Klausen's cartoon book exceeded the bounds of freedom of speech
by Nusrath Yusuf
Op-Ed | 9/15/09
Posted online at 3:25 AM EST on 9/15/09
Far too many people seem to be criticizing Yale University Press' decision to remove the controversial Danish cartoons of Prophet Muhammad from Brandeis Prof. Jyette Klausen's (POL) book, The Cartoons That Shook the World, to be released in November. Prominent alumni from Yale, including a U.S. ambassador to the U.N. under the most recent Bush administration, a speechwriter for Bush and a liberal doctor, have signed a letter asking Yale to reinstate the cartoons to the book. Some people are calling Yale's actions cowardly, claiming that the actions violate the author's freedom of speech.
I, on the other hand, commend Yale for its decision to intervene in this instance of freedom of speech taken to a negative extreme.
Yale University Press consulted about a dozen Muslim diplomats before reaching its decision. Yale released a statement explaining that these cartoons were removed from the book because "there existed a substantial likelihood of violence that might take the lives of innocent victims." Director of Yale University Press John Donatich also argued that this was not a case of suppressing freedom of speech because the press did not censor any original content of the writer.
Most of the diplomats who advised Yale remain unidentified, but one of the known who were consulted was Fareed Zakaria, a CNN host and Newsweek editor. He was quoted by The AP saying, "As a journalist and public commentator, I believe deeply in the First Amendment and academic freedom, but in this instance Yale University Press was confronted with a clear threat of violence and loss of life." Moreover, Yale University Press isn't the only publication that decided not to publish these images. The New York Times and other newspapers had decided not to reprint them back in 2006.
Any images of any of the prophets are completely forbidden in Islam because Islam tries to avoid any sort of idolatry. Not only did the Danish cartoons depict an image of the Prophet Muhammad, but one of the cartoons had him wearing a turban shaped into a bomb. Several months after these cartoons were published in 2005, there were many riots linked to the cartoons that ultimately resulted in over 200 deaths. Also, many Muslim countries boycotted Danish products as yet another result. Why publish the same cartoons again that have already caused so much mayhem?
I, on the other hand, commend Yale for its decision to intervene in this instance of freedom of speech taken to a negative extreme.
Yale University Press consulted about a dozen Muslim diplomats before reaching its decision. Yale released a statement explaining that these cartoons were removed from the book because "there existed a substantial likelihood of violence that might take the lives of innocent victims." Director of Yale University Press John Donatich also argued that this was not a case of suppressing freedom of speech because the press did not censor any original content of the writer.
Most of the diplomats who advised Yale remain unidentified, but one of the known who were consulted was Fareed Zakaria, a CNN host and Newsweek editor. He was quoted by The AP saying, "As a journalist and public commentator, I believe deeply in the First Amendment and academic freedom, but in this instance Yale University Press was confronted with a clear threat of violence and loss of life." Moreover, Yale University Press isn't the only publication that decided not to publish these images. The New York Times and other newspapers had decided not to reprint them back in 2006.
Any images of any of the prophets are completely forbidden in Islam because Islam tries to avoid any sort of idolatry. Not only did the Danish cartoons depict an image of the Prophet Muhammad, but one of the cartoons had him wearing a turban shaped into a bomb. Several months after these cartoons were published in 2005, there were many riots linked to the cartoons that ultimately resulted in over 200 deaths. Also, many Muslim countries boycotted Danish products as yet another result. Why publish the same cartoons again that have already caused so much mayhem?
Viewing Comments 1 - 4 of 4
Stephan Trahan
posted 9/15/09 @ 11:35 AM EST
It is a wonder that anyone would find a reason to dispute the decision to remove the cartoons; allowing them to be published would only have increased the risk of tension or worse. (Continued…)
Daniel Ortner
posted 9/15/09 @ 12:27 PM EST
To the Editor
I must say that I am disappointed though not at all shocked that someone at Brandeis would write a piece defending censorship.. Frankly, I find the idea of giving violent extremists a hecklers veto over one of the most purportedly reputable press in the world a travesty. (Continued…)
Rinita Zanzerkia
posted 9/15/09 @ 1:07 PM EST
I applaud Yale's decision; the images were not necessary as they could be described. While they are merely supplements they could cause serious damage. (Continued…)
Robert Brennan
posted 9/20/09 @ 4:48 PM EST
Censorship in its true form is really only the action of a government. The choice not to depict the cartoons is a mutual decision by publisher and author. (Continued…)
Post a Comment