The National Coalition Against Censorship and the American Association of University Professors, joined by leading groups in the academic, civil liberties, journalism, and free speech fields, issued a Statement of Principle and Call to Action urging governments, institutions and private individuals to support freedom of expression and academic freedom, and to resist caving in to threats of violence, real and imagined.

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.

Self-censorship is a way of avoiding issues that should be addressed and avoiding responsibility for being part of the conversation.  The right to free speech is meaningless if it can be defeated simply by saying that someone might take offense and lash out.

The statement notes that threats of violence against words and images are not the sole province of religious extremists. Among the examples cited in the statement:

• in 2005, a politically controversial professor’s scheduled speech at Hamilton College in Clinton, NY was canceled in response to 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.
• in 2008, the University of Nebraska-Lincoln canceled a speech by former Weatherman and education theorist William Ayers citing security concerns.

Cary Nelson, President of the American Association of University Professors, says,

Academic freedom is a principle that cannot survive if it is repeatedly compromised. Every time an individual or an institution stands up to a threat of violence it strengthens all of us. And every time fear wins we are all diminished.

Yesterday’s statement was issued following the recent publication by Yale University Press of a scholarly treatise, The Cartoons That Shook the World, in which Yale officials removed every image of the prophet Mohammed from the book, against the author’s wishes and to the wide condemnation of groups and individuals across the political spectrum.

The book, by Professor Jytte Klausen, examines the violence that erupted in 2005 after a dozen drawings of the prophet Mohammed by Danish cartoonists ignited a firestorm in some parts of the world, fueled in part by clerics and politicians who used them to inflame crowds.  Since then, the images have been reprinted and many are readily available online.

Yale officials cited “generic” fears of violence as the reason for excising all of the images, but, as NCAC, AAUP and others noted in a September 16 letter to University officials: “No one involved in the decision has cited any actual threat of violence as a justification for the decision.” A news release and link to the September letter is online here.

Ironically, as today’s statement notes, the Danish cartoons were originally published in response to rising concerns about fear-induced self-censorship.

The following groups have endorsed the Statement:

American Association of University Professors
American Civil Liberties Union
American Federation of Teachers
American Society of Journalists and Authors
Center for Democracy and Technology
Center for Inquiry
College Art Association
First Amendment Lawyers Association
First Amendment Project
Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
International Publishers Association
Modern Language Association
National Association of Scholars
National Coalition Against Censorship
National Council of Teachers of English
National Education Association
Norwegian PEN
People For the American Way Foundation

(List in formation)

The full text of the statement can be found here.

A recent NCAC blog post about the book censorship issue, including Yale University’s response, can be found here. NCAC’s original response to the publication of the cartoons can be found here. Cary Nelson’s detailed comments on Yale’s decision were published online in the Yale Alumni Magazine.

An upcoming exhibition at The John Slade Ely House for Contemporary Art in New Haven, organized by the Orchard Street Shul Cultural Heritage Artists Project, is overshadowed by the organizers’ decision to censor one of the artworks in the show.

After numerous requests that Richard Kamler, one of the participating artists, modify parts of his installation, and a month before the opening of the show, the organizers rejected his work for fear some members of the community may be offended.

Richard Kamler’s work, “right around the corner” consists of an installation and a performative component, a Community Conversation. The art work refers to the changing environment of the Orchard Street Shul and to the growth of a Muslim community in the neighborhood. The installation consists of a table covered by a paper tablecloth, made from interwoven fragments of pages from the Torah and the Koran, upon which the books themselves, placed in a copper bowl, are resting. Their pages are interwoven as well. The Community Conversation was to consist of conversations involving leaders of both communities. The artist has a 30-year history of creating similar projects and showing them internationally.

The organizers demanded the removal or modification of the tablecloth, even after being repeatedly assured that no actual books were cut, that the tablecloths consisted of photocopies of fragments, and that religious scholars agreed that the installation did not violate any religious taboo. Their concern was that the piece “might offend somebody.”

