Radical Transparency, the Unabomber and me

I read today's NYT article about the battle over the sale of Ted Kaczynski's letters with interest, in part because it's something I've been thinking about for a while.  As I've mentioned before, I have an odd connection to the Unabomber: his letters are kept at the University of Michigan Labadie collection of radical literature that was built around my great-grandfather's work. Last year I had an opportunity to visit the collection and view boxes of letters both to and from Kaczynski. I also discussed the issue of whether they should be made public with the curators of the collection.

At the moment, the letters are available only to scholars. The government wants to auction some of them off in "sanitized" form and give the proceeds to the victims of Kaczynski's crimes. Kaczynski argues that the government has no right to his personal writings and that sanitizing them amount to a violation of his First Amendment rights.

My own feelings about this are complicated. In general, I'm in favor of openness. I don't see why anything that is currently available to scholars should not also be open to the public (in scanned digital form at least). The Labadie collection is full of fascinating literature from nearly two centuries of underground writings, ranging from anarchist politics to gay rights. The main thing keeping most of that from the public is not policy, but simply the cost and complexity of scanning it in. Yet it's just a matter of time before technology makes that affordable.

On the other hand, if there is commercial value in Kaczynski's papers, capturing that to compensate victims has some appeal. The question is whether the interests of the public (access to information) can be squared with these economic interests. Would making digital copies public while selling the originals do the trick? Perhaps, but that doesn't deal with the whole issue of "sanitization"; the originals I saw in the collections that are available to "scholars" weren't censored, so it's not clear why the ones to be sold should be. (I'm uncomfortable with relatively arbitrary qualifiers like academic affiliation determining access; as Wikipedia has shown, authority and expertise can come without credentials.)  

Meanwhile, the victims themselves (as well as Kaczynski's own brother) also have very mixed feelings about all of this:

“I’m in favor of anything that would help the victims,” David Kaczynski said in an interview. “But in a personal sense, having these letters treated as murderabilia is appalling to us. How do you balance the need for human decency and dignity with doing the best thing?”

I'm running off now to my Sundance panel, so I'll leave it at this for now. But I'd be interested in other views. Should the writings of criminals be made public if they want them to be? Do mass murderers deserve the same First Amendment protections we do?

Comments

[abc123]

"Should the writings of criminals be made public if they want them to be?"

Who cares what they want, they are no longer human. Why anybody would want to read this, much less pay for it is beyond me (except for shrinks, scholars, etc.), but if they want to, and it benefits victims relations, I'm all for it.

"Do mass murderers deserve the same First Amendment protections we do?"

Mass murders have no rights.

[Jimmy]

'Sanitized'? Geezzz...

[Albert]

The first amendment is absolute. The letters should be released, but there is no reason the letters should be censored.

[Mary Warner]

In the museum world, we add another qualifier to whether something should be made public. Will it potentially harm someone who is still living? This is why certain government records have a waiting period before being released. (Think about how long it takes before the census is made public. The last one available to us is the one from 1930.) Privacy issues also come into play, like whether the documents contain health info, or whether they pertain to juveniles. When it comes to sanitizing history, unfortunately it happens all the time & is why we end up getting the point of view of the victors, instead of the whole story. Before making a determination on sanitization (which I'm generally against in principle), we'd have to know what precisely the government wants to sanitize. Does it relate to a privacy issue, or is it simply due to some perceived sense of distaste? The former is a valid reason, the latter is not. True understanding only comes from full disclosure. Another question raised by your post, Chris, is why is the government auctioning these off if they are located in a university collection?

[gitnz]

ooohsss, santitized

bye
http://www.sumitkar.org

[Kent Larsen]

Isn't the relevant issue really one of copyright? While I'm no expert on this issue, doesn't Ted Kaczynski retain copyright in his letters, even though he has been convicted for his crimes? And even if he no longer can control copyright, wouldn't it pass on to his estate or guardian?

I agree with a lot of what has been said -- I favor openness, so I would like the letters published or made available. I also recognize the problems that this may have for victims or the unwanted inspiration his letters might serve for others with agendas similar to his.

But in the end, isn't this basically a legal and copyright question?

BTW, Chris, you never indicated why the library built a collection around your great grandfather! Who was he? What do his writings talk about?

[Chris Anderson]

Kent,

I explained the connection in the post I linked to above here)

Short form: he co-founded the American Anarchist Party.

[/sms ;-)]

movie about kaczynski: http://www.t-h-e-n-e-t.com/

[Sally Baker]

The question I have is how did the papers end up in the collection in the first place, and were there any restrictions put in place by the donor? Surely this would affect future actions.
If they were donated by Kaczynski with no restrictions, then yes, by all means sell them. Otherwise copyright, first amendments, privacy concerns and the law all need to be considered.

[Kevin]

I got the impression from the NYT article that the papers being considered for auction are not part of the current library collection.

[Julie Herrada]

The Kaczynski collection belonging to the University of Michigan is not the one in dispute. These materials (primarily letters and legal documents) were created after his arrest, and Kaczynski himself donated them. They are now the legal property of the University of Michigan, and they are open to the public, not just to scholars. The only restrictions involve copyright and privacy of individuals other than Kaczynski. The government is holding onto the materials siezed from Kaczynski's Montana cabin after his arrest. These are the items they wish to sell at auction.

[Irene]

The comments of Mary Warner and Julie Herrada cover most issues. The government should not sell whatever such items it owns in the open market, where it can be exploited for personal gain. Possibly a sale to a university collection such as you describe would be appropriate.

[Amy Biddle]

Isn't it interesting commentary on our culture that we're having controversial dialog over who gets Kaczynski's papers, and in what form, (etc etc) and the George W. Bush library isn't welcome in the university to which it was offered?

I don't think that just one conclusion can be drawn about Americans as a whole, but I'm intrigued by the situation.

As students of human behavior (as many of us are here, I'm sure) conflicts and their outcomes speak volumes about what's important to us as a society and who we revere/revile and what we do about it. I'm also interested in the short-term view we tend to take as Americans.

[tercüme]

tercüme
ingilizce tercüme elektrik
emlak çeviri
tercüman link
ekle kiralık ev

[Nurceyiz Evtekstili]

Who cares what they want, they are no longer human. Why anybody would want to read this, much less pay for it is beyond me (except for shrinks, scholars, etc.), but if they want to, and it benefits victims relations, I'm all for it.