The country’s 2002 reformed Civil Code made it mandatory for works of a biographical nature – films, books or otherwise – to have prior authorization from the subject of the work before public release. As a result, most biographies published in Brazil end up being eulogistic to the people they portray.

Critics contend that the current legal framework causes editors to practice self-censorship. “Instead of only taking care of the literary quality of the work, editors end up being busy with judicial problems and carrying out a self-censorship that is harmful to the industry”, says Sônia Machado Jardim, president of Brazil’s National Union of Book (Sindicato Nacional dos Editores de Livros, Snel).

Sônia Machado Jardim supports a change to Brazilian law, which would allow publication of biographies without prior approval of the subject. Photo: www.snel.org.br

Jardim also says that many relatives of people portrayed in biographies try to take advantage of the need of previous approval to demand huge amounts of money, making it impossible to have the works published.

Some controversial cases have become notorious in Brazil. Singer Roberto Carlos, one of the most popular artists in the past 50 years, not only barred in the 2007 circulation of a biography written by Paulo Cesar de Araújo – the copies were already printed and ready to go to the stores – but also banned the publishing of a master’s degree thesis on Jovem Guarda, the musical movement he was part of in the mid 1960s. Before that, in the 1980s, Carlos also prevented the publication of magazine articles about him.

The biography of former footballer and two time World Cup champion Garrincha, who died in 1983, provides another infamous example. Written by journalist Ruy Castro, the book was withdrawn from circulation in 1995 because of a lawsuit filed by Garrincha’s relatives. The author appealed and his work eventually went back on sale.

In 2011, controversies like these led deputy Newton Lima (Workers’ Party) from São Paulo to draft legistlation that changes the Civil Code and annuls the need for prior authorization of biographies from public people – like politicians and media celebrities.

“When people go into public life, they give up part of their right for privacy. Of course one does not want to deprive public people of all their privacy, but it certainly gets diminished”, says the draft bill’s rapporteur in the Congress, deputy Alessandro Molon (Workers’ Party) from Rio de Janeiro.

“It doesn’t mean that the modified law will make it free for anyone to publish anything about anybody. If the person portrayed in a biography feels attacked, he or she can go to the court against the author, and the author himself is still responsible to answer for his work”, says the deputy.

The Chamber of Deputies’ Constitution and Justice Committee passed the draft bill conclusively in early April, which meant it should have gone straight to a Senate vote. However, deputy Marcos Rogério (PDT Party) from the state of Rondônia filed a petition against the proposed bill, making it mandatory that the deputies voted before senators, which slowed down the approval process.

Rogério justified his petition by saying the draft bill’s language left some issues unaddressed.

“What is ‘public dimension’ anyway? It’s a relative concept. Someone can write, for example, a biography about a city counselor either accusing him or promoting him electorally. It can be used for good or for evil. Constitution protects both freedom of expression and privacy”, the deputy said during a Constitution and Justice Committee debate.

Molon regrets this reaction to the draft bill. “While this bill is not voted by the deputies, it cannot go on, and now we depend on the Chamber of Deputies’ speaker’s good will to put it on the voting schedule”, he says. Marcos Rogério could not be reached by Index on Censorship to comment about this subject.

Aside from the new biographies bill, a group of publishers filed a direct action of unconstitutionality with the supreme federal court in July 2012. In their filing, the book firms argue that the Civil Code clause governing prior authorization generates censorship, which is prohibited in Brazil.

Opinions of the suit are to be issued by Brazil’s Solicitor-General Luis Inácio Adams and Attorney-General Roberto Gurgel. Minister Carmem Lúcia is responsible for ruling about the case in the federal supreme court. There is no deadline for the opinions or the court’s ruling.

“When you have a restriction for publishing stories about personalities, the preservation of history’s knowledge is lost. It’s a higher issue than looking for profit”, says Snel’s Sônia Jardim.

“After so many years of fighting to reestablish democracy and freedom of expression in our country, we cannot allow censorship to put its clutches over artistic works ever again”.

The post New law set to ease the way for biographies in Brazil appeared first on Index on Censorship.

In the May/June issue of Archaeology magazine the president of the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA), Elizabeth Bartman, made a statement that resulted in an outcry:

We at the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA), along with our colleagues at the American Anthropological Association and other learned societies, have taken a stand against open access.

The story of Bartman’s opposition to the public dissemination of knowledge broke in mid-April and by the end of the month she had made a partial retraction on the AIA’s website following strong negative attention in the press. In her retraction, Bartman stated that she was “not against open access as a concept” but was “opposed to slated government legislation on the issue”. This was a direct reference to the Federal Research Public Access Act, currently working its way through US Congress. The bill would require that the results of any project funded by the US government be made open access after a fixed period of time.

