I. Why Freedom Of Expression

Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Today, The Library of Alexandria lives again. By our gathering and our commitment, we represent the values that the great Library stood for, by our presence and our actions we give content to the slogans and take firm steps on the path of asserting the principles we stand for.

Freedom of expression is today recognized as a universal good. It was not always so. Even in the golden age of ancient Greece, Socrates was put to death, and Plato’s republic was an Orwellian nightmare. The last few millennia have been one long struggle for acceptance of human rights, of expanding the scope for freedom of choice and of action… all of which would not have been possible without the freedom of expression, gained slowly and at great cost, and persistently defended again and again, at all times, in all places, against the incursions that are constantly waged against it by the forces of societal repression.

We value freedom of expression above all other freedoms because it is the foundation of self-fulfillment. “The right to express one's thoughts and to communicate freely with others affirms the dignity and worth of each and every member of society, and allows each individual to realize his or her full human potential. Thus, freedom of expression is an end in itself -- and as such, deserves society's greatest protection” (ACLU).

Without free speech no search for truth is possible, no discovery of truth is useful, and no progress is possible. Without freedom of inquiry, and of expression, there can be no scientific advancement. Freedom, as much as imagination and boldness, is at the heart of the search for the truth and the attainment of knowledge. The history of science is replete with official repression, from Hypatia to Galileo. Even today, there are those who would restrict the teaching of evolution, or dismiss the findings of genetics.

It's necessary to any viable system of self-government. If people are to make decisions and elect their government, if they are to check its excesses and root out corruption, they must be well-informed and have access to different ideas and points of view. Mass ignorance is a breeding ground for intolerance and bigotry, which in turn leads to oppression and tyranny. John Stuart Mill, contended that enlightened judgment is possible only if one considers all facts and ideas, from whatever source, and tests one's own conclusions against opposing views.

Freedom of expression is needed, because there is no telling when a minority view -- often considered “bad” or socially harmful – will become a majority view… So much of what we take for granted today such as independence for the colonies, abolition of slavery, universal suffrage, basic human rights and women’s rights not to mention children’s rights, all were once considered dangerously seditious. In the end, only ideas defeat ideas. Victor Hugo is quoted as saying that invading armies can be defeated, but you cannot defeat an idea whose time has come! Society benefits by having a market-place of ideas.

Finally, expression is not just in language in its spoken or written form. It is also in the language of art as much as of science. That is why our Law no.1 for 2001 has listed in article 1, that …[the BA should be concerned with]… “all products of the human mind, in all languages, from all cultures, ancient and recent.” It recognizes the language of music and painting and sculpture as much as the language of words and sentences. The BA is dedicated to all forms of expression.

II. Egypt Today

The New BA was born in Egypt in interesting times. Much has been done to liberalize the climate of debate and discussion in Egypt, and much remains to be done. Compare the situation in Egypt today with what it was like in the 1980s. Just in terms of numbers:

• The licensed Newspapers went from 27 in 1982 to 504 today, not counting about 1100 journals (of which about 585 are scholarly)
• Radio and Broadcasting channels went from 106 in 1982 to 529 today
• Public TV channels went from 2 in 1982 to 32 today, plus 6 privately owned channels.

Of course, today, TV channels from all over the world are available on cable and dish, and the number of choices that one has to access news and entertainment is enormous.

But the real revolution is happening on the World Wide Web. From 1996/97 to today (2004) the number of websites located in Egypt (ending in .eg) has gone from 591 to 24,226, while the number of ISPs has gone from 40 to over 200 and subscribers went from 75,000 to 3.3 million. I will have more to say about these other forms of expression: Broadcasting (Radio and TV) and the Internet.

Just let me add that the number of books published last year was 7,675 and this year (2004) from January to August, over 5,000 books have been published.

