Discussions
Considering the WHYS of censorship
Posted by libdrone • 10/01/07 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: banned books week, censorship
After last week's great discussion of banned books and with continuing the Banned Books Week theme on my blog this week I have been thinking a lot about the Whys of censorship.
techfun made an excellent point that book challenges are way up because right wing groups made a concerted effort to take over school boards in the 1990's. but when I think about it that is more the HOW of censorship
So my question to you Why do people and groups try to get books banned? Please post your thoughts and ideas and links to any resources you have.
My blog post tomorrow will be about this issue and unless you indicate that you don't want me to I may include some of your ideas and comments in my blog post.
User Comments
-
I think that censorship is a joke, there is no reason for it. For Americans we should be able to censor our own actions.
I hosted a online streaming radio show about freedom of speech and it goes hand in hand with censorship topic --------> gylonjackson.com.-
I read about that show on, I think, copywrite's blog (not sure) I am really happy at all the attention this issue has been getting. Though it still gets me no closer to real understanding of the motivations of the people who try to censor....
-
-
I think that if we step back and look at the WHY behind most attempts at censorship by individuals we need to admit that the person pushing for censorship generally truly does mean well. I am trying to stick to that kind of censorship in this discussion. I am talking about the mom who wants to keep her own kids, and by extension, other people's kids from getting their hands on literature they find offensive or subversive.
Many people seem to have a knee jerk reaction to talk of censorship. They instantly say that all censorship is bad and should be abolished. I agree with that sentiment when it comes to literature but I think the only way to accomplish it is to open a dialog with the people who want to censor something. Instantly condemning it in black and white terms is a way of shutting down discussion. Someone who sees their views condemned has an instant and justifiable instinct to not listen to anything else you say.
By opening a dialog you can find out the why behind their desire and maybe work out a compromise. While I am not in favor of banning anything, I do accept that some material is not appropriate for people of all ages. I have no problem with a library spending my tax money or donations to purchase Playboy magazine; I do have a problem with them making it available to small children. Extremists on both sides the issue can cause censorship to spread.
If someone fights for what they see as a civil liberty in the form of making all materials in a library's collection available to all patrons the end result will NOT be what they want. Instead the library will just remove some items from their collection entirely. Extremism on both sides will always benefit the side of censorship. Instead of condemning the idea, look at a compromise that keeps materials available by addressing the specific concerns of the person concerned about free and unrestricted access to the material.-
What a thought provoking comment. I have seen for myself right here on Blog Catalog what a difference it can make if you can find a way to talk calmly with people you profoundly disagree with. In a discussion last week I found myself arguing with some users who feel that homosexuality is a sin and who object to having books like Daddy's Roommate and Heather Has Two Mommies in the library. But in the course of the discussion which ended up extending to a number of related issues I was shocked to find real common ground on the very divisive question of gay marriage. It developed that All of the participants with their conflicting views agreed that the government should get out of the marriage business, that all couples gay or straight should be able to register with the govt and receive identical treatment by the govt and let churches choose whom they will or will not marry.
So your point about finding common ground is excellent. Clearly I am going to need to do some more serious thinking before I can start to write that next blog post.
-
-
You are expressing things very well. Concerning Censorship it might be interesting to make a vote on what everybodys opinion is:
What subject should be censored?
Usually I tend to oppose censorship, however I caught myself when looking into an online store and seeing books on torture with pictures etc.
It gave me a stinge into the heart, had just the same feeling like when I visited the KZ Mauthausen.-
yikes. I can imagine that would make me think twice about my position on censorship too
-
-
I think it's a mistake to think that it is only the conservative or right wing people who try to censor reading material. I don't mean to open a can of worms here, but the story that comes to mind is the teacher who, during study hall, read his bible while students did their work. There was a complaint made about it (by a parent? a student? another teacher?) and the school board decided that reading the bible - silently to himself! - was not appropriate. The ACLU, the last I heard, did not come to this teacher's defense. I don't get it.
