My free speech, your hate speech

[Astyanax]

Books (you know, those primitive information-sharing devices hardly anyone opens any more) probably aren’t at the top of your mind compared to social media and television when it comes to free speech. All the same, tradition confers on them a symbolic value and authority that popular electronic alternatives lack.

So when the president of PEN America, an organization dedicated to protecting free speech in print and among writers, resigns his post to protest an article published by his own organization – an article describing the problems Israeli authors have faced getting their works published (online or in print) since 7 October 2023 – the cognitive dissonance is strong enough to demand our attention.

The president of this American writers’ association, Dinaw Mengestu, is of Ethiopian origin. He was brought to the USA as a toddler by his parents, who were fleeing the Red Terror, a genocidal campaign carried out by Marxist forces during the Ethiopian civil war. He has published four novels and written about the violence in Darfur, Sudan, for Rolling Stone.

His resignation, he says, was prompted by his conviction that the article, which appeared under the PEN America masthead on the organization website and elsewhere, poses ‘a possible threat to the constitutional rights of those who advocate for shunning Israeli products (including art) according to the standards of the BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanctions) movement.’ The Atlantic’s reporter notes that, ‘apparently setting aside the question of defending free expression for Israeli and Jewish writers,’ he focused preferentially on the rights of pro-Palestinian activists.
 

A document like this from PEN, he felt, could provide more fuel for legislation that targets proponents of BDS. Such legislation already exists in most states, though it is usually aimed at businesses and individuals seeking government contracts. “It’s the first amendment that allows all of us to engage in boycotts, not PEN America,” Mengistu wrote in an email. “PEN America as a free expression organization is supposed to defend that right.”

Members of Deny Ignorance may find it amusing to debate the issues involved. There is no question, incidentally, that Israeli authors do find themselves under severe pressure from public opinion; check out, for instance, this online checklist that readers are encouraged to use to determine whether or not their favourite author is a Zionist. However, Mr Mengestu clearly believes that any opposition and censorship Israelis suffer are merely the price they must pay for being citizens of a rogue state; perhaps he regards this as a legitimate sanctions regime. Others, however, might see the Israelis as the injured party here. So… what do we think?

[Astyanax]

As a little bonus for those of us who are also Redditors, Mr Mengestu has an AMA thread there. It’s nine years old, though, and I doubt very much that he’s still taking questions.

[SteamyAmerican]

Interesting. Thank you OP for this thread.

I’ll freely admit I hadn’t heard of Israeli authors being bashed in their field. And while I don’t necessarily agree with this, I’m not surprised. The Arts in general are at war with each other over the thorny issue of being Israeli/Jewish, and I’m not sure I’m qualified to comment.

I have heard of Palestinian/Arab authors having a rough go when their works deal with the trauma they are processing through their works and books as it relates to the Israeli government and treatment of certain people. Read a few articles on this. And this doesn’t even address criticism in Academia and the quagmire there either. Ahem.

Except I will say this. Censorship of anyone isn’t something I stand for. Regardless of gender, creed, religion, etc. in fact I must express a bit of distaste here for this, as regardless what I think of anyone in the Arts or otherwise, I’ll defend their right to Create as they see fit so long as isn’t AI pedo stuff. For me to put a finger on the scale otherwise is in direct opposition to how I feel about Free Speech in my heart.

I need to read a bit more on this to suss out and glean what’s going on here I admit.

[ReturnofBroccoli]

Books (you know, those primitive information-sharing devices hardly anyone opens any more) probably aren’t at the top of your mind compared to social media and television when it comes to free speech. All the same, tradition confers on them a symbolic value and authority that popular electronic alternatives lack.

So when the president of PEN America, an organization dedicated to protecting free speech in print and among writers, resigns his post to protest an article published by his own organization – an article describing the problems Israeli authors have faced getting their works published (online or in print) since 7 October 2023 – the cognitive dissonance is strong enough to demand our attention.

The president of this American writers’ association, Dinaw Mengestu, is of Ethiopian origin. He was brought to the USA as a toddler by his parents, who were fleeing the Red Terror, a genocidal campaign carried out by Marxist forces during the Ethiopian civil war. He has published four novels and written about the violence in Darfur, Sudan, for Rolling Stone.

