Inside Higher Ed: The Right of Scholars, Writers and Artists to Freedom of Thought and Expression

Essays of A.K. Ramanujan   

More intrigue involving a scholar's work ... And possible censorship.

A revered scholarly publisher, Oxford Press, who should know better, did finally come to the right decision RE very popular(but lately controversial) works by the late Indian scholar,  A.K. Ramanujan.

Details here by Scott Jaschik from INSIDE HIGHER ED:

About-Face by Oxford Press

Just weeks after hundreds of scholars blasted Oxford University Press for ending publication of certain works that have become controversial in India, the press announced that it would republish the works, and distribute them in India and elsewhere.

Oxford made the announcement Friday in an e-mail to the scholars who signed a letter to the press expressing their anger over what was viewed as caving in to right-wing Indian nationalists who were offended by some of the work of the late A.K. Ramanujan. The author, during a career largely spent at the University of Chicago, was considered one of the most influential scholars of Indian cultures and literatures. The scholars charged that the press -- by stopping distribution of Ramanujan's works -- was engaged in scholarly "self-abasement."

Immediately after the scholars sent the letter, Oxford played down the dispute and said that the various works of Ramanujan were out of circulation for economic reasons, withdrawn due to "minimal sales," not due to any pressure in India. While the press offered to meet with the concerned scholars, officials indicated that there was no need to change any publishing decision.

But on Friday, the press reversed course. Its letter to scholars said: "Given the current concern expressed by members of the scholarly community about the availability of The Collected Essays and Many Ramayanas we have taken the decision to reprint both titles immediately and make them available in India and beyond. We are also making Questioning Ramayanas available again. All three titles are available to order from the OUP India website and bookshops across India."

The Ramayana is a Sanskrit epic revered by many Hindus. An essay by Ramanujan -- "Three Hundred Ramayanas" -- has infuriated some in India for references to Rama, a Hindu god, that were not consistent with right-wing Hindu beliefs. That dispute led Delhi University in October to agree to stop teaching the essay -- a move that Salman Rushdie said amounted to "academic censorship." And the controversy then led a group of scholars worldwide to demand that Oxford either start publishing the books again, including in India, or to give up copyright over the books so that others could publish them.

Read and learn more

Get Writers Welcome Blog on Kindle :)))

CIA Tries to Screw Ex-Agent Publisher

More intrigue in the publishing realm!

Seems the CIA is upset with an ex-agent who published a critical book after they dragged their feet on it's approval.

So what's new here? I would guess that most ex-agents, who chose to write a book about their field experiences, would be critical of the agency. In fact they all would probably be critical.

Loy Johnson writes this for Melville House Publishing's weekly syndicated newspaper in his MobyLives column:

Ex-CIA agent gets his say

In a follow up to an earlier MobyLives post regarding the CIA lawsuit against former CIA agent Ishmael Jones for his book, The Human Factor: Inside the CIA’s Dysfunctional Intelligence Culture, the New Yorker magazine has posted an interview by Gregory Levey with Jones on their blog.

The CIA’s statement claims, “Although Jones submitted his manuscript to the Agency’s Publications Review Board (PRB) as his secrecy agreement requires, he did not let that review process run its course and instead published in defiance of the Board’s initial disapproval.” Jones tells Levey:

"I sent the book to C.I.A. censors and repeatedly asked them, over the course of a year, to tell me what they wanted taken out or rewritten, but they just sat on it. They finally sent it back to me as a stack of blank pages. There is no classified information in this book, but it is highly critical. I had approached my entire chain of command beforehand. In addition, I had also confronted the Agency’s Inspector General. Writing the book was a last resort."

Read and enjoy more

Censorship - Is America a Free Country or Not?

A bad Massachusetts law (Massachusetts? I don't believe it!) may spur self-censorship by bookstores. The law, that went into effect yesterday, would severly restrict constitutionally protected speech RE anything that "could" be harmful to minors.

Isn't everything about real life harmful to minors without adult-instilled values, teachings and guidance! Parants don't seem to want to take time with their kids today and teach them about the realities of life, they'd rather just keep them in the dark and censor everything from their fragile view and learning...They can't handle the truth!...Pure BS. Children are much smarter than you think.

Anyway, this report is from the American Booksellers Association (ABA), who together with others, filed suit against the state of Massachusetts to block the censorship law:

On Tuesday, July 13, a coalition including the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression (ABFFE), Harvard Book Store, and Porter Square Books filed suit to block a broad Massachusetts censorship law that bans constitutionally protected speech on the Internet on topics such as contraception and pregnancy, sexual health, literature, and art.

The law, Chapter 74 of the Acts of 2010, signed in April by Gov. Deval Patrick, went into effect on Monday. It imposes severe restrictions on the distribution of constitutionally protected speech on the Internet and would make anyone who operates a website or communicates through a listserv criminally liable for nudity or sexually related material, if the material can be considered "harmful to minors" under the law's definition, said Media Coalition. In effect, it bans from the Internet anything that may be "harmful to minors," including material adults have a First Amendment right to view.

Violators can be fined $10,000 or sentenced to up to five years in prison, or both.

"The risk of five years in prison or a $10,000 fine will certainly have a chilling effect on booksellers with websites that describe their books available online or in a store," said Chris Finan, president of ABFFE, a member of Media Coalition. "Most bookstores are small businesses, and it is very likely that booksellers will try to avoid problems by engaging in self-censorship."

Other plaintiffs in the suit against state attorney general Martha Coakley and Massachusetts district attorneys are the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, the Association of American Publishers, the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, the Photographic Resource Center, and licensed marriage and family therapist Marty Klein.

Since there is no way for websites to determine the age of an Internet browser and no way to block Internet users from Massachusetts regardless of the location of the originating website, Media Coalition said, "The law threatens Internet users nationwide and even worldwide. The suit seeks to have the law declared unconstitutional and void on its face, and to enjoin the state from enforcing it, on the basis of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, and the Constitution's Commerce Clause."

"While this Act may have been motivated by the desire to protect children from sexual predators on the Internet, its effect is much broader," said John Reinstein, legal director of the ACLU of Massachusetts. "Its inevitable effect, if permitted to stand, is that Internet content providers will limit the range of their speech. There are no reasonable technological means that allow Internet users to ascertain the age of anyone who might access their online communications and then restrict access for minors."

"Courts have repeatedly rejected laws that lead to this sort of self-censorship," said Michael Bamberger of Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP, general counsel of Media Coalition and counsel in the case. "We should have adequate safeguards to protect children, but those safeguards cannot unreasonably interfere with the rights of adults to access materials protected by the First Amendment."

If the law is struck down, the groups said, it would not limit the state's ability to prosecute obscenity, child pornography, speech intended to entice minors into inappropriate activity, or harassing speech.