Is That Legal?

Professor Muller,

Any chance you could elaborate on the specifics of Kenji Ito's daughter's speech?

It was not a speech.

During a Q-and-A session, as a member of the audience, she was asked what she thought of Malkin's smearing of her father. She began to speak but broke into sobs after a couple of seconds. All she managed to say, between sobs, was, "I am only glad my father did not live to see what she did to his good name."

Very sad.

Prof. Muller writes:

"...for me was the chance to meet the superintendent of the Manzanar Historic Site, Frank Hays. Hays...ended up spending much of the weekend getting his ear bent by people (including especially former internees) troubled by his decision to stock Michelle Malkin's bogus book "In Defense of Internment" in the site's bookshop..."

In the interest of fairnesss, perhaps it should be noted that last month an e-mail from the Manzanar Historic Site defending the decision to carry Michelle Malkin's book was posted on the following blog http://xrlq.com/2005/05/07/advantage-malkin/
which noted that

"Our decision to carry the book last fall followed extensive review and consultation with historians, academics, former internees, and others. The consensus was that, while none substantially agreed with Ms. Malkin’s
conclusions or scholarship, it is not the role of the National Park Service to censor dissenting viewpoints, past or present. As one prominent academic stated, “providing only one perspective is not education, it is propaganda. There are not many books written with this general perspective, and it’s important to include dissenting views...”

The National Park Service’s approach to telling the stories of Manzanar is to invite visitors to experience the site and leave with memories and
emotions fueled by their own inherent values. The goal is to increase visitors’ knowledge level without dictating their conclusions.... we chose to carry In Defense of Internment for a number of
reasons, including:

Manzanar was designated a national park unit to preserve and interpret the history of the loss of civil rights by Japanese Americans during World War II. We believe that not carrying this book could ironically be viewed as denying the First Amendment rights to free speech.

We believe that it is useful to present various perspectives when reasonable. We do not actively seek materials counter to the majority opinion or materials that are innately controversial, but wish to consider books garnering national attention...We feel we have an obligation to share the unique history of the site in such a way that creates context, encourages open dialogue, and fosters commitment to keep the story alive. Presenting a variety of viewpoints, when appropriate, is essential to this process...
On behalf of the National Park Service and Manzanar History Association...Sincerely, Alisa
Alisa Lynch,Chief of Interpretation
Manzanar National Historic Site"

Appearing on the aforementioned blog site in this connection was also a reference to the following excerpts from a Supreme Court decision which calls into constitutional question efforts by some who have urged the National Park Service to ban Michelle Malkin's book. Perhaps Professor Muller would care to justify his attempts to do so vis-a-vis this:

"Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819.

Takeaway point:

The necessities of confining a forum to the limited and legitimate purposes for which it was created may justify the State in reserving it for certain groups or for the discussion of certain topics. Once it has opened a limited forum, however, the State must respect the lawful boundaries it has itself set. The State may not exclude speech where its distinction is not “reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum,” nor may it discriminate against speech on the basis of its viewpoint.

Thus, in determining whether the State is acting to preserve the limits of the forum it has created so that the exclusion of a class of speech is legitimate, we have observed a distinction between, on the one hand, content discrimination, which may be permissible if it preserves the purposes of that limited forum, and, on the other hand, viewpoint discrimination, which is presumed impermissible when directed against speech otherwise within the forum’s limitations.

829-830, citations omitted.

Basically, if the gov’t opens it up to the expression of some views, then it generally can’t discriminate based upon viewpoint."

W.J.Hopwood

Basically, if the gov’t opens it up to the expression of some views, then it generally can’t discriminate based upon viewpoint.

That seems like a good rule, but I don't see how it applies here. If historians, academics, witnesses, etc. agree there are serious problems with a work's scholarship and conclusions, it would seem "reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum," to exclude it from a historic site. This seems like a clear case of "content discrimination," not "viewpoint discrimination."

Beth:

The problem is that the "historians, academics, witnesses," etc. to whom you refer have not been able to come up with any real evidence that any of Malkin's content (except for a few minor matters already corrected)is not factual or reflect poor scholarship. They may disagree with her conclusions but I have seen no real bona fide challenges to the documentation she presents to support those conclusions. One does not have to be an academic or a historian to read WWII intelligence documents. Plenty of them exist to explain the military considerations involved in the evacuation of ethnic Japanese from the West Coast but are ignored because such information is not fashionable in today's politically-correct academic environment.

If you can be specific about the alleged illegitimacy of any of the abundance of documentation on which Ms. Malkin's conclusions are based, let's see it--providing you have read her book, of course. From other comments I've seen, I daresay that many of Ms.Malkin's critics obviously haven't read the book but are so intellectually frozen and emotionally involved in its subject matter that they feel duty-bound to criticize it sight unseen.

W.J.Hopwood

Actually, W.J., I was going by the passage you quoted, which said that "none [of the historians, academics, former internees, and others involved in the review and consultation] substantially agreed with Ms. Malkin’s conclusions or scholarship."

Beth,
W.J. is just another Malkin-ite who will side with whatever comes out of Jesse and Michelle Malkin's mouths. It's pointless to have a rational, common sense argument with someone who is clearly a rah-rah-Malkins-can-do-no-wrong kind of guy. The "critics obviously haven't read the book" argument is absolute rubbish. I can just hear Michelle & Jesse screaming "Have you read the book? Have you read the book?" The Malkins were out to try and make a quick buck, sat around thinking, "what can we write that will stir up a right vs. left debate?" Fortunately, the book tanked.
Prof. Muller, Greg Robinson and countless number of real scholars have read the Malkins' book. And yes, they have systematically broken down their book to pieces. The only one blind here is W.J., who I'm quite sure corresponds frequently with the Malkins.

W.J.,
Yes, I have read the Malkins' book, and yes, I do exist. I don't see any reason why I wouldn't just because I put a link in to Prof. Muller's site. But if it makes you feel any better, I'll put my email address. And Bill, don't be silly. I know you correspond with Jesse. :-)