Censorship
Against it in all forms…
“Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings.”
- Heinrich Heine
I agree with that quote whole heartedly. What is a book? It's more than just pages. It is months to even years of the author's life. It contains the ideas, thoughts, and creative energy of a human being. To burn a book, to censure a book, is to burn and censure human thought.
Define “Censorship”
According to Dictionary.com, censorship is defined as the act, process or practice of censoring – the examining books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.
Quick Overview of the History of Censorship (skip)
The first written work ever to be censored after the invention of the printing press was in 1517 when “Pope Leo X condemned Martin Luther's Ninety Five Theses.” ° In May of 1521, the Edict of Worms was passed containing a “Law of Printing” which “prevented the printing, sale, possession, reading or copying of Luther's works.”. ¹
The Edict of Worms set a precedent which lead to religious organizations, both Catholic and Protestant, censoring and burning books that went against the moral philosophy of the times. Catholics issued a list of books (occasionally updated) of which Catholics were not allowed to read. Protestant authority strongly believed the state should be the final authority on matters of censorship. Thus, the state was allowed to dictate which books were censored and which were not. Censorship became a joint effort between church and state.
Throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Europe's tumultuous times and lack of cooperation among countries allowed authors to avoid censorship by having their books printed in another country all together. If the other country had less strenuous laws on the printing of books outlawed by certain European counties and certain religious affiliations, the author was free to have their book published and distributed outside the reach of the original censoring authority. Many works that supported the social revolution of one country could be banned by that country but printed and distributed in another. Book banning was practically un-enforceable throughout Europe.
Starting during the Nineteenth century in England and the United States, propriety became the ruling attitude and private virtue forced its way into being public virtue. “According to Ann Ilan Alter, there may have been more censorship, self-imposed or otherwise, during the nineteenth century in England and the United States than in all the preceding centuries of printed literature.” ²
As you can see from the above, the most common reasons for censorship have been, and remain, either objectionable from a religious or political standpoint.
Modern Day Censorship
According to Foerstel, the three most common grounds for censorship “are sex, profanity, and religion, but they are often intertwined to cover a broad range of 'unacceptable' attitudes or ideas.” ³
If every book or idea that offended someone was censored or banned there would not be a book on any shelf in any country in the world. This does not even speak strictly to books. There would not be a painting in the Louvre, a CD in the store, or DVD at Blockbuster if every piece that offended someone was banned on the grounds that it contained materials that someone considered “unacceptable” – this includes every religious work known to man.
What gives people the right to censor others?
In the United States, the freedom of speech and expression is protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
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.
First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
As it states above, the right to free expression is protected. It also states that the right to petition the Government (court system) for redress of grievances (offending materials included) is also protected. It leads to a never ending cycle - a catch-22. However, a petition is not necessarily a right to not be offended. It is a right to allow a court to hear you when you feel your rights have been offended. A court must take into consideration the rights of all parties.
More often than not, courts in the U.S. rule in favor of free expression and a compromise is established. For instance, material may be removed from the open public areas and placed in a room for special access away from those who do not wish to come across it. Most creators of works do not mind this compromise. Their work still gets shown and it's in a location that should offend no one. I support this type of compromise. I feel it upholds the rights of all parties involved.
Some fundamentalist parties are not satisfied with this solution. I do not think that any one party has the right to dictate to us all what should and should not be condoned. Public morality doesn't dictate my own sense of morality, nor should it dictate anyone else's private morality. Everyone should have the right to choose for themselves what they find to be “unacceptable.”
If I had a five year old, I would not approve of him/her watch a pornographic movie. I do not feel that a child of that age would fully understand the concept of sex to a degree that a teenager or adult would. They may grasp the basic physical concept, but they would not be able to comprehend the abstract emotion connection that can become associated with it. Trying to explain it would just lead to confusion. However, I would not have a problem with a five year old child being exposed to non-sexual nudity in art or if, for some reason, they happened upon a nudist – our bodies are natural and are nothing to be ashamed of. That is my personal sense of what is “acceptable” for a young child. I do not expect everyone else in the world to find my philosophy “acceptable.”
I state that to point out that not everyone has the same sense of what is acceptable. Censoring the Venus de Milo because it exposes a woman's breasts and that is “unacceptable” in public goes against my right to the enjoyment fine art – which I personally find “acceptable.”
Conclusion
Free expression should be protected in all forms. My right to view material that others find objectionable is my right. If others are opposed then a compromise should be found where I can view or listen to whatever offends away from the sight or hearing of those whom it offends. Courts should uphold the rights of those who express themselves. We, in a “free” country should never have to fear repercussions for the expression of free speech – in whatever form it may come.
Last Updated: September 11, 2008
References
° Foerstel, H. (1994). Banned in the U.S.A. a reference guide to book censorship in schools and public libraries. p. xi. Greenwood Press. Westport, CT.
¹ Foerstel, H. (1994). Banned in the U.S.A. a reference guide to book censorship in schools and public libraries. p. xi. Greenwood Press. Westport, CT.
² Foerstel, H. (1994). Banned in the U.S.A. a reference guide to book censorship in schools and public libraries. p. xii. Greenwood Press. Westport, CT.
³ Foerstel, H. (1994). Banned in the U.S.A. a reference guide to book censorship in schools and public libraries. p. xx. Greenwood Press. Westport, CT.
Karolides, N. (1998). Banned Books: literature suppressed on political grounds. Facts on File, Inc. New York, NY.