That is censorship by the Left Wing. If my kid has a Muslim teacher who reads the Quran during study hall, that's fine. A Jewish teacher reading the Torah or a Christian reading the New Testament are no problem, either. Censorship cloaked in the "separation of church and state" argument is still censorship. (And, in my opinion at least, is exactly what the separation of church and state was meant to prevent - making anyone's religion "illegal")-
You make some really good points. I completely agree with you that the teacher should be able to read anything he chooses when monitoring a silent study hall. And I do recognize that censors come in both left and right varieties. I fully agree the point of separation of church in state is to prevent making anyone's religion or beliefs illegal, including of course the right not to believe.
In reading the comments here and thinking more about it it begins to appear to me that most reasonable people on both sides of the ideological spectrum oppose censorship but extremists at both ends practice it in pursuit of their own agendas. -
Yes, I think extremists are dangerous, whether in cases of censorship or politics or whatever. I could never understand how a conservative, while preaching for less government and more liberty, could also demand to dictate morality in the same breath. Likewise, a liberal who is all about choice and personal liberty then wants to control our finances to "redistribute the wealth" to the less fortunate. Both are forms of control and are an affront to our personal liberties.
Just in case you can't tell, I'm a Libertarian.
-
Absolutely. The desire to control other people's access to information crosses the entire socio-political spectrum.
Motives and criteria change, but it needs to be fought from all directions.
-
-
Yo, exactly!
-
To my mind censorship (which, BTW is a governmental, not private action, look at the difference between censor and censure, which is often labeled censor) most commonly boils down to a combination of two things. Fear and arrogance. First the subject which "must be" censored has the capacity to cause fear in the party wishing to censor it. Secondly the party must, arrogantly, feel the need to "protect" others less able to ascertain or appreciate the "dangers" of exposure to this fearsome material.
The second form of censorship is driven by self preservation of a governmental body, or some faction in that body, uses censorship to suppress some information that would be detrimental to it's operation. Amazingly, as a Libertarian, I am able to recognize that there are sometimes valid reasons to perform the second kind, even though I insist it ought to still scare the living bejeebers out of you.-
Thanks for an insightful reply. One of the things I am realizing in reading the responses is that my long-held abhorrence of censorship in any form has been somewhat knee-jerk and naive. It is true as you and others have pointed out that censorship is by definition done by governments, in the cases of the banned books I have been talking about the past few days typically school boards and public library boards of trustees, although in my thinking about banned books I have tended to 'blame' these actions not on these governmental authorities who actually impose book bans but on the citizens who agitate to bring them about.
And as JD has very eloquently pointed out up thread seeing these citizens who are usually acting from good intentions out of genuine (if perhaps misguided) concern as enemies of free speech is generally counter-productive and tends to result in more rather than less banning of books.
The entire question is beginning to frustrate me. I have gone through several draft posts about the question, none of which satisfy me as being of suitable quality to post to my blog. The hour grows late, I grow tired and I feel less and less capable of writing the post I promised my readers in the 'coming tomorrow teaser' at the top of my sidebar and I feel as though I less understand the issue than when I began.
Having had a couple of days of 'oh wow look at all these visitors and comments and hot damn my technorati influence just quintupled' I guess I am now seeing the Other side of being a serious blogger.... -
Post that. It's real. It's personal (and need I say again that the blog is a *personal* publishing system
). Post not about what censorship is, but what your feelings about it are, and what conflicts you are feeling based on these new ideas. This will be real, and it will invite conversation.
Too often we bloggers miss awesome opportunities like this because we feel we have to post something authoritative. Real is better than authoritative. -
What you have just written here is what you could write on your blog. Explain to your readers about your research into the issue and how you are realizing that a more thoughtful post will take some time. Give your readers the same ideas that you've been given here so that they can ponder these thoughts and respond back to you.
And isn't BC a great community? I love the intelligence and wisdom here.
ETA: Dane beat me to it. But still. -
Dane and Mark,
I didn't bother separating censor from censure in this context. Although I agree they are very different things, what Alan is working on this week has to do with the ALA's Banned Books Week awareness program.