His resignation, he says, was prompted by his conviction that the article, which appeared under the PEN America masthead on the organization website and elsewhere, poses ‘a possible threat to the constitutional rights of those who advocate for shunning Israeli products (including art) according to the standards of the BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanctions) movement.’ The Atlantic’s reporter notes that, ‘apparently setting aside the question of defending free expression for Israeli and Jewish writers,’ he focused preferentially on the rights of pro-Palestinian activists.
 

Members of Deny Ignorance may find it amusing to debate the issues involved. There is no question, incidentally, that Israeli authors do find themselves under severe pressure from public opinion; check out, for instance, this online checklist that readers are encouraged to use to determine whether or not their favourite author is a Zionist. However, Mr Mengestu clearly believes that any opposition and censorship Israelis suffer are merely the price they must pay for being citizens of a rogue state; perhaps he regards this as a legitimate sanctions regime. Others, however, might see the Israelis as the injured party here. So… what do we think?

What a well written contribution to DI, thank you

[worldstarcountry]

Not that I agree, but it is pretty rich that the Zionist state authors have these complaints when the state has spent decades and countless billions keeping people's mouths shut about their crimes using connected individuals to have critics fired from jobs, de-monetized on the internet, blacklisted from civic society organizations and outright targeting journalists with sniper fire and drone strikes in Gaza. 

The only censorship I approve is pushing homosexual propaganda onto innocent children in schools or children's tv/movie productions. Other than that, I would allow the Zionists to have their rights, with a careful reminder of "How does it feel now? Maybe you will stop working hard to silence others eh?"

However, I will think the defenses in either direction should be quite amusing.

[Astyanax]

What a well written contribution to DI, thank you

That’s very kind of you. Writing is, in fact, how I make my living, so this is a topic of professional interest to me, even though I have never published anything about Israel, Palestine or the never-ending polycrisis in the Middle East.

I’ll keep my opinions about the topic to myself for the  present, though. I would like to see what others have to say.

[Astyanax]

the state has spent decades and countless billions keeping people's mouths shut about their crimes using connected individuals to have critics fired from jobs, de-monetized on the internet, blacklisted from civic society organizations and outright targeting journalists with sniper fire and drone strikes in Gaza. 

This isn’t about journalism, or about silencing critics of Israel. No doubt there’s plenty of that going on, but this is about silencing writers – artists – not journalists and public intellectuals in general, and it isn’t about the actions of the Israeli state but the publishing industry and the court of public and critical opinion. The immediate questions are

1. whether you feel the PEN article I linked to is fair and just;
   
2. more broadly, whether or not you believe pro-Israeli authors experience difficulty in speaking out or publishing their works;
   
3. whether you think the president of PEN was correct to resign in protest against the article.
   

In other words, this is a thread about free-speech issues faced by Israeli or pro-Israel authors. Evidently you think that Israeli or pro-Israel writers should have the same free-speech rights as everyone else – that they should face no special difficulties about getting published, whatever their views happen to be. Very well; now tell us why.
 

*     *     *

The late Martin Amis has long been one of my favourite novelists. His second wife (also a novelist, Isabel Fonseca) is Jewish, making his children Jewish also. This affected his own thoughts on Israel and Jewishness. Amis wrote extensively and passionately about these matters in memoirs, critical essays and even his last novel, Inside Story. He wrote two compelling novels, Time’s Arrow and The Zone of Interest, about the Holocaust. He also strongly opposed the rise of militant Islam around the world, and published an (in)famous essay, ‘The Rise of Horrorism (NB: PDF)’, in the aftermath of 9/11.

As anyone who bothers to click on the above links will find, Amis took a pasting from the left-wing critical establishment in Britain, the US and elsewhere for his views.

Back in 2008, he described the difficulties facing Jewish authors seeking publication in the UK:
 

I know it’s a great tradition of the British left to support Palestine, but when you come up against this question, you can feel the intelligence and balance leaving the hall with a shriek, and people getting into this endocrinal state about Israel.

I just don’t understand it. The Jews have a much, much worse history than the Palestinians, and in living memory. But there’s just no impulse of sympathy for that . . . I know we’re supposed to be grown up about it and not fling around accusations of anti-Semitism, but I don’t see any other explanation. It’s a secularised anti-Semitism. Source

I imagine things are somewhat different in the USA, where there are and have been so many Jewish authors and, of course, great Jewish-owned publishing firms (Knopf, Random House, Simon & Schuster and many more). Though I’m sure the pressure on them or their successors is heavier than it used to be...

