Ban censorship, not books
Güncelleme Tarihi:
Oluşturulma Tarihi: Mayıs 15, 2009 00:00
Moderation is a virtue we respect and seek to uphold. Our views on freedom of expression, however, are immoderate. As professionals making our living with pens and ink, we take a dim view of censorship in any form.
Thus we have welcomed the recent reforms to the Turkish Penal Code that trimmed the notorious "section 301," which banned "insulting Turkishness" back a bit toward reasonableness. The requirement of the justice minister’s signature before prosecution can proceed represents progress ---- sort of. These reforms, however, still fall short of what it is required specifically under the terms of the Copenhagen Criteria, which Turkey agreed to in 2004 as part of the European Union accessionary process. More generally, these reforms falls short of the universal standards that should be the norm in a progressive democracy.
Then just as we were awaiting further reform comes the news we reported yesterday that four books of erotic literature, including a work of one of the most respected poets in France, have been effectively banned by an obscure panel of experts.
We are tempted by the suggestion of Mario Levi, a teacher of literature at Istanbul’s Yeditepe University that perhaps we need to establish some standard of expertise for the so-called "experts." But tempting as that suggestion is, it avoids the more important issue. State mechanisms have no business deciding what is appropriate for the public to read. This responsibility should not be within the government domain.
Parents should decide what children should read. Teachers can decide what books are appropriate. We would agree that community standards should play a role. What may be appropriate to place in the window of a bookstore in Istanbul’s Cihangir neighborhood might be inappropriate for the display at a bookstore in conservative Konya. And we think the proprietors of bookstores are perfectly capable of making these distinctions.
Of course in an age when the most graphic pornography imaginable is only an Internet cafe away, policing of printed novels for obscene passages is ludicrous on its face. At the most basic level, this is just a waste of state resources.
But more offensive is the principle. The mentality that censors books for any reason belongs to a bygone age.
There is plenty of published material we would not put in our newspaper, bring into our homes or allow our children to view. But this is a matter of judgment. Protections of freedom of expression are not just for the words or ideas we like. They are also for words and ideas we find objectionable or even distasteful.
A renewed reform process toward harmonizing our law with EU norms must include focus on freedom of speech. That effort should be broad. And it should include an end to such absurd rulings that substitute government decree for private judgment.
Then just as we were awaiting further reform comes the news we reported yesterday that four books of erotic literature, including a work of one of the most respected poets in France, have been effectively banned by an obscure panel of experts.
We are tempted by the suggestion of Mario Levi, a teacher of literature at Istanbul’s Yeditepe University that perhaps we need to establish some standard of expertise for the so-called "experts." But tempting as that suggestion is, it avoids the more important issue. State mechanisms have no business deciding what is appropriate for the public to read. This responsibility should not be within the government domain.
Parents should decide what children should read. Teachers can decide what books are appropriate. We would agree that community standards should play a role. What may be appropriate to place in the window of a bookstore in Istanbul’s Cihangir neighborhood might be inappropriate for the display at a bookstore in conservative Konya. And we think the proprietors of bookstores are perfectly capable of making these distinctions.
Of course in an age when the most graphic pornography imaginable is only an Internet cafe away, policing of printed novels for obscene passages is ludicrous on its face. At the most basic level, this is just a waste of state resources.
But more offensive is the principle. The mentality that censors books for any reason belongs to a bygone age.
There is plenty of published material we would not put in our newspaper, bring into our homes or allow our children to view. But this is a matter of judgment. Protections of freedom of expression are not just for the words or ideas we like. They are also for words and ideas we find objectionable or even distasteful.
A renewed reform process toward harmonizing our law with EU norms must include focus on freedom of speech. That effort should be broad. And it should include an end to such absurd rulings that substitute government decree for private judgment.