In general this boils down to a private individual or group trying to use pressure of some kind to influence a quasi-governmental (at lest in funding) entity like a library or school.
In this context I think most of the censorship being discussed is a result of a private citizen or group in the form of a parent, a PTA group, a church community. Hell, it could also be a liberal group who thinks Sean Hannity's and Ann Coulter's books should not be purchased with public funds or should be labeled as hate speech and banned.
As far as government secrecy and censorship that is direct and top down, originating within the government (democratic or totalitarian), that would be a whole different kettle of worms and outside the scope of Banned Books Week as meant by the American Library Association. I'd love to see Alan or anyone else tackle that sometime. The current levels of secrecy (often for just the sake of secrecy itself) in the executive branch of the US Government scares me.
-
-
Most of the censorship comments here consider only a liberal Western context. What about authoritarian regimes? -
A huge thank you to JD, Dane and Marisa who's comments on this thread have been considerably more insightful than anything I've written today which helped me to see what I actually did have to write. I hope you will all read it and give me your feedback:
libdrone.blogspot.com/2007/10/post-that-would-not-be-written.html-
Great post, man. Very thoughtful.
-
-
Shutting the stable door as it were, I thought I would mention that censorship is also use as a promotional tool. Ban the book Lady Chatterley's Lover? Next minute everybody wants it to know why?
If a government body wants the public's opinion not just the party faithful and the interested minority, a in house document can be censored/suppressed, a comment passed to the press, then at the appropriate time, leaked.
It is all good fun.-
Yes. The allure of the forbidden. I am remembering the passage in I believe it was the 5th Harry Potter book when Harry defies the Ministry of Magic and gives an interview to the very Weekly World News-like 'Quibbler". Umbrage forbids possession of the magazine on pain of expulsion and Hermione smiles serenely knowing that within 24 hours ever person in the castle will have read it.
-
-
A lot of censorship is lobbied for by people who have never read the book, but have heard that it is bad. These are people who want their fifteen minutes of fame. I agree that they are well meaning, but the heat of the moment is what usually motivates them.-
Books and movies both. Anyone old enough to remember the release of "The Last Temptation of Christ" can probably recall the thousands of church going folks protesting a movie they had never seen.
-
So too The Passion and The Davinci Code. From opposite ends of the spectrum.
-
-
Censorship is the refuge of people incapable of articulating their own viewpoint.
If I disagree with someone's statements, I do not advocate censorship, I point out the logical incoherency, or the lack of factual support, or the facts they are neglecting. That's what free speech is about. Censorship is the result of being too afraid to engage with differing points of view
Criticism (even protest) is not censorship, and so long one understands the viewpoint one is criticizing and can articulate the critique, it is free speech at its finest.
We have certain concepts to deal with those troublesome "what-ifs" like fraud, libel, slander, purjury, et cetera. And of course, we also make a stipulation about exposing pornography to minors-- not because we don't view pornographers as having the same rights but because we grasp that there is simply too much danger of abuse when an adult deliberately exposes a minor to porn. -
”And we have got to fight it with something better, not try to conceal the thinking of our own people. They are part of America. And even if they think ideas that are contrary to ours, their right to say them, their right to record them, and their right to have them at places where they're accessible to others is unquestioned, or it's not America.” — Dwight David Eisenhower
From my post today. Glad to have found it. BTW, great post Alan. -
While many are fighting for more freedom and particularly the freedom to express ourselves, we cannot deny that there will always be people who mis-use and jeopardize this freedom.
This was what happened in Singapore a short while ago. A typical case of displeasure towards a corporate company, personal details are extracted and posted online. Censorship? Instead of asking why are we censoring, I think it's high time we ask ourselves as well ... what good reasons do we have not to induce censorship?
www.mr-endoh.com/uncategorized/internet-censorship-and-beyond/ -
Friends
I hate Censorship . . . We all do. It's easy to find excuses to burn books . . . I may not always agree, but I will listen and if you comment on my blogs I will post it. Porn is always ify at best, but . . . I'll always consider it.
Dan H.
Dreams are yours to share
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