Artwork involving religion often upsets sensibilities no matter how respectful it may be. Artists we now think of as devout Catholics, for instance, were severely punished by the church hierarchy for expressing views that ran counter to orthodox teachings. Most recently, Chris Ofili’s Holy Virgin Mary, was seen as “offensive” to Catholics in spite of the fact that Ofili is a practicing Catholic himself.

Art is by its very nature open to multiple interpretations, and therefore even the most seemingly innocuous material may generate controversy. If the Orchard Street Shul Cultural Heritage Artists Project committee wanted to reduce the possibility of disagreement and ambiguity, perhaps it should have simply organized a show of archival photographs rather than an art exhibition.

On October 19 we celebrated our 35th Anniversary with a Night of Comedy with Judy Blume & Friends at City Winery.  And by friends, we mean the following fearless writers, artists, actors, comedians, musicians and filmmakers who have fought back against censorship: Elna Baker, Richard Belzer, Alice Eve Cohen, Junot Díaz, Rachel Dratch, Hannah Friedman, Liz Garbus, Martin Garbus, Judy Gold, Bob Holman, Michael Izquierdo, Rachel Kauder Nalebuff, Paul Mooney, Joe Paulik, Martha Plimpton, Amy Sohn, and Lizz Winstead; with video tributes by Michelle Branch, Whoopi Goldberg, Chelsea Handler, Mary-Louise Parker, Joan Rivers, and Dar Williams.

What a cast!  They read excerpts from Judy’s books, letters from fans and hate mail from non-fans, and they told their own tales.  Paul Mooney reminded us to “stick with it” and Judy Gold called Blume “an unbelievable hero to all the girls of my generation.”  (I echo that!)  She also lamented, “if only Judy had just written one book about a tall Jewish girl who had crushes on other little girls, then perhaps I would have saved a lot of money in therapy.”

Which is why we are here: to support writers who tell the truth, and to protect your bank accounts.

Thanks to everyone who came out to support us!  For more about of the evening, visit here, check out our YouTube Channel, and see Flickr for groovy pics.

Two library employees were fired at the Jessamine County Public Library for violating library policy.  Deciding that the graphic novel The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Volume IV: The Black Dossier was inappropriate for young patrons, they conspired to keeping the book on permanent “checked-out” status and removed a “hold” one young patron placed on the book so that she would not be able to access it.

Library director Dr. Critchfield acted with both principle and courage when he dismissed the employees who decided that their personal views were more important than the library’s policy of serving the entire community and allowing library patrons to make their own decisions about what they, and their children, should read.  By essentially stealing the graphic novel that they believed was inappropriate for minors, the two employees engaged in censorship and potentially exposed the library to legal liability for violating its constitutional obligations.

Like adults, minors have First Amendment rights, and the only people who should be making decisions about what they read are their parents.  There was a time in this country when librarians censored what their patrons, both children and adults, could read.  In the early 20^th century, librarians actually hid trashy novels in the stacks in the hope that no one would find them.  But in 1939 the American Library Association adopted the Library Bill of Rights, which provides that “libraries should provide information and materials presenting all points of view” and that “material should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal approval.”  This was an historic step forward for free speech because it committed libraries to the purchase of a wide range of books and magazines and committed librarians to defending their selections from efforts to censor them.

If every library employee followed their example and restricted access to books that express views they oppose, what books would be left on the shelves?  Libraries would contain only the least objectionable material, instead of places where people can explore ideas, even those considered offensive by others.

The book in question, like many books, may not be right for every user of the Jessamine County Public Library.  Individual library users have the right to voice their concerns and select different materials for themselves and their own children.  However, the First Amendment protects the right of those who wish to read the book and even to give it to their children.  Parents who are worried about what their children read should supervise their library selections, not expect the library to act as censor or babysitter.

We urge the library board to support Dr. Critchfield by upholding its strong policies guaranteeing a broad choice of reading material and protecting the freedom to read.

A billboard with the words “Don’t Believe In God? You are not alone” was removed from a site in downtown Cincinnati because of threats received by the owner of the site. Even though both the freedom of religion (including the freedom to not believe in god) and freedom of expression are among the founding principles of the U.S., there are still people who are prepared to resort to unlawful behavior so as to silence speech they dislike.