[worldstarcountry]

 

1. whether you feel the PEN article I linked to is fair and just;
   
2. more broadly, whether or not you believe pro-Israeli authors experience difficulty in speaking out or publishing their works;
   
3. whether you think the president of PEN was correct to resign in protest against the article.
   

now tell us why.

Regarding number one, yes I feel it is fair and just, especially since they did explain what Palestinians have faced with regard to their own stories as cited in the early paragraphs of the article cited, within the context you have stipulated relating specifically to the publishing of intellectual content by Jewish authors even unrelated to any kind of policy of their government. My wife is a big fan of Nicholas Sparks, I could never support a boycott on his for having pro-Israel views or simply saying a prayer for Israel.
Number two, if there is  some kind of difficulty publishing their views, I don't know where it happens. My wife and daughter and I are regulars at Barnes and Noble book store, there is no shortage of Jewish category fiction and non-fiction and occasionally notice tables with a focus to Jewish authors. The boys only show up to look at legos, sciency stuff and occasional Manga. I have been binging on ancient philosophy myself. This probably comes out on the stuff I have been posting this year.
Number three, however I feel about the PEN president's decision is really of no matter. The real point is that it is well within their right to do so, as their own personal first amendment expression. Just as much as Mein Kampf can still be purchased, or Hellter Skelter. That expression may be ugly to some, but it is the individuals inherit right to express such a view. At the very least, having access to the intellectual work (whether those exampled I used can even be characterized in that fashion or not) gives a thinking person insight into how such a mind operates whether to rationalize controversial beliefs or simply try and explain them.

The decision to agree or disagree must always be left to the individual in the end. If or when it becomes an institutional policy through coercion to deprive any type of person or thought those rights, that is when an expression of domination is being forced upon individuals as opposed to understanding. A voluntary commitment to such a thing as a boycott does not necessarily enter the censorship category until a consequence such as being fired or de-banked etc. comes into play. It is interesting to note in that same article talking about lists and making references to the Holocaust, they also write this line as if it is no big deal. 

Two years ago, the Jewish Book Council opened a hotline for reporting “anti­se­mit­ic lit­er­ary-relat­ed inci­dents.” They define antisemitism as “prej­u­dice against or hatred of Jew­ish peo­ple,” which “can take many forms, such as ver­bal or writ­ten lan­guage, in-per­son or online harass­ment, van­dal­ism, and vio­lence direct­ed at a per­son or insti­tu­tion because they are Jew­ish.” 

Except they will characterize as anti-Semitism any individual or private companies' (publishers) expressing their own right to refuse to give a platform to a disagreeing opinion; perhaps for what those individuals/groups feel is their way of protesting a globally recognized doctrine. The UN documents and independent volunteer physicians from around the world testify about the IDF shooting children with drones and sniper fire in a way that can only be targeted due to the overrepresented instances being statically only explained through targeting. I post that and it is called anti-semitism. We criticize the wholesale demolition of neighborhoods, it is called anti-Semitic.

So when the same article talks about reporting these expressions to a hotline as anti-semitism overall, the discussion gets a bit foggy with the right and wrongs.

Overall, a private company such as a publisher has the right to refuse to publish anything they disagree with. They own it. The list that made such a splash in the opening paragraphs of the article was a tweet from an individual. The individual made no threats, no coercive promises. A simple ranking, not unlike the rankings by certain groups that rank specific websites as anti-semitic with varying degrees. Flip that coin, and suddenly its the same coin innit?

[quintessentone]

Books (you know, those primitive information-sharing devices hardly anyone opens any more) probably aren’t at the top of your mind compared to social media and television when it comes to free speech. All the same, tradition confers on them a symbolic value and authority that popular electronic alternatives lack.

So when the president of PEN America, an organization dedicated to protecting free speech in print and among writers, resigns his post to protest an article published by his own organization – an article describing the problems Israeli authors have faced getting their works published (online or in print) since 7 October 2023 – the cognitive dissonance is strong enough to demand our attention.

