This week is Banned Books Week. I trend to take for granted my right to read what I like, free of government or majority censorship, but in reality I shouldn't, and neither should you.
Even I was surprised to see that the following books were banned (or attempts were made to ban them) once upon a time in a state or county far, far away (or maybe not so far):
Gone With The Wind
Forrest Gump
Lord of the Rings (actually burned as a Satanic book, something it shares, I suppose with the Qur'an)
To Kill a Mockingbird
Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (banned in Boulder, CO no less)
Usually when I think about freedom, perhaps the one I cherish the most is the opportunity to read what I want regardless of whether someone else approves or disapproves of my choices. The public library was as much a sacred place for me growing up as church. Yet for a "free country" the United States has a well known history of banning or restricting access to books, even in recent times.
Iconic American books as famous as Huckleberry Finn, Catcher in the Rye, The Leaves of Grass and The Grapes of Wrath have all been banned at one time or another. However what is surprising is the number of small-minded morons who have successfully banned books such Brown Bear, Brown Bear, What Did You See, a book for young children (by the Texas School Board in 2010 because they thought the author was a Marxist) and Anne Frank, Diary of a Young Girl (also in 2010, by a county in Virginia).
It seems everyday someone makes a complaint about why certain books should not be available because they find something about it that doesn't agree with their most cherished beliefs or prejudices. But isn't the entire point of freedom that we get to make those decisions for ourselves? That we don't turn away from books with ideas that we don't hold, but engage them and their ideas and make up our own minds?
I despise Ayn Rand as an author, but I would never tell someone her books were off limits to them merely because of my superior moral judgment about their merits. Nor would I seek to ban the sacred books of any religion as this petitioner would have us do to the Qur'an. I wouldn't ban Mein Kampf or Glenn Beck's latest tripe, either.
Why? Because censoring books or other sources of information because of their "bad ideas" invariably leads to someone censoring other books and other ideas, ideas that maybe you think ought to be heard, ideas that you think are good ones.
When you ban books, you ban speech and when you ban speech in any of its forms you ban the dissemination of ideas. Indeed, censorship bans the idea itself, which in effect creates limits on what you are allowed to know and eventually what ideas you are permitted to express. It creates a climate of fear and conformism.
When you ban ideas you effectively neuter our right to free speech, not only for the author of the book but also for those who would choose to read it to discover what they might learn. The very act of censorship spreads beyond the government's efforts to the majority at large suppressing unpopular opinions and preventing people from obtaining accurate information to inform their own opinions, creating fear and mistrust.
Just ask anyone who lived through the McCarthy era what it was like to try to read a book on communism or Marxism that didn;t condemn it unilaterally, much less express an opinion that perhaps communists were being made more of a threat than was justified. Hell just ask anyone who tried to express an anti-war opinion in the run-up to the Iraq War (and afterward) during the Bush years. Remember being called a traitor for your efforts? Remember Ari Fleischer and his chilling remarks to the White House correspondents in 2001 regarding Bill Maher?
n the most highly publicized case, a nationally televised talk show host was shunned by many of his advertisers and criticized by the White House spokesman for making what some considered an unpatriotic remark about American soldiers. [...]
A college professor in the Southwest has been threatened with disciplinary action for comments he made about the World Trade Center disaster, and at least two small-town journalists have lost their jobs after criticizing the president.<p.</p>
A program of the works of a German composer was canceled by a New York music program after he made comments that suggested the destruction of the World Trade Center might be considered "the greatest work of art imaginable for the whole cosmos."
One of the most visible examples of this burgeoning debate involved a scuffle between the White House and Bill Maher, host of the late-night talk show "Politically Incorrect." Last week, Mr. Maher said that the hijackers were not cowards but that it was cowardly for the United States to launch cruise missiles on targets thousands of miles away. [...]
On Wednesday, Ari Fleischer, the White House press secretary, denounced Mr. Maher, saying of news organizations, and all Americans, that in times like these "people have to watch what they say and watch what they do."
Yet, this year we a number of candidates on the right are running for political office who would joyfully and wholeheartedly limit your right to read what you want given the opportunity, as well as a limit a number of other rights you now possess or for some, hope to have recognized. In some states this is already a regular occurrence. Many candidates support the elimination of net neutrality, a threat your ability to access and read the blogs and online publications of your choice.
The Republicans and Tea Party activists are constantly expressing their concern that Democrats are going to take away their "rights" by which they usually mean the right to own an unregistered handgun or other firearm (or pass health care legislation and financial reform). Funny, though, how so many in the Tea Party have so little concern for a freedom that is far more important to our society: the freedom to think what we want, to say what we want, to read what we want and to learn what we want.
The banning or censorship or burning of books, even those we find detestable, invariably destroys that right, that essential liberty which is fundamental to our society. Just ask anyone who has lived in a country where books and newspapers and magazines are censored. They will tell you that limiting what you can read or watch or learn is the easiest way to lose all your freedoms.