Here is an interesting reprise of the controversy over whether to publish parodic cartoons that depict Muhammad. The New York Times has this story about Yale University Press’s decision not to publish those cartoons, and other images of Muhammad, in a forthcoming book called “The Cartoons That Shook the World,” after consulting with the university and with several authorities on Islam and on counter-terrorism. Here are some quotes from the story:
John Donatich, the director of Yale University Press, said by telephone that the decision was difficult, but the recommendation to withdraw the images, including the historical ones of Muhammad, was “overwhelming and unanimous.” The cartoons are freely available on the Internet and can be accurately described in words, Mr. Donatich said, so reprinting them could be interpreted easily as gratuitous.
He noted that he had been involved in publishing other controversial books — like “The King Never Smiles” by Paul M. Handley, a recent unauthorized biography of Thailand’s current monarch — and “I’ve never blinked.” But, he said, “when it came between that and blood on my hands, there was no question.”
Reza Aslan, a religion scholar and the author of “No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam,” is a fan of the book but decided to withdraw his supportive blurb that was to appear in the book after Yale University Press dropped the pictures. The book is “a definitive account of the entire controversy,” he said, “but to not include the actual cartoons is to me, frankly, idiotic.” In Mr. Aslan’s view no danger remains. “The controversy has died out now, anyone who wants to see them can see them,” he said of the cartoons, noting that he has written and lectured extensively about the incident and shown the cartoons without any negative reaction. He added that none of the violence occurred in the United States: “There were people who were annoyed, and what kind of publishing house doesn’t publish something that annoys some people?”
* * * * *
Ms. Klausen, who is also the author of “The Islamic Challenge: Politics and Religion in Western Europe,” argued that the cartoon protests were not spontaneous but rather orchestrated demonstrations by extremists in Denmark and Egypt who were trying to influence elections there and by others hoping to destabilize governments in Pakistan, Lebanon, Libya and Nigeria. The cartoons, she maintained, were a pretext, a way to mobilize dissent in the Muslim world.
I don’t have as firm a view on this as I might like to have. What better reason could one have to avoid printing these pictures than to avert the risk of bloodshed? And surely, notwithstanding Aslan’s views, those risks are not vanishingly small. And yet it seems to me that this reason is both excellent and almost impermissible at the same time. If the pictures are integral to the book, then surely integrity suggests that the press ought to take that risk. At the least, it should not be a question that the press’s director says leaves him with “no question.” It should leave him instead with very great reservations. At the same time, the pictures should not simply be published for their own sake. I find it hard to imagine saying that of a book that is about — well, that is about the pictures. But one can reasonably ask whether the pictures are being included in the book to explain them or simply to offend. Of course presses print things that “annoy[ ] some people,” but I don’t think that poking a finger in the eye is itself a good reason to print something. Given Klausen’s description of her book, it is somewhat difficult to say from the outside whether she wants to print the pictures to discuss the controversy or to continue it, as a kind of assertion in and of itself. On the whole, I am inclined to say that the press should have been willing to print the pictures. The author acceded to its decision not to, so perhaps that is answer enough as far as the relevant parties are concerned. And I am not even addressing the question whether the pictures should be viewed as offensive by those who do not fall within this version of the Islamic tradition (it is not the only version, of course, and I imagine that even some or many Muslims who are offended by the pictures would still not wish to block their publication). How to deal with actions that are offensive within one tradition but not within another is a difficult question; freedom of speech reasonably understood tells us that we may engage in such actions, but not that we must. Still, I think the press probably erred too much on the side of caution — and that point is perhaps underscored by the quote from the press’s director, which suggests that at the end of the day the reason he declined to publish the pictures was to avoid violence rather than to avoid the substantive harm of offending others.
Posted by Paul Horwitz on August 13, 2009 at 04:34 PM
Comments
This is a deplorable, in my view indefensible choice, especially for a university press which is supposed to approach controversial subjects in a unique and uniquely open way. And “the cartoons are freely available on the internet” is no answer–that reasoning excuses the press from providing the fullest story and argument in the books it publishes. And it throws away the opportunity to publish the cartoons in a new context that gives them new meaning or new perspective.
Clearly this is about avoiding violence–Donatich makes a point of other offensive/controversial material they have published. But that is troubling in two respects: 1) It suggests they are willing to offend some (supporters of the Thai monarchy) but not others–probably depending on the size of the group and 2) The radical Islamists who acted a few years ago now wield a pretty powerful and successful extra-legal hecklers’ veto.
Posted by: Howard Wasserman | Aug 14, 2009 7:02:02 AM
yale wants us to sympathize with how difficult the decision was for them. well, wussing out isn’t difficult in my book.
Posted by: not convinced | Aug 13, 2009 7:54:07 PM