WINDING DOWN THE FIRST AMENDMENT WITH HARPER & ROW

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230014-5
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 4, 2005
• Sequence Number: 14
• Publication Date: August 24, 1972
• Content Type: NSPR

It- 4 ' ( pproved For Release 2005/,
hiding. dolVIT, the Fir6t
With -spar & Row:
In his letter in last week's Voice, B. Brooks Thomas,
Vice President and General Counsel of harper & -Rote,
seem to realize that there is a a man close to the events put it,
whole amendment to the United "If the CIA had come on as strong
States Constitution--the First-~ at the end as it did in the begin-
that would have protected it ning, I am far from sure that
against the arrogance of the CIA. Harper & Row would have
.. _.__I_.. _n lt, .. ,i,anRnc
vvrites that he felt. compelled to respond to- nay Column
victory" over the CIA in this
about his firm and the CIA because of the potential " j case,.the credit is due McCoy. As
impact of my assertions- pa "the
author community."
I had written (Voice, August 10)
that any writer working on a hook
which might offend the govern-
meat ought to be wary of going to
lisher having yielded to a request ty to the CIA or to any govern-
,by the CIA that it see Alfred meat agency that had the pre-
McCoy's "Tile Politics of Heroin surnption to demabbd, or . even
in Southeast Asia,'' ore_publi-_ merely to ask, to review an on-
cation. published manuscript A terribly
Nothing I wrote then, or will
write now, is more harmful to
Harper & Row in "t-he author
community" than Brooks Thom-
as's own letter last week in The
-Voice and Harper & Row's
apologia in the form of an ad on
the-August 15 New York Times
book page. The ad was signed by
Winthrop Knowlton, President of
Harper & Row.
Both 'T'homas and Knowlton
claim that letting the CIA see the
book in advance of publication is
the very model of "responsible"
r?Ihlichinrs-nn matter what the
O24
DO-300230
i'11,) . l~
mm end eat
fought for himself and for the in-
tegrity of his book. In that week,
McCoy, .by publicly pressing his
case against the CIA, was in-
strurnental in putting the CIA on
the defensive. if there has been a
the cia wanteu. i urucv' 1--v.T
going public had a considerable
effect on so toning down the CIA's
final response that Harper & Row
could itself-belatedly-come to
the defense of its author."
bad precedent has been set. Another point that ought to be
Today, the CIA-tomorrow, 1IEW ? cleared tip. In my August 10 col-
r some other goverriinent umn, I quoted Brooks-Thomas as
o
agency." telling me that he didn't know
Before examining Brooks whether Harper & Row would
Thomas's remarkable document, have published the book if McCoy
in last week's Voice, some addi- had resisted turning it over to the
tional background which you, CIA before publication.
won't find in Harper & Row's Mr. Thomas, to put it kindly,
statements oil the case. Mcl.Wulf' tvas being disingenuous in that
speaks of the CIA's "arrogance.`. statement.
In early June, the CIA did indeed 1` From a July 18 letter from
come on very strong to Harper & Alfred McCoy to James Fox, as-
.Row-verbally. But by the time L sistant general counsel of Harper
the agency sent in its written & Row: "1 have only acceded to
all, they emphasize, the book has importunate.
now been published without a A primary reason for that
single change., So what harm has change in tone was the decision of
been done? Alfred McCoy-once he learned
Quite a lot; as you will see, and that CIA pressure was on Harper
"
I
as I expect most writers-ccr- ' & Row-to go to the media. (
give the hook to the.CIA because
so, you u'outcl categor-icallzl refuse
to publish the book." (Emphasis
dded-N. 11.)