Of course, faced with material that confronts our beliefs and unsettles our emotions, the first impulse is to want it suppressed by any means available.  The need to coexist in a diverse society, however, demands that we resist the impulse to use violence as a way of silencing those who outrage us. That does not mean that we should be mute in the face of ideas that offend us.  There are many channels to voice one’s anger that do not include threats of violence.

To the extent that our society harbors such violent intolerance, it invites untold others who are convinced of the moral rectitude of their cause to adopt similar tactics. Every time threats of violence succeed in silencing expression, fear’s stranglehold on the imagination tightens, stifling our very ability to fully explore the world and our place in it.

The controversial billboard has been moved to a new location on the 6th Street Expressway, U.S. Highway 50, which is owned by the advertising company itself and should not be vulnerable to threats. Nevertheless it is lamentable that most public space seems to be at the mercy of a threatening heckler’s veto.

Great week for high school theatre!

RENT and the Laramie project are two of the most challenged plays in high schools around the country, but both shows will go on thanks to the Green Valley High School administration and Clark County’s District Court in Henderson, NV despite parents who objected to the plays’ “mature content”.

In an attempt to stop the plays from being performed, parents filed a suit for a preliminary injunction. However, the court sided with the Clark County School District, who claimed the parents’ lawyer failed to prove that it would cause ‘irreparable harm‘ to the plaintiffs.

It’s a shame many parents fail to recognize the intellectual capacities of students, by labeling RENT and The Laramie Project too “mature”.  According to Sarah Balogh, a 17-year performing in this school’s production of RENT, these plays are “all about compassion and tolerance” and the victory is a start towards upholding those principles.

We applaud the school for standing up to the parents’ threats.  School boards and libraries have often given into the pressure of a few, allowing those viewpoints to impose on another’s right to perform or read material they choose.  Just as Justice Jackson observed half a century ago that the attempt to “eliminate everything that is objectionable…will leave public education in shreds,” the current case should make it clear that “students are better served by exposure to ‘controversial’ material than by misguided – and unrealistic – attempts to shield them from it.”

After being dis-invited upon pressure from Governor Deval Patrick and then re-invited by a faculty group, Ray Luc Levasseur is now stopped from speaking at The University of Massachusetts – Amherst because his parole board refused to let him leave Maine.

The parole board has not given any reasons for this decision, but two facts make us suspect it was related to the controversy about his appearance:

One, Levasseur has spoken at out of state university campuses before, without any trouble from the parole board. And, two, Arnie Larson, president of the Massachusetts State Fraternal Order of Police told the media that local police forces put pressure on Levasseur’s parole officer and the commission to prevent his appearance. He was quoted as saying: ‘‘We reached out to people in the Justice Department and educated them about our passion here and why this individual should be held to the rules of his probation and not be allowed to leave the State of Maine, and they followed through on it.’’

Is the parole board helping police groups silence speech they don’t like on campus? What do you think?

The attempted cancellation of Ray Luc Levasseur’s talk at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, under pressure from Governor Patrick’s office, raises serious concerns not only about the state of academic freedom at the University but also about the Governor’s respect for the First Amendment.

UMass, in an effort to educate students about the social unrest that occurred during the 1960s and 70s, invited the former leader of the United Freedom Front (a group responsible for a number of bombings in the 1970s and 80s) to share his perspective on a 1989 landmark sedition trial in which he was acquitted.

Facing pressure from the National Association of Police and the Boston Police Patrolman’s Association, Governor Deval Patrick strongly advised the University to prevent Levasseur from speaking.

Although UMass complied with the governor’s wishes and dis-invited Levasseur, it refused to interfere when a faculty group re-invited the speaker, explaining that “As a university, we defend the principles of free speech and of academic freedom.”

UMass is taking a stand for free expression.   As we’ve said before, a university does not endorse the views of visiting speakers anymore than it endorses the ideas in every book in its library.  Censoring speech and the expression of controversial ideas does nothing to right the wrongs suffered by the victims of the United Freedom Front’s actions.  Instead, by prohibiting Levasseur to speak about a tumultuous time in history, the state is denying students at its flagship public university the opportunity to gain a full and nuanced perspective on historical events. How else can students become critical thinkers capable of countering the ideas of those with whom they disagree and even morally deplore?