There is a wide margin of freedom of expression, and governmental legal censorship is light by any standard. But a vigorous form of political and intellectual censorship by self appointed groups is effectively curtailing the full use of the available freedoms. Different segments of society are struggling to set the boundaries of the permissible and the acceptable. This is a struggle that must be joined on the side of liberty and freedom of thought and expression by all caring individuals. But in its essence, it is no different than the ongoing struggles that all societies confront at all times.

III. Societal Quandaries

But if societies have increasingly come to accept that freedom of expression is beneficial and should be protected, they have also sought to limit it in various ways. This is true in varying degrees of all societies. It holds for the United States and France as much as for Egypt and other Arab countries. My colleagues and I have prepared some thoughtful studies on issues of censorship in the Arab World and have documented some testimonials and case studies of interest.

Leaving the extreme cases, it makes sense to consider what form of boundaries, if any, should be placed on free speech. Most societies legislate to strike a balance between the interests of the community and the rights of the individual. That boundary is never absolute. Recall the words of American Justice Holmes: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic”. [Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (1841–1935), Supreme Court opinion. Schenk v. United States, Baer v. United States, 249 U.S. 52 (1919)]. However, most cases are seldom so clearcut!

Since we are talking of books and art, let us focus on a few of the key cases that have been much in the press in Egypt in the last few years, and specifically the issues of the presence of books in libraries as opposed to distribution, and the right of the artist to have the state subsidize their work with taxpayer money.

Those concerned with this issue inevitably cite the cases of the storm over the book of Haidar Haidar (feast of seaweed [check exact English title]), the case of Maxime Rodinson’s book on Muhammad at the AUC and the three books that were being published by the Ministry of Culture and were withdrawn under a barrage of objections. All of these cases are real, but are rather misinterpreted.

In every society there is an ongoing debate about the boundaries of the socially acceptable, especially for schools and for taxpayer-supported activities. Thus the United States, considered by most journalists to be the paragon of free speech, saw a vociferous minority effectively block the teaching of Darwin in the state of Kansas. This is less than ten years ago, where for two years evolution was not taught in the schools of Kansas until the governmental decision was rescinded as a result of a direct campaign by American scientists. School districts in Texas and Florida have raised questions about the suitability of J.D. Salinger’s Catcher in the Rye and the appropriateness of the image of blacks in Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn. Efforts to ban these books from the schools and from the shelves of the public libraries continue to this day.

Regardless of the merits of the cases concerned, they all highlight the fact that society makes a distinction between what is the right of Twain or Salinger to write or say, and what is appropriate to be in a school curriculum. The question of Rodinson’s biography of Muhammad falls into the same category. Whether the AUC, as a private institution should be forced to abide by a majority view, or even to take into account the views of irate parents or even of the Minister of Higher Education is another matter.

The objections of the majority, or even a vocal minority, to what they deem to be offensive in what others consider to be works of art is as old as art itself. The church fathers found Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel offensive, and even forced some additional painting to cover the genitalia of the nudes. That gesture is today viewed with derision, but in its day, it reflected a timeless conflict between conservative views and art. More recently, in the United States, the conflict over what constitutes art, and what is acceptable to view in public, has been tested all the way to the Supreme Court, leading to the famous statement by Justice Potter Stewart that while he could not define pornography legally, he could recognize it when he saw it. The inherently subjective boundaries of the acceptable are defined by different communities differently at different times and different places. This is a societal function, where the rights of the minority view to exist, does not mean that the majority has to condone it or support it. And all societies try to protect children and the weak from “inappropriate material”… That is why we have ratings to guide parents taking children into films, but we do not forbid the production of the films.

But should the state (with taxpayer money) subsidize the production of works that are inherently offensive to the vast majority of these taxpayers?

That question was brought into vivid relief in the US by the cases of the Maplethorpe exhibit and the Seranno sculpture. In the 1990s, Robert Maplethorpe’s portfolio of pictures, largely erotic and homosexual, was deemed pornographic, and the Corcoran gallery cancelled the show under intense pressure , while Serano’s crucifix in urine resulted in a debate in congress on the appropriateness of using taxpayer money to support activities that were deemed offensive by the vast majority of those paying the taxes. That is the same issue that underlies the question of the three books withdrawn by the Egyptian ministry of culture under intense public pressure.