Harper & Row twisted the arm
of its author-let there be no nlis-
tainly those involved in investiga- thought the 1ihp,?al n lia would take about that.
tive . reporting-al},eady know. be outraged and would find mate- But, says Mr. Thomas in last
Alfred McCoy, the author of "Tile rial to corroborate what I was 'week's Voice:
Politics of Heroin in Southeast saying.") ,He did' this against the "In this case, the author had
wishes of Harper & Row. Taking other equally attractive pub-
Asia," certainly knows. This is his case to the press and to televi- lisping options which did not in-
what he said on August 14, after sion, McCoy was responsible in volve showing the manuscript to
Harper & Row had decided to go part for three sizable New York the CIA. The fact that he chose to
ahead and publish his book Times stories on the politics of
without any changes: "I disagree heroin in Southeast Asia (two of go along with us rather than
absolutely with their decision to them oil the front page, including publish elsewhere only reflects
show the book to the CIA befo-o the fact that our commitment to
one breaking the story of Harper
publication on pragmatic and oil t the book was clearly more impor-
& Row's agreement to let the CIA tart to him than our difference of
It was a
philosophical grounds. review flit book). There was also pinion about showing it to the
bad decision in every possible an editorial, "Heroin and the IA."
"
way.
War," in the July 26 Washington
Melvin }Vulf, legal director of Aw, Mr. Thomas, do you really
Post. And McCoy himself ap- think this paper's readership is
the American Civil Liberties peared on NBC TV's "Chronolog" that uible?
Union, said to me the following g
day:."Harper & how's point that on July 28. From Alfred McCoy's July 18
It was during that week that the letter to James Fox, assistant
it id not accede to any of the CIA, '-courtesy of .Ilarper & Row,
CIA's requests for changes begs; general counsel, Harper & Row:
book. possession of McCoy's
the fundamental question be- had
cause Harper' & now should,never . Because his publisher
would not fight for him, McCoy
have let the CIA see the book in
advance of pug -p triPVMdl Q*j elease 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230014-5
place. Ilar?per & How doesn't
Continued
 the delays involved in
going to a new publiQ1gr .
most certainly delay p tea ion
so long that the American people
would be denied n ormation
un t a er th Novem-
etons mp as s-as ed-N. H.)
"fiat's why McCoy "chose to go
along."
So. McCoy, having been "per-
suaded" to let the CIA look, then
went to the media to fight to keep
his book intact. As he also wrote
to James Fox, McCoy was well
aware that he had sacrificed a
key principle in submitting to
Harper & Row's suspend-your-
First-Amendments-rights or-
leave edict. But he would not sac-
rifice the contents of his book.
As for Brooks Thomas's letter
to The Voice, he quite clumsily
tries to play word games. Thomas
i emphasizes that the CIA asked
,only for permission to review the
hook." If Thomas doesn't under-
stand that act by the CIA as an at-
tempt at prior restraint of certain
portions of the book.. I'm afraid he
.needs a reading comprehension
course.
I mean, did the CIA want an
advance copy in order to give
Harper & Row a quote for an ad?
("Enthralling! Couldn't put it
down!"-Richard Helms.).
Thomas also writes: "Hentoff's
claim that what is involved here is
prior restraint is a classic exer-
cise in bootstrap logic."
But that is not what I said. This
was a CIA attempt at prior re-
straint, and though it didn't work
this time, .llarper & Row's having
. given-the agency the book before
publication is likely to.increase
and intensify inoresuch attempts
from government agencies. Why,
the President of Harper & Row
himself believes that bypassing
the First Amendment rights of
one of his authors shows that "we
have acted responsibly, in the
best interests of all concerned,
including- the American reading
come someone in Thomas's own
office was so shocked -when I
public" (Harper & Row ad in the
August 15 Times).
Thomas also writes that the
CIA's request to see the book was
not "confidential." Then how,
~}Bcut ~whhy was the agreement
a' no 9win firo' p ~t no ft`on-P~`A
derlines, Alfred McCoy's book
had been read by independent
authorities; and Harper & Row, to
quote Knowlton, was "convinced
that the work. is carefully rea-.
soned, scholarly:, and well docu-
mented." Nonetheless, . Thomas
explains, since the CIA wanted to
rebut and try to disprove
McCoy's facts and conclusions, by
all means let them look at the
book before publication. "This is
simply a mattdr of intellectual
honesty," he writes. "To convert
it into some form of political sur-
render is an exercise in knee
jerk paranoia."