In her statement against open access, Bartman quoted parts of the institute’s mission:

Believing that greater understanding of the past enhances our shared sense of humanity and enriches our existence, the AIA seeks to educate people of all ages about the significance of archaeological discovery.

So why would the AIA come out against a proposal that meets its mission statement? The institute puts it down to costs:

We fear that this legislation would prove damaging to the traditional venues in which scientific information is presented by offering, for no cost, something that has considerable costs associated with producing it. It would undermine, and ultimately dismantle, by offering for no charge, what subscribers actually support financially — a rigorous publication process that does serve the public, because it results in superior work.

Publishing can certainly be expensive and it is not always possible to rely on donations or the taxpayer to pick up the bill. The fear of publishers and societies is that if they give away their journals for free then no one will pay to be a member. Taking this fear into consideration, the stance of the AIA against open access is logical: they are scared of losing their members and being forced to close down.

However, when looking at the facts, this sympathetic reasoning starts to fall apart. The National Science Foundation, providing almost the only US government funds used for projects that appear in archaeology journals, supports roughly 50 archaeology projects a year. At best, no more than 55 projects in any given year would have to be made open access if the Federal Research Public Access Act were to be made law. The AIA only publishes one periodical publication, the American Journal of Archaeology (AJA). There are over 250 English language periodical publications that specialise in archaeology. If one were to include journals in related subjects such as anthropology, history or classics, this number jumps into the thousands. Include cross-disciplinary publications, and the possible locations for one to publish research jump to tens of thousands of options. Fifty-five publications spread out over hundreds, thousands or possibly tens of thousands of journals — and one might speculate that, at most, every year the AIA would have to make one or two of their articles open access.

The institute’s reference to the “considerable costs” involved in publishing is a questionable assertion. As pointed out by many open access advocates, the cost of starting and running a journal is quite low — some put the number at as little as $350 annually for a bare-bones operation relying on volunteers. This type of operation is not too different from how the AJA is currently run. All of the writing of the articles and research is done for free. The peer review process, which according to the AIA provides benefit to the public, is all done by volunteers. There is no reason why that should not continue. The AIA could even move to a print-on-demand system where those who want print copies can pay for them. This would significantly cut costs while allowing everyone to access the information.

Knowledge cartels

Looking at the facts, it would seem that the AIA may have overreacted. But, to return to my original question: why would the institute overreact to something that is likely to help them fulfil their mission “to educate people of all ages about the significance of archaeological discovery”? Why would the AIA, or any other scholarly or disciplinary society, come out against the idea that the public should have access to the research they paid for?

One possible explanation is that many scholarly societies, for all their rhetoric and not-for-profit status, are actually knowledge cartels — controlling the supply of information in their field and profiting from restricting access. They have neglected their original scholarly purpose of disseminating knowledge to all and now dedicate a significant proportion of their resources to publishing which also makes up the vast majority of its costs and “profits”. Its 990 tax form shows that in 2011 it spent $350,281 on its journal and $373,818 on its societies and national lecture programme. In addition to the journal, the AIA also publishes a magazine, which is available on newsstands. It was responsible for $3,803,635 of costs and $4,299,630 of revenue.

There is also great incentive for the people who manage and run these organisations to defend their cartel. For example, the American Chemical Society, a huge opponent to open access, pays many of its employees, as reported in their 990 tax return, over six figures. These salaries range from $304,528 to $1,084,417 in 2010.

Beyond salaries, these organisations provide other benefits to their employees. According to its tax return, the Phycological Society of America provided one of its employees with a mortgage worth $300,000 at an interest rate of 3.15 per cent in 2004. Even with the current record low rates, most people could not obtain such a favourable deal. While these societies are not-for-profits, their employees are heavily financially invested in their organisations bringing in the revenue
to support six-figure salaries and perks.

Open access: an attack on publishers’ business models?

Most of the societies that opposed or were critical of open access in the White House’s consultation receive a good portion of their funding from publishing; for some it’s over 80 per cent of their revenue. Some of these societies are in essence publishers with an individual subscription option
attached to their publications, called a membership.

Open access is a direct attack on the business models of these societies. While mandated open access may not directly hurt societies, by forcing them to make some of their articles freely available it will become a competitor and one that they will be hard pressed to beat. It will have all the benefits of their own publications, peer review, volunteer work, but people will be able to access it for free.

