Cambridge University Press last year published Alms for Jihad: Charity and Terrorism in the Islamic World by J. Millard Burr and Robert O. Collins. The book discussed how some charitable organizations funnel money to Islamic terrorists. Cambridge recently "agreed to burn all unsold copies of the book after it received a letter threatening legal action from Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz." Cambridge will pay the Sheikh damages and contribute to his legal costs.

The authors are upset, needless to say, and say the publisher is accusing them of things they didn't do. They say the Cambridge legal department gave the book their okay before it was published, and that a lot of the info in the book can be found in the public record. Plus, the book has about a thousand footnotes.

Sheikh Mahfouz also sued Rachel Ehrenfeld for her book, Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed soon after Bonus Books of Los Angeles published it and before it was released in the United Kingdom. The book now cannot be published in England. Mahjouz was awarded damages, but Ehrenfeld is refusing to pay. (Good for her.)

According to the Washington Times story of 9-3-07, in England "the onus is on the writer to refute allegations, meaning writers rarely prevail." Ehrenfeld says other writers' book proposals have been rejected because of Saudi Arabian subject matter.

Kelly Jane Torrance ends her article on this issue by noting that big newspapers like the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post haven't covered this story. Why? "All three have settled with Mr. Mahfouz in the past."

quote:

---

And shame on Sheikh Mahfouz for using the law like a bludgeon in order to club free speech to death.

---

More at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems#Saudi_Arabian_contracts

One thing to consider is that their action was taken in consultation with the book's authors. It seem that the authors' had included false/unsupported statements gleaned from other publications; assertions that had already been proved unjust, wrong or misleading in the high court. These statements not only undermined the value of the book but the lack of rigour also called into question the professionalism and credibility of the authors. It appears they did not do the most basic of academic tasks of checking their facts.

CUP requested that the American Library Association either pulp the book, return it or otherwise “ensure that readers who may consult this book in the future are made aware of its erroneous statements and to ensure that this defamation is not perpetuated.”

So to that end, for those who see some value in keeping the book on the shelves, the CUP have issued an errata sheet and asked that it be attached inside the front cover of the book.

The question is whether, considering the controversy, the ALA will have courage enough to act. I hope they at least recommend that the errata sheet be included.

My point was that someone who doesn't believe in freedom of speech in the first place won't feel the same way. He doesn't value or even want freedom of speech in his own country, and, frankly, I have no doubt he would do anything possible to destroy freedom of speech and impose his sectarian values on everyone else in the world.

I am certainly not saying this is a good thing, only that it is, I believe, a fact.

I wonder how our good friend would respond if we sued him for writing a book about why he things hamburgers taste bad, if ever he chose to do so.

quote:

---

But whether it's a failure on my part or a failure on evolution, I cannot even comprehend the notion that freedom of speech would be less than desireable.

---

Second thing a dictator does after disarming the populace is take over the press.

but I understood huntgod to mean that "truth and justice" was a natural consequence of "free speech" but not necessarily a direct one. Or rather, she/he was saying (I think) that the two are inseparable. Either you have truth and justice and free speech, or you have none of the above. In that context they're all really part of some larger organism. But I'm not sure what to call it exactly. Maybe "right-ness" ? or "good" ?

I do not believe you can have a truthful or just society without free speech. That said there needs to be accountability and responsibility. Too often it seems that people think just because you have the right to do something that you should.

In an unregulated society you'd have the freedom to yell "fire" in a movie theater, even in a regulated society you have that right, there are however legal consequences.

As a whole you must make some sacrifices in freedoms to live in a "safe" world. Where you draw those lines and how you enforce them makes all the difference.

quote:

---

the content of [books] is not worth putting a person to death.

---

quote:

---

I can't say that I would willingly choose to live a life of seclusion like Mr. Rushdie has been forced into.

---

In the Cambridge University Press case, as far as has been reported, the threats were monetary, so no lives were at stake. But the threats weren’t isolated; they were part of a pattern. It wasn’t only Burr and Collins’ book, but Ehrenfeld’s as well, who also claims to know of other authors’ book proposals that have been squelched, and the article reports that at least three major newspapers have been sued by the same Saudi moneyman.

quote:

---

One thing to consider is that [CUP’s] action was taken in consultation with the book's authors.

---

quote:

---

It seem that the authors' had included false/unsupported statements gleaned from other publications; assertions that had already been proved unjust, wrong or misleading in the high court. These statements not only undermined the value of the book but the lack of rigour also called into question the professionalism and credibility of the authors. It appears they did not do the most basic of academic tasks of checking their facts.