How quaintly anachronistic a
phrase-"knee-jerk paranoia"-
in the fourth year of the Nixon ad-
ministration's assault on the Bill
of Rights. I know of at least six
members of the Association. of
American Publishers' Freedom
to Read Committee -who also
deplored, to put it mildly, Harper
& Row's decision to accede to the
CIA. Are they too afflicted with
"knee-jerk, paranoia"? They, as
to have done."
R1SP'4Boo41 510606602/3 14-5
Says Melvin Wulf, legal director
of the American Civil -Liberties
Union: "I do not understand how
Harper & Row can even be
talking about the possibility that
the CIA would'have filed a law
suit with regard to McCoy's book.
No court in the United States
would entertain, would tolerate
such a suit. Not even the judge in
the Marchetti case" '(Voice,
August 10).
Or, as a man closely involved in
literary litigation for publishers
says, "There are no absolutely no
grounds for a CIA suit against
Harper & Row. That's all a fig-
ment of Harper & Row's iinagina-
tion."
Some strategy, Mr. Thomas. A
game plan without a game.
Then Thomas addresses him-
self to my point that letting a gov-
ernment agency see a book before
publication can have a damaging
effect on the author's'sources.
"What difference did it make,"
Thomas writes, "that the CIA saw
the book three'weeks earlier than
it otherwise would have? This is
not a series of newspaper exposes
where future sources might dry
up. And the CIA can intimidate
past sources just as well after
publication as before, even as-'
suming they need our copy of the
manuscript to do it."
.My point, which Thomas,
evades, is that if a publisher
submits a book to a government'
agehcy before publication, the
writer cannot but be concerned'
with the pressures that agency
can put on his sources before the
book is published. If the pressures
are fierce enough, one or more
sources can quickly retract what
they told the writer, thereby put-
ting his credibility in question
before the book is even out if the
agency decides to go to the media
immediately.
A publisher who puts a writer
into that kind of position is one for
investigative reporters to stay
away from.
And there's another danger to a
writer when his publisher lets a
government, agency he, has cri-
ticized see the book prior to
editors and publishers, would
have resisted the CIA. Does that I
make them "egoistic and irre-
sponsible," to quote from Thom-
as's characterization of us "sim-
plistic" First Amendment types?
I wonder if Thomas dares poll
his own editors and writers-by
secret ballot-as to how they
would define "responsible" pub.
lish`ng in this case.
Thomas goes on to say: "We,
are in the business of publishing
books, not litigating with the
CIA."
Clearly not even when the First
Amendment is involved.
But then the paragraph turns as
Thomas writes: "One of the
reasons for volunteering (sic) the
book was in the hope of avoiding
such expense and delay (of a
court case) by convincing the CIA
that they had no case for court ac-
tion. Another was to put us in the
strongest possible position should
the CIA go to court anyway, in
which case we! would have fought
them to the limit. It seems rather
ungenerous to fault this strategy
called the day Seymour Hcrsh's. I for having paid off, as it appears I publication. Alfred McCoy, Au-
story broke that I was told, "Why gust 14: "I was afraid the CIA
that was supposed to be a very would lean on my sources so hard
confidential agreement"? that they'd come 'up with massive
Had you intended to let us know retractions and the book wouldn't
about that agreement, Mr. Thom- be published'at all."
as, if the press hadn't found out But Harper & Row was firmly
first? Would the wording of that' behind the book, wasn't it?
August 15 ad in the Times have ' McCoy: "Until the CIA's final
been the same if the press had not response, I was very pessimistic
initially revealed this "non-con- that Harper & Row would publish
fidential" agreement? my book." ,
Approved For Release 2005/01/27: CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230014-5
continued
 Not that the CIA didn't try to From a letter by McCoy to
lean on some of McCoy's sources. Brooks Thomas of Harper & Row,'
As he said to me st 1 ,~t1d ' 7 Ir~ r PMlmeaye AwA tvt) P74B00415R000300230014-5
said again on s da my c
show the next morning, the CIA the book to review is like asking
did put on enough pressure to get the U. S. Army to review Mylai." :
+ denials before publication date (Ile meant, I later found out, it
from at least two of McCoy's was like asking the U. S: Army to
review either Sy Ilersh
sources in. Southeast Asia. But, 's book on'
Thomas implies, the CIA didn't Mylai or Richard Hammer's
"One Morning in the War.")