Indeed it is relevant to highlight that [in NEA vs Finley et. al. 1998 ] the Supreme Court of the US found that not being funded by the state for your artistic project does not constitute a first amendment breach against your freedom of expression. But what about cases where the State effectively controls most of the forums of expression?

Finding a balance between the wishes of the majority and the rights of the minority is what it is all about. The same situation arises in other contexts and other countries as well. The questions are difficult to answer, and every society has to define its own boundaries.

Yet this is not a case of moral relativism, for no society should be allowed to define its own boundaries in ways that infringe upon the fundamental rights of the minority. Any local perception of boundaries must, at a minimum, respect what has been defined in the universal declaration of human rights. The universal declaration represents that core set of rights that individuals possess by virtue of being human, without regard to the society to which they belong. Not all great democracies can pass that test either: the US still favors the death penalty and a number of European countries have refused to extradite persons to the US for that reason.

But back to the issues of censorship. In the case of the United States the questioning of the use of public funds to finance artistic products that the majority of taxpayers find offensive is no different than the questioning of the Egyptian ministry of culture about its publication and distribution of three books that many Egyptians find offensive. The case of the pressures exercised on the Corcoran gallery to cancel the Maplethorpe exhibit are the same as the pressures exercised by segments of society in Egypt to withdraw from circulation the Haidar book. The pressures on the Kansas schools to forbid the teaching of evolution, and the public school reading lists and public library shelves under assault from conservative forces in American society are no different than the Egyptian conservatives assault on the AUC curriculum and the public distribution of books they find offensive. In the case of the US the sources of the conservative wing tend to be Christian while in Egypt they tend to be Muslim. It is to be expected given the religious affiliations of the majority of the population in the two countries.

These fights over boundaries are really fights between the conservative and liberal wings of any society, and tend to be fought over time and again.

There can be no question as to my personal position on these issues. Our presence, all of us here today, attests to our collective commitment to freedom of expression.

But one more societal quandary must be mentioned. The new media, from TV to the Internet are amazingly ubiquitous. They effectively can intrude into our living rooms, in our very homes. The chance of exposure of the very young to materials that we as parents may not consider them ready to see, or to have them preyed on by pedophiles is real. It is a different matter than saying that if you do not like a book you don’t have to buy it, or that if you do not like a movie do not go to see it. Yet, freedom of expression is as important in these new media as anywhere. We must defend it even there. It is here that parental involvement and guidance maybe more important than direct government intervention. But definitely some wise balances will have to be found. It is a societal quandary for the new century.

Let me address a bit the more insidious form of censorship, that forged in the crucible of religious or political intolerance and societal indifference or acceptance.

IV. Indirect Censorship

The public discourse in any country is dominated by the views of the majority, which in times of stress can be whipped up by an active minority to a high degree of intolerance. This has been seen in the US after the disastrous monstrosity of 9/11 where the patriot act was passed and sweeping powers granted to the government, raising questions of basic civil and political rights so cherished by Americans and enshrined in the American Constitution and its Bill of rights. It is found in other societies as well.

In Egypt today, the climate of concern, and the general feeling of anger and frustration with a world that seems to many Arabs and Muslims to be hostile to the aspirations of the entire Muslim and Arab peoples, leads many to seek a lost purity and a sense of security in a golden mythical past. This forces a discourse where deviations from appearances of religiosity and adherence to the prevailing political views of the majority is severely sanctioned socially and in vehement political attacks, and even occasionally in physical threats, abuse and even assassination. It takes courage to stand up for the contrarian view. Frequently, people give in to this tide of obscurantism and xenophobia and undergo a self censorship that is as draconian as any that is imposed by the state.

It is here that principle must triumph over pragmatism. It is here that ideas of tolerance, rationality and pluralism must be advanced and defended. It is here that the BA stands as a rallying point for those who support such values.