Whether it is right or wrong for scholarly societies to operate as knowledge cartels may be a matter of moral opinion. Some might say that they are not following their mission statements and should be stripped of their not-for-profit/charity status. Others would argue that while they may not benefit society as a whole, they do provide a service to their members. What is clear is that there is a vested interest in controlling the flow of information.

Doug Rocks-Macqueen is a graduate student in archaeology at the University of Edinburgh

This article appears in Censors on Campus. Click here for subscription options and more

©Doug Rocks-Macqueen. This work is licensed under the Creative
Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence. View a copy of this licence here

The post The open access backlash appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Fearing extremists reacting violently to the publication of books deemed to be offensive to Islam, many publishers have thought twice about what they release about the religion. Author of The Young Atheist’s Handbook Alom Shaha says it’s time to discuss faith properly

It’s not just staff at Biteback who may have been concerned about publishing my book — according to a senior editor at one of the largest international publishers, who claimed to be personally keen to give me a deal, she was unable to convince her colleagues to agree because a “number of people” in the company would be “uncomfortable” about it. She then went on to explain that by “uncomfortable” she really meant “afraid”.

So, what is it about my book that has elicited such a response from people whose work it is to trade in ideas? Have I penned an incendiary tome that “insults” Islam or otherwise risks “offending” Muslims? Well, I don’t think I’ve done any such thing — I’ve simply written an account of how and why I came to be an atheist. It’s much less an attack on religion than it is a celebration of atheism. But the fact that it is written by someone from a Muslim background seems to have been sufficient to make some people afraid of publishing it. And that is surely an unacceptable state of affairs; we seem to have gone from a time when publishers and booksellers stood shoulder to shoulder in defence of free speech to publish and sell The Satanic Verses, despite the very real threat of violence, to a time when an entirely innocuous book like mine can be rejected for publication because people fear it will lead to violent repercussions.

Perhaps publishers cannot be blamed for being cautious? After all, as recently as September 2008 the offices of Gibson Square were indeed firebombed just as it was about to publish The Jewel of Medina, a fictional account of the life of Mohammed’s youngest wife, by Sherry Jones. But, as both Kenan Malik and Nick Cohen have described elsewhere, the firebombing may not have been caused so much by the “offensive” nature of the book as much as by the fact that the book was publicly announced to be offensive by a Western and non-Muslim academic. It may have been the case that the book would largely have been ignored by Muslims had it not been for the publicity generated by this — having been pronounced offensive, it then almost required at least one fanatic to act. Jones believes that “If Random House had simply published my book, I don’t think there would have been any trouble. The real problem is not that Muslims are offended but that people think they will be.”

I’ve encountered the idea that Muslims will be offended by my book from numerous people — from the publishers who looked at my proposal to the people who have interviewed me since publication and even from some friends. The only people who have not suggested that the book might be offensive to Muslims are Muslims themselves. Not a single Muslim has come forward to say that he or she has been offended by my book. The most strongly worded email I’ve received is one that expressed pity that I had “lost the one truth path” and the hope that “Allah would guide [me] back to it”.

Many of my childhood friends are Muslims and none of them has taken offence at the book. And this should come as no surprise. The idea that Muslims are particularly sensitive to criticism is one that has been blown out of all proportion. It is patronising to ordinary Muslims like my friends and it is one that has created an insidious climate of self-censorship amongst people who really should know better.

We need to talk about Islam, not because of some misguided notion that it threatens our western way of life but because we cannot ignore a set of ideas which holds such importance to so many people. Islam must be critiqued just as other ideas are, but perhaps even more importantly, Muslims and non-Muslims alike must have access to diverse points of views if public discourse about these matters is to be meaningful and well-informed. The publication of my book by Biteback was not brave, nor was it an attempt to court controversy for the sake of book sales. Rather, it was a decision made by people who love books and ideas, who felt that my story was one worth telling and that it would find an audience — and this, surely, is the only consideration publishers should have when deciding whether or not to publish a book.

Alom Shaha is a writer, science teacher, filmmaker and author of The Young Atheist’s Handbook. He tweets from @alomshaha

MORE ON THIS THEME:

Kenan Malik wrote about the impact of the Satanic Verses controversy on free expression and Islam for Index on Censorship magazine in 2008. Read his article here 

Jewel of Medina author Sherry Jones wrote for Index on Censorship about fears over distributing her 2008 novel about prophet Muhammad’s youngest wife, Aisha. Read her article here 

The post We need to talk about Islam appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post China: Author threatened with imprisonment appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Shiite publishers blacklisted at Bahrain book fair appeared first on Index on Censorship.