---

Plus, CUP’s legal team originally combed the book for a month and okayed it. (In the same vein, though – false and unsupported statements, wrong or misleading assertions -- all the books about man-made global warming should be sued off the shelves. )

My word, this Mahfouz guy has so much money, why doesn’t he publish his own book and refute all this – with footnotes, please.

quote:

---

CUP requested that the American Library Association either pulp the book, return it or otherwise “ensure that readers who may consult this book in the future are made aware of its erroneous statements and to ensure that this defamation is not perpetuated.”

---

But there is a “deeper significance of this case. Bin Mahfouz has a habit of using the English tort regime to squelch any unwanted discussion of his record. In America, the burden of proof in a libel suit lies with the plaintiff. In Britain, it lies with the defendant, which can make it terribly difficult and expensive to ward off a defamation charge, even if the balance of evidence supports the defendant….Mahfouz…sued [Ehrenfeld ] for libel in England, and Ehrenfeld chose not to contest it….Instead, she chose to fight this ruling in the U.S. court system.” (Duncan Currie, TheWeeklyStandard@://www.publicintegrity.org/article/invent_index.php?id=410)

Duncan Currie further wrote, “More than two years ago, the London Times warned that ‘U.S. publishers might have to stop contentious books being sold on the Internet in case they reach the 'claimant-friendly' English courts.’ So why hasn't this become a cause célèbre for American publishing firms and journalists?”

quote:

---

As to where an when a government has the right to curtail or infringe those rights to free speech, I'd draw that line at the point that the speech in question creates or engenders a significant disruption to civil order.

---

Zero is right:

quote:

---

But I understand the motivation for suppressing others, and usually it's less than benign...

---

And, the Founding Fathers of the United States disrupted the civil order with their notions about freedom from England, didn’t they?

Free speech allows for truth, while putting up with lies. It’s the only way justice is served.

In case anyone thinks I’m advocating publishing lies indiscriminately, rest assured I'm not. Free speech is a right and every right comes with a responsibility. Fairness and integrity come into play, and libel and slander laws try to keep everyone honest. But the old saying, “I don’t agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it,” speaks a wisdom that is too often missing today. Political correctness makes people afraid of their own thoughts and seeks to homogenize all discourse, while bullies like Sheik Mahfouz intimidate investigative reporting. Both hamper thoughtful consideration of important matters. Free speech cannot thrive when either runs rampant, and truth and justice become casualties.

The alternative to free speech, restricted speech, assigns someone as gatekeeper to ideas, which is okay until or unless you don’t agree with the gatekeeper. It’s not scientific, but I tend to think that the more someone tries to shut down ideas that conflict with his own, the more likely it is that his ideas cannot stand up to scrutiny.

Cambridge University Press should not have capitulated to Sheik Mahfouz. They did the publishing world a great disservice.

2: In Indonesia, when a claim is made against a person and they are brought up on charges, the onus is upon the accused to prove that they are innocent. As it is notoriously difficult to prove you did not do something, this aspect of the legal system can be useful for the authorities when they are under pressure to convict someone... anyone... for a crime.

I believe the onus should be upon the claimant to prove their claims when challenged.

Post repeated below:

quote:

---

1: In Scotland, (land of the wild mountain haggis) there used to be three possible verdicts in a trial, they were: innocent, guilty and not proven. The latter verdict could in some circumstances be useful, especially if you wanted a person marked with suspicion and stigmatised despite the lack of any robust evidence.
2: In Indonesia, when a claim is made against a person and they are brought up on charges, the onus is upon the accused to prove that they are innocent. As it is notoriously difficult to prove you did not do something, this aspect of the legal system can be useful for the authorities when they are under pressure to convict someone... anyone... for a crime.

I believe the onus should be upon the claimant to prove their claims when challenged.

---

Of course, it was the inquisition--innocence was rare. Your own torture-induced confessions were incriminating enough. And if you did prove your innocence, after two to five years in prison waiting for your trial--the church had claimed any property in order to pay for your torture, prison time, and trial. The inquisition wasn't funded by the church. It paid for itself by claiming anything it could from victims.

(Had to research the inquisition for my novel.)

Sorry--what was the question?

Well, one pet peeve of mine is writers who assume "Guilty Until Proven Innocent" should be some kind of universal truth, and that all societies have it unless they are explicitly evil.