In the U.S. we condemn Levasseur’s violent actions, but our constitution gives us the right to listen to his story. A message that has apparently yet to reach the Massachusetts  State Senate, where members passed a resolution condemning Levasseur’s invitation.

Click here for an update.

This year we received triple the amount of submissions than usual, and were very impressed!  We usually choose 10 semi-finalists, but this time we simply had to make room for 13.  We congratulate the semi-finalists and all our applicants for their hard work and excellent ideas!

The top three winners be flown to New York City for the Youth Voices Uncensored event in the spring!  They will also be awarded cash prizes of $1000, $500, $250, and the first place winner will receive a $5000 partial scholarship to the New York Film Academy or a one week digital filmmaking workshop.

Films are judged on content, artistic and technical merit, and creativity. Our renowned panel of judges include:

Kahlil Almustafa (spoken word artist, writer, educator)
Kathy Brew (award-winning independent filmmaker)
Shelbi Kepler (2008 YFEN 2nd place winner)
Shelby Knox (filmmaker and speaker)
Emily Kunstler (co-founder Off-Center Media)
Sarah Kunstler (co-founder Off-Center Media)
Mark Heyman (co-producer and director of development for Protozoa Pictures)
Julia Morgan (associate producer Louverture Films)
and the New York Film Academy

Stay tuned for more information about our Youth Voices Uncensored event in the spring, where we will award our winners and announce next year’s contest!

Visit YFEN’s website to learn more about our film contest.

[Dr. Marty Klein - a licensed Marriage & Family Therapist, Certified Sex Therapist, and sociologist with a special interest in public policy and sexuality - is our guest blogger today! We post from his great blog, Sexual Intelligence, from October 25.]

This week is WRAP Week: White Ribbons Against Pornography.

Sponsored by groups including Concerned Women for America (CWA) and Morality in Media (MIM), the goal of the week is “to educate the public about the extent of the pornography problem and what can constitutionally be done about it.” The groups involved suggest activities for observing the week, such as urging the Attorney General to enforce obscenity laws.

I totally agree with the idea behind WRAP. I support increasing everyone’s awareness of pornography use in this country—how many people watch it, who these people typically are, how it affects them and their relationships, what are rights are regarding pornography, etc. Of course, I have a different, more scientific take on the “problem,” so I propose a different set of activities to observe the Week.

To counter the obscene lies our media and legislators will be hearing this week, perhaps you could do one (or more!) of the following:

* If you use porn, talk about it with your partner.
* Thank the clerk in your local convenience store for carrying porn magazines or videos.
* Write a letter to the editor of your local paper explaining that most people who use porn have no problem with it.
* Invite your partner to share her/his concerns about porn with you.
* Instead of a White Ribbon, wear a Plaid Ribbon. When people ask, say it’s for Porn Awareness Week and your gratitude for the First Amendment.
* Start a conversation with someone: “Did you know that the Bill of Rights says
nothing about an exception for porn, obscenity, or indecency?
* Send a few bucks to the ACLU, National Coalition Against Censorship or Woodhull Freedom Foundation. They protect your right to read, watch, and jack off to whatever adult material you like.
* Write your mayor or governor reminding them that you vote, and you have no problem with porn.
* Memorize these facts: in the real world, porn is NOT connected with violence against women, child molestation, or divorce. In fact, according to the FBI, these have all declined since the country was flooded with internet porn in 2000.
* Use some.

Bonus: What to say to people who claim that pornography causes most of America’s problems:

* “Of course some rapists and wife-beaters use pornography. So do 50,000,000 other Americans, and it doesn’t make them rape or beat anyone.”
* “Of course some people watch way too much porn. Other people watch way too much football, reality TV, or the Weather Channel. That doesn’t mean there’s something wrong with any of them.”
* “Porn doesn’t make men withdraw from their wives and girlfriends. Men withdraw for a variety of reasons. No pictures or stories can compete with a satisfying sexual & emotional relationship with a live person.”