Freedom of speech demands publication of ideas, popular or not

By Bethany Crane

October 20, 2008 | Have we reverted back to book burnings? Are we saying to society that they aren't smart enough to read a book and be able to tell the difference between what is real and what is fiction? Do we need to be spoon fed the truth by those who think they have it?

The Jewel of Medina is a historical novel written by Sherry Jones. Its focus is Aisha, the wife of the prophet Mohammad who was betrothed to him at either 6 or7 and married at 9. These facts alone cause people to raise some eyebrows, it's true, but the novel is more revering of an extraordinary woman than anything. It is not hostile toward Muslims, and it certainly isn't trying to get a statement across. It is hard to dispute its content yet since the opening day hasn't revealed the full text and judgments have only been made by those who have seen small portions.

A professor at the University of Texas, Denise Spellberg, in all her eloquence called the book a "very ugly, stupid piece of work." Random House canceled its publication of the book for fear that it might incite radicals to take violent action. Not many publishing houses are following suit. In Denmark, where there has been a lot of hostility about things of this nature, especially since the cartoons, they are also publishing the book.

When evolution was first being taught in schools people reacted so adversely to it they began burning books, taking their children out of classes, etc. Have we reverted to a time when if something was perceived to contradict or even talk about a controversial issue we have to be rid of it or venerate it?

I don't like the idea that we need to be spoonfed the facts and the false points. If I don't want to read a book, I choose not to go buy it or check it out from the library. A violent reaction has never been appropriate but it seems to be the way people want to get their point across, without making eloquent arguments that might be more persuasive than simply saying something is stupid.

Not publishing the book in certain places is censorship due to possible threat. If I were to recommend the best possible action I would say that every publishing house should publish the book so that no single company or employees would be targeted for flying solo.

No culture, religion, or country has ever not been the subject of scrutiny or media coverage. There isn't an entitlement to an exception here just because of a fear of violent reactions. History is history, and those who read the novel will recognize that it is just that, a novel. When The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown was released there were widespread cries of false light being shed on things like Opus Dei and their practices. But the reaction was not one of threatening buildings and publishers lives, they took their own measure of ensuring that their point came across.

Freedom of expression must be respected, even if the opinion isn't. We need to move on from not challenging the accepted wisdom, open our minds to other's ideas, and acknowledge them even if we don't accept them. Thoughts need a forum to be heard and if they are left unheard they will break through and make themselves known. We live in a time when ideas can be shared in a matter of seconds and everyone has an opinion about something. What we shouldn't do, is tell someone they can't share their opinion.

NW
MS