Should any books be banned? Banned Books Week 2013
We are now into Banned Books Week. According to the
“Banned Books Week is the national book community’s annual celebration of the freedom to read.”
Since 1982, the group (which includes the American Library Association) has listed the most “challenged” books.
It’s often a surprising list. What do you think the most challenged book was in 2012? 50 Shades of Grey? Nope, that’s number four.
The most challenged book?
A kids’ book.
More accurately, a series of kids’ books, published by Scholastic, with a 4.7 out of 5 star rating (for the first one) at Amazon.
What reasons are cited?
“Offensive language, unsuited for age group”
This is a series which is widely said to encourage children to read…it may be the book that gets a child to become a lifelong reader.
Now, some of you are probably getting upset at this point, and I understand that. My natural inclination is always to lean towards literary freedom.
However, whenever I recognize a “natural inclination” in myself, I want to challenge it.
I want to look at it, and see if it makes sense.
Maybe it does…and maybe it doesn’t.
I thought I’d start with this simple question (both for me and for you): should any books be banned?
First, we need to define what we mean by “banned”, and that’s a huge issue here.
They call it “Banned Books Week”, but they report on “challenged books”.
Those are two entirely different things.
I define “banned” as something that the government does. It uses its governmental power (including the law) to prohibit people from reading a particular book.
“Challenging”, as used here, is most often done by private individuals. They request that a school/public library/bookstore not have a certain book.
For me, people have the right to challenge books. That is, in and of itself, a matter of free speech. I’m going to very often disagree with their reasons…but that’s exactly when the issue of free speech comes into play.
I analyzed the reasons given for challenging the ten books on the list:
- Sexually Explicit: 7 (cited in seven of the cases)
- Offensive Language: 6
- Unsuited for Age Group: 6
- Homosexuality: 2
- Religious Viewpoint: 2
- Violence: 2
- Racism: 1
- Suicide: 1
Certainly, if this was the government banning these books, I think we would all expect “religious viewpoint” to be invalid grounds.
What about the others? In what circumstances?
Let’s look at the issue of public schools (which are government entities…private schools are not).
If you are against banning all books, would that include sexually explicit books for grade school kids? Should a ten-year old be able to check 50 Shades of Grey out of the school library?
If they shouldn’t be able to do that, what about a fifteen-year old?
How about a thirty-year old…from the public library?
What if a parent or other legal guardian gives 50 Shades of Grey to a ten-year old to read…in their own home? Should the government do something about that?
I’ve been using 50SoG as an example, because I think that many Americans have similar ideas about pornography…even if they can’t agree on what specifically is pornography.
How about some other topics?
What about a book full of hate speech? One that advocated violence against a group of people…repeatedly and unrepentantly?
How about one that shows how to make tools of violence…step by step to make chemical weapons, or build a bomb?
Suppose a book gives false medical advice…which, if followed, will result in death. Should that be banned?
Then there is defamation, which is the more generally used international term for intentionally damaging false information. Somebody publishes a book saying terrible things about you…which aren’t true. Does the government have the right to stop people from reading that book?
One more: what if a book infringes on the rights of another person under copyright? If we go to the world of the movies, we could look at 1922′s Nosferatu as an example. It was an unauthorized adaptation of Dracula, and a court ordered all copies to be destroyed. The movie did survive, and is now considered a great piece of early film-making. Was destruction the proper course?
As you can tell, this is more complex than it might appear at first.
Before I ask you some questions, I want to bring one of my own issues into this, and one on which I’ve been challenged.
I think blocking text-to-speech access in an e-book disproportionately disadvantages the disabled, although I do believe it is legal.
I don’t intentionally link to books where the publisher has taken this action.
For quite a while, I didn’t even mention the titles.
Is that censorship?
For me, it’s important that it isn’t government censorship. If you don’t want to have certain books for sale in your store, or have them in your home, that feels very different to me from the government banning things. If a magazine won’t review books that take a particular viewpoint, I see that as their right.
I made the choice in this post to list Captain Underpants by name, even though the publisher blocks text-to-speech access (and this is not a picture book where the text would be indecipherable images to the software that reads the book out loud). I didn’t link to it, though, because I don’t want to benefit from people buying it.
It’s not my choice to support that, but I don’t think less of you if you do buy the book…I like Dav Pilkey. I guess I could have linked to the paperbook…I’ll have to consider the consequences of that in the future.
Now, some polls:
While the polls are a good way to express your opinion, I always like hearing more. I think I’ve done enough in this post to stimulate conversation, so I’ll just say that you can feel free to express your opinion to me and my readers by commenting on this post.
This post by Bufo Calvin originally appeared in the I Love My Kindle blog.