The president of this American writers’ association, Dinaw Mengestu, is of Ethiopian origin. He was brought to the USA as a toddler by his parents, who were fleeing the Red Terror, a genocidal campaign carried out by Marxist forces during the Ethiopian civil war. He has published four novels and written about the violence in Darfur, Sudan, for Rolling Stone.

His resignation, he says, was prompted by his conviction that the article, which appeared under the PEN America masthead on the organization website and elsewhere, poses ‘a possible threat to the constitutional rights of those who advocate for shunning Israeli products (including art) according to the standards of the BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanctions) movement.’ The Atlantic’s reporter notes that, ‘apparently setting aside the question of defending free expression for Israeli and Jewish writers,’ he focused preferentially on the rights of pro-Palestinian activists.
 

Members of Deny Ignorance may find it amusing to debate the issues involved. There is no question, incidentally, that Israeli authors do find themselves under severe pressure from public opinion; check out, for instance, this online checklist that readers are encouraged to use to determine whether or not their favourite author is a Zionist. However, Mr Mengestu clearly believes that any opposition and censorship Israelis suffer are merely the price they must pay for being citizens of a rogue state; perhaps he regards this as a legitimate sanctions regime. Others, however, might see the Israelis as the injured party here. So… what do we think?

This boycott is clearly explained in "A Silent Moratorium'.

----

"The Role of Cultural Boycotts
 Calls to boycott Israeli cultural institutions have had an impact across the international literary and creative communities.
 
The movement for Palestinian civil rights and justice has long drawn on economic, cultural, and academic boycotts as tactics to pressure the Israeli government to change its policies and treatment of Palestinians. In fall 2024, more than 7,000 writers and literary professionals signed onto a pledge not to work with Israeli publishers, festivals, literary agencies, and publications “that are complicit or have remained silent observers of the overwhelming oppression of Palestinians,” arguing that “culture has played an integral role in normalizing” injustices by the Israeli government. The pledge specifically targets institutions, not individual writers, but many writers PEN America spoke to said they have felt repercussions, nonetheless. 
 
PEN America upholds a long-standing position opposing any efforts to inhibit the free international exchange of literature, art, knowledge, or culture, including cultural and academic boycotts. We believe that such boycotts threaten the free expression rights not only of those associated with the boycotted institutions but also of those in the countries where the boycott is practiced. PEN America also recognizes that participating in or advocating for boycotts is an exercise of free expression, and we defend the rights of writers to do so without facing retaliation.
 As an organization fundamentally dedicated to the power of literature and ideas to foster empathy and understanding, we believe that, particularly in times of conflict and division, writers must be able to speak and write freely. Readers, too, must be able to access a diversity of stories and perspectives. No matter the actions of governments, it is only through mutual engagement and understanding among people that we can lay the groundwork for a future of peace, dignity, and freedom for all. "

-----

... "“that are complicit or have remained silent observers of the overwhelming oppression of Palestinians,” arguing that “culture has played an integral role in normalizing” injustices by the Israeli government. "

----

Two sides of the coin, indeed.

"Growing Trend of Restrictions
 These experiences are representative of a surge of censorship that has swept across the United States since 7 October 2023, discussions with nine children's authors reveal. Canceled appearances, restricted materials, and organized opposition have increased through schools, libraries, and bookstores, targeting authors who have either written about Palestinian life, have supported Palestinian rights, or been affected by the opposition merely because of their visibly Muslim identity.
 
For the Palestinian American authors, the pattern reinforces of an uncomfortable and unique situation: that their very existence is threatening, and presenting idyllic stories that define their upbringing – however innocent – can trigger coordinated efforts alleging of seeding prejudice and division."

https://clarityventures.ca/they-didnt-ev...titutions/

[Astyanax]

This boycott is clearly explained in "A Silent Moratorium'.

Explained from one point of view, certainly. Obviously Mr Mengestu disagrees.

But where do you stand?

Do you think both Israeli and Palestinian authors have a right to express their views freely, even when those views are hostile to the other party? Even when the views expressed can mean life or death to someone?

Do you believe cultural boycotts are legitimate? Would you have attended a literary festival or a rock concert in apartheid South Africa? 

Are you proposing tit-for-tat boycotts? Or do you think there ought to be a ban on boycotts?

I look forward (I think we all look forward) to learning your views.