necessarily need Harper & Row to Also from the July 17 McCoy
-send it a copy of McCoy's manu letter to Brooks Thomas: "I
script in order to start working believe that the CIA's actions in
over McCoy's sources. (Isn't this case constitute interference Random House and asked to
Thomas at all concerned, let in our author-publisher rela- 'review lack Anderson's "The An-
alone outraged, at what he ty that tionship, and I feel strongly that derson Papers" before publica-
ers the very real possibility that to the Lion. At the time, there wasn't
the CIA already had secretly, and submitting the manuscript much for noti m Ithe e to send
illegally, obtained a ' copy of CIA for prior review is to agree to if is had d not d o finished the been .
any such concern in his letter.) Boning the First Amendment pro- But Random House made it clear
What Thomas fails to under- tection against prior cerr at when it did have
manuscript, it would n have
stand is that by officially giving sorship." to the the full CIA th
the CIA the manuscript, Harper & McCoy, after a 21-hour negotia- let the CIA see i before Publiot
Row exculpated the CIA from Hon session, yielded to Harper & lion
having to explain any retractions: [Low in order to have his book
!it might have forced out of come out before November. The Says Random house senior edi-
McCoy's sources before the bookj basic First Amendment issue, tor Bob Loomis: "if is our convic-
was published. ("We didn't do' however, is the same now as it lion that we do not have the right
anything illegal; we didn't steal was then. Harper & Row yielded to show an author's work. to a gov-
the manuscript to find out who its own--and its author's-First eminent agency before publica-
was giving McCoy those stories. Amendment rights. tion. If the author chooses ' to,
Why, his own publisher gave it to Harper & Row has presented its that's his decision,'but we would
side of the case-in this newspa- not bring any pressure on an au-
us. ' )
Finally, Thomas says that what per, and in its ad in the Times. thor to do that. We can say 'no' to
this columnist "really resents" is Writers have thereby been a manuscript; but once we have
"the notion that a publisher warned by Harper & Row itself decided to publish a book-and
should have a. point of view on that it is capable of allowing its have assured ourselves that it is a
such a matter" "as turning the "scruples" to prevail over the responsible piece of work-then it
book over to the CIA before First Amendment. Therg are is our responsibility to protect the
publication" :. . "Surely the au- other publishers, however, who 'author's First. Amendment rights.
thoi has no more right to force the will not turn over manuscripts to And Thatr own, and is not knee
publisher to publish against hisi a government agency.
scruples than the publisher has to Random ]louse is one of them. jerk. paranoia; it is, in the most
force the author to write against Recently the CIA contacted basic sense, responsible pub-
his." fishing.
? Thomas, , really -does have ? I still have hope-I always have
problems in reading 'comprchen- hope-that the Freedom to Read
sion. The whole thrust of my first Committee of the, Association of
column was that a publisher American Publishers will again
should indeed have a point of view consider the question of a publish-
on such a matter. Ile should, er turning over a book to a gov-
above all, be, committed to pro- ernment agency before publica-
tecting the, First Amendment lion. Meanwhile, writers ought to
rights of his author, his own firm, be clear exactly }vhere their pub-
? lishers stand on this before they
and the reading public. In this' sign a contract.
case, Harper & Row's "scruples" "author community" has
were more powerful than that The
learned a lot from this episode,
commitment. Harper & Row le let.Thomas. Thanks.
decided to play it safe, skirting llentoff
the First Amendment, and fore- -Nat
ing its author to go along or go el-
sewhere-and if the latter, have
his book delayed until after
November. - .
As I'toId -Thomas in one of our
phone conversations a few weeks
ago, if I had no choice except be- .
tween a publisher . with those,
kinds of "scruple's" and a vanity
house, I would take my manu-
script to the vanity house and pay
for its publication myself.
-But Alfred McCoy's views on.
this matter are particularly ger-
mane in the present instance.
Approved For Release 2005/01/27 CIA=RDP74B00415R000300230014-5