Muhammad: The "Banned" Images Blog Free Speech at Risk

Dr. Hull’s Response to “Duke Prints Controversial Cartoons”

Response to “Duke prints controversial cartoons,” by Nora Caplan-Bricker (Yale Daily News, November 12, 2009)

This article is filled with statements that are inaccurate, misleading, and false.

“Yale University Press made a decision this August not to include the images, which incited riots . . .” This is dangerously misleading. The “images” did not do the inciting. Fundamentalist Muslims acting on blind rage incited the riots.

“Hull’s new book, Muhammad: The “Banned” Images, contains the visual content excluded from Klausen’s book . . .” This, too, is misleading. From the actual book: “It includes 31 full-color, high-quality reproductions [spanning 900 years] that range from the earliest known manuscript paintings to the Danish cartoons.” Captions set the historical and artistic context of those images.

"The October 27 arrests of two Chicago men for allegedly plotting terrorist attacks against targets associated with these cartoons is evidence that this threat is far from speculative . . " The fundamental question is not whether such barbaric acts have taken place (see “Murder & Mayhem” at www.muhammadimages.com) – but rather what one does in response to them. One can either roll over and play dead or one can stand tall.

“Klausen went on to say she is concerned that Hull has represented her as collaborator on his project . . .” I challenge anyone to provide a single piece of evidence to support that claim.

“The forward to Muhammad: The “Banned” Images is a preliminary draft of a statement written by Hull . . .” There is no “forward” in the book. Perhaps the author is referring to the Editor’s Introduction – a completed essay, not a “preliminary draft,” on the terrorist threats to free speech and the West’s appeasement of them.

Or perhaps by “forward” the author is referring to the Statement of Principle in the back of the book – but then one does not usually place a “forward” in the back. (Neither, though, is that document a “preliminary draft.)

In the future, Caplan-Bricker might be better served if she actually read the book (or at least had a physical copy of it) that she intends to review.

Note: The author contacted me for an interview. I left her phone and email messages, by the deadline she provided, that I was available for an interview. She never returned my messages.