don sent anyone to the newspaper. They made hard to get paper, foreign currency to pay for it, they sent the equivalent of IRS. Then the newspaper begin to avoid news that they believe will be unpleasant for the government. The same holds true for TV, so Venevision owned by a cuban exiled shoes interviews of people asserting the impartiality of the media and cut political programs . Or even stop showing certain movies or interviewing certain politics. The government only shows his strength they dont command anything. The media tries to guess what the government would not approve and cut it. That is self-censorship

By: fishbane

fishbane — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 10:22:45 +0000

I’m curious about your use of the phrase “self-censorship”.

That’s obviously not meaningful, in a legal sense – outside of government actors, one cannot self-censor, at least in the sense that we have of that word in the American context.

I get that you have a different understanding in mind when you use it here. It seems to be in conflict of rational self-interest. Why should private companies lead the charge against what you see as a sensible criticism of a given religion? To be clear – I know that private interests are, historically, frequent actors against tyranny, and your speech against a private actor is entirely fair.

Still, it strikes me as odd that so many people employed by state actors advocate state action in the defense of a state on libertarian grounds.

By: gwinje

gwinje — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 06:42:56 +0000

I was gonna request it at UCLA, but I thought you’d have beat me to it. . . I’m on it tomorrow morning, er, afternoon.

By: Mark N.

Mark N. — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 05:33:10 +0000

If this and this are all the ISBNs it's been published under, it looks like five libraries in the U.S. hold it so far, which isn't too bad for a first book from a new publisher (which means it's by default not on any libraries' list of new-books-from-so-and-so, so probably not on their radar). (Incidentally, WorldCat is an excellent resource.)