August 10, 2002

Censorship

First Amendment to the United States Constitution: from the ALA and from the National Archives.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Widely attributed to Voltaire, although so far unsubstantiated.

From the ALA, again:

Rosenberg v. Board of Education of City of New York, 92 N.Y.S.2d 344 (Sup. Ct. Kings County 1949)

After considering the charge that Oliver Twist and the Merchant of Venice are "objectionable because they tend to engender hatred of the Jew as a person and as a race," the Supreme Court, Kings County, New York, decided that these two works cannot be banned from the New York City schools, libraries, or classrooms, declaring that the Board of Education "acted in good faith without malice or prejudice and in the best interests of the school system entrusted to their care and control, and, therefore, that no substantial reason exists which compels the suppression of the two books under consideration."

United States et. al. v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc.

"The Constitution exists precisely so that opinions and judgments, including esthetic and moral judgments about art and literature, can be formed, tested, and expressed. What the Constitution says is that these judgments are for the individual to make, not for the Government to decree, even with the mandate or approval of a majority. Technology expands the capacity to choose; and it denies the potential of this revolution if we assume the Government is best positioned to make these choices for us."-Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy

On the face of it, one would think that the two Supreme Court opinions cited above would be sufficiently cautionary to inhibit people from attempting to ban books as a form of expression. One would unfortunately be wrong. Over the years there have been repeated efforts to limit the reading of works as divergent as Huckleberry Finn and the Harry Potter books. Lady Chatterley's Lover was banned in Boston in the early part of the last century, as were Tropic of Cancer and Lolita. (For a nice satiric view of those episodes, see this article). This censorship was not confined to books alone; the Hays Commission censored film all the way into the 1960s.

Many of the individuals and groups that advocate curtailing access to these books undoubtedly feel they are acting in the best interest of those (usually children) who shouldn't be exposed to the content. I disagree. I much prefer allowing the individual to make his or her own choice about what he or she wants to read. It's been my experience that readers of any age will stop reading a book very quickly if the content is of no interest to them; why not let them do so with no outside interference? Conversely, if content is of interest, no amount of suppression short of burning the physical object will forever keep the book away from a determined reader. How many copies of Playboy magazine have been discovered in teenage boys' bedrooms by horrified mothers?

Many of these attempts are subject to public ridicule; some are not. When the banners form a majority on textbook buying committees, the society as a whole is endangered. Earlier this year, the Christian Science Monitor published an article which outlines the battles in Texas between the political right and the school board. Here's a quote from the article: "…school-board members rejected the text after a [sic] the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) report criticized it for statements about global warming and destruction of the environment - especially those that pointed [to] the US role in these problems." If all sides are not presented to students, how are they to judge for themselves whether choices presented to them are backed by accurate facts or by preconceived fallacies later in life?

Books have been written about book-banning (Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451) and thought control (Orwell's 1984). Both of those make far better cases than can I for an enlightened citizenship. Without that, we are destined for a uniform, dull, and conforming populace, slow to dissent and protest. This may be desirable for governments (we've already been told by the current Attorney General that objections to government activities aid terrorists, and told by the White House press secretary to "watch what is said"); is that desirable? I think not.

Posted by Linkmeister at August 10, 2002 05:54 PM
Comments

these are scary times. luckily, what i teach (technical writing) rarely leads into political territory; i can just imagine being hauled off for stating my "constitutionally guaranteed" right to speak my opinion ...

Posted by: shelley at August 11, 2002 07:09 AM

"Without that, we are destined for a uniform, dull, and conforming populace, slow to dissent and protest" -- it's hard to imagine why the gov't finds a nation of zombies desirable, but it's more and more apparent they do. *sigh*

Posted by: kd at August 11, 2002 04:28 PM

The problem with the government (and society as a whole), is that we're not trusted to think for ourselves.

Posted by: -e- at August 11, 2002 08:33 PM