Libraries have a major role to play, and the BA has an especially relevant role to play here… The availability of this material somewhere is not only needed for the collective memory of a society, or even for a balanced view of the world, it is very much what people expect of libraries. Libraries are the champions of freedom of expression, because it is their vocation to be custodians of the products of the human mind. Indeed it is not surprising to note that the Boston Coalition for Freedom of Expression, which started giving out awards in 1990, gave its first award to the ACLU and its second award to the American Library Association.

I recently answered a question by someone concerned about whether an offensive book could be found in the Library, and why it should be there. My answer was, that there is a difference between the availability of material sitting passively in a library and the active distribution of material to the public. There is a difference between scholarly gatherings and mass events. Besides, if that concerned person wanted to write a rebuttal to that book he found so offensive, where would he go to find a copy, if not at a library?

Indeed reference libraries, such as the Vatican Library, held copies of all the banned books, even at times when people were being burned at the stake for reading these banned works!

My friends,

The real issues of censorship: from Taha Hussain to Nasr Hamid AbuZeid are not so much government actions or the legislative climate, even if that can certainly be improved… The real issue is in the intolerance that permeates a society.. the unwillingness to recognize that the only legitimate way to defeat an idea is with another idea, not by harassment or banning of books…

The BA is committed to help create this space of freedom for dialogue between individuals, cultures and civilizations…

V. Banned Books

The Banned Books of the world represent a strange mixture of great classics and marginal and obscure works. Yet they have succeeded at some level to challenge the conventions of their times and place and to force people to think.. even if to reject the offending material… Such books represent an important research resource for scholars from all over the world, and the affirmation of the importance of their presence somewhere is an affirmation of the importance that we attach to freedom of expression. For in the end, it is offending speech that needs protection, not acceptable speech. Societies are well-served if they remember that and recall Voltaire’s dictum: “I may differ with your views, but I am willing to lay down my life to protect your right to express these views I disagree with”…

Today, at the BA, with our distinguished visitors and many friends, we assert that right by housing a bibliographic listing of all those books.

Today, by our international conference we assert our commitment to freedom of expression.

Today, in a world riven by hate, suspicion and war, we affirm the vision of the BA as a place of openness, dialogue and understanding,

Today we confirm that scientific research as much as artistic expression require freedom

Today we assert once more that freedom of expression and democracy are indivisible,

Today remembering our annual display of the World Press Photo exhibition in our main reading room, we underline our link to the press of the world and to the mirror that they hold to our societies where we still spend 14 times more on military than on development.

Today, the BA stands proudly to house the Beacon for freedom Project and the Arab Reform Forum, and we look forward to working with all like-minded persons to advance these goals…

VI. The Dawn Of A New Era

Excellencies, Ladies and gentlemen,

As we look into the past history of humanity: banned books and works of art have been part of the long struggle for emancipation. We have discussed the special role of libraries in this matrix of issues that each society struggles with… Today at the BA we are also conscious that we need to open up the windows and in the words of Gandhi, engraved under his bust in the Library:

“I do not want my windows to be stuffed… I want all the cultures of the world to blow about my house freely, but I refuse to be blown off my feet by any..”

But we are at the dawn of a new age, where the digital future beckons, and calls to us into lands unknown.. where copyright and legal issues will be different, but where the greatest dreams become possible.. to have all material available at all times from everywhere to everywhere… The Internet will make this possible.. And the BA is proud to be the only existing back-up center for the Internet Archive outside of California. The new revolution in ICT makes practices of the past moot, and confounds old legal definitions of what is published publicly and what is private.. Whether this new world will be a libertarian jungle, with no rules other than the market remains to be seen… The market is a good servant but a bad master…

But this is the task for the future.. to create some order out of chaos, to make the valuable more readily accessible, while seeking to protect the rights of all to freedom of expression…

To build this new digital world of connectivity and content, we must go forth and fashion the wise constraints that make people free…

Thank you.