Banned Book Week: a celebrate the freedom to read

Banned Book Week is an annual event celebrating the freedom to read by featuring books that have been targeted or banned from public and school libraries. It will be celebrated from September 26 through October 2 with this year’s theme, “Books Unite Us. Censorship Divides.” The goal is to spotlight the freedom to seek and express ideas even those some would consider unorthodox or unpopular. Launched in the 1980s, at a time of increased challenges and organized protests against languages and ideas that some groups considered dangerous. In 1982, the American Booksellers Association (ABA) held their annual BookExpo and showcased the banned books in large, padlocked metal cages with approximately 500 banned books. Due to the success of the exhibit, a yearly campaign was started. Also in 1982, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Island Trees School District v Pico. What impact did the case have on the freedom to read? What books are frequently banned across the country? 

In 1975, Island Trees School District received a complaint from a community group, Parents of New York United. They asserted that school policies on library books were too “permissive.” They specially complained about approximately 9 books, including Slaughterhouse-Five (1969) by Kurt Vonnegut and Best Short Stories by Negro Writers (1967) by Langston Hughes. They stated that the books were “anti-American, anti-Christian, and anti-Semitic, and just plain flithy” (Bill of Rights Institute, 2021). In response, the district removed the books in February 1975. Senior Steven Pico and four other students challenged the decision. They claimed the books were removed because “passages in the books offended social, political, and moral tastes,” and not because they lacked “educational value” (Bill of Rights Institute, 2021). A dozen libraries and free speech organizations filed briefs on the students’ behalf and the case made its way to the Supreme Court. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to read was implied by the First Amendment. A public school as part of the government, cannot restrict speech because it does not agree with the content of that speech (Bill of Rights Institute, 2021). They went on the rule that libraries are places for “voluntary inquiry'' and the school boards’ “absolute discretion” over the classroom did not extend to the library (Bill of Rights Institute, 2021). 

One of the most famous banned books is Lady Chatterley's Lover (1928) by DH Lawrence. It was published privately in Italy and Penguin Books published the original explicit text in 1960 (Spencer, 2017). Eventually it would be banned in four countries, including the United States in 1930, for obscenity. The ban would eventually be overturned in 1959. Another famous banned book, All Quiet on the Western Front (1928) by Erich Maria Remarque, was seen as unpatriotic by the National Socialist German Workers’ Party and even non-Nazi military personal and writers (Spencer, 2017). It would be among many books banned and burned during the Nazi regime (Sauer, 2015). Today, there are challenges to books somewhere in the United States every year. Here are five frequently challenged books (some of these books are repeatedly on the yearly book list) as well as a reason why it was challenged. 

1. To Kill a Mockingbird bird by Harper Lee. Reasons: racial slurs and their negative effect on students, featuring a “white savior” character, and its perception of the Black experience

2. The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood. Reasons: profanity and for “vulgarity and sexual overtones” 

3. The Harry Potter series by JK Rowling. Reasons: referring to magic and witchcraft, for containing actual curses and spells, and for characters that use “nefarious means” to attain goals

4. The Kite Runner by Khaled Hosseini. Reasons: sexual violence and was thought to “lead to terrorism” and “promote Islam.”

5. The Holy Bible. Reason: religious viewpoint

One thing I have learned is to read for yourself. While I check out book reviews when considering books, they are not the only factor in my decision to read a book or not. For a long time, I listened to many people in my church who spoke bad about the Harry Potter series. I refused to read it for the longest time. It wasn’t until I took a children’s literature class in college and one of the required books was Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (1997). From the opening chapter I was hooked. It was then I realized that I was forming my opinion based on someone’s opinion. The old adage is true, never judge a book by its cover, and I would add never judge a book based on someone else’s opinion. I have been given books that people raved about, but when I read it myself, I wasn’t as impressed. Does that mean the book is bad? No, it just means the book didn’t speak to me as it did to others. I spend a great deal of my year reading and reviewing books. I thoroughly enjoy expressing my opinions and while I may not recommend a book, I will never tell someone to never read a book. Consider the recommendations but read for yourself before you form your own opinion. 

In conclusion, Banned Book Week is an annual celebration of our freedom to read or not to read. Books have been challenged for various reasons for centuries. Encouraging people not to read a book based on its content is one thing, but to completely ban a book is another. We have the freedom to read or not to read a book based on recommendations or our own investigations into the content. Many people have raved about books that I have no interest in reading but I will not discourage others from reading it. There are books that I have no desire to read based on what the content is, but I will not look down on those who choose to read it or move to ban it  from being read at all. Again it is the freedom of choice. If I choose to read a book for entertainment, to broaden my horizons or just to see what the fuss is about, that is my choice. 

For Further Reading

American Library Association https://www.ala.org/advocacy/bbooks/banned

References

Bill of Rights Institute (2021). Island Trees School District v. Pico (1982). Bill of Rights Institute. https://billofrightsinstitute.org/e-lessons/island-trees-school-district-v-pico-1982. Retrieved September 15, 2021. 

Sauer, Patrick (June 16, 2015). The Most Loved and Hated Novel About World War I. Smithsonian Magazine. www.smithsonianmag.com/history/most-loved-and-hated-novel-about-world-war-I-180955540/.

Retrieved September 17, 2021. 

Spencer, Samuel (September 25, 2017). 12 Books That Have Been Famously Banned. The Culture Trip. https://theculturetrip.com/north-america/articles/the-12-most-famous-banned-books-of-all-time/. Retrieved September 15, 2021. 

Censorship: what is it and how is it used?

Censorship has been in the news a lot and in our daily conversations. Conversations about censorship by social media as well as by individuals who police their social media pages by not allowing certain posts and particularly comments. Who has the right to censor another? Social media sites, like Facebook and Twitter, have been under fire for censoring content posted on their sites. What is censorship? What are legal definitions? What are the pros and cons of censorship in this age of growing internet dependance for news and information? Censorship is an important topic to discuss, outlining the pros and cons, and consider both sides of the argument. As this is a complex and in-depth topic, I will give an overview and highlights to avoid overwhelming anyone with too many details.

Censorship is the suppression of words or images that are considered offensive or dangerous and is using carried out by the government, private individuals or groups or personal pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional (ACLU). When private individuals or groups censor, it can be in the form of organized boycotts and is protected by the First Amendment. For example, a school board decides on a list of books to remove from their libraries and curriculum. There are two principles when considering censorship. First, content neutrality is when the government cannot limit expression just because a listener or even a majority in the community is offended by its content (ACLU). Essentially, if you are offended by a tv show or movie, then you have the right to change the channel, just as someone else has the right to watch if they choose. Second, direct or imminent harm is expression that may be restricted only if it will clearly cause direct and imminent harm to an important societal interest (ACLU). The most famous example is yelling “fire” in a crowded theater and causing a stampede and harm to others. A more modern example would be someone directly incites or threatens violence on social media sites (Etzioni, 2019). For example, Craigslist took down certain classified pages after it was determined to contribute to sexual violence.

Not all speech is protected the First Amendment and subject to censorship. First, obscenity. Obscenity has been legally defined by the Supreme Court decision in Miller v California (1973) as 1) appeal to the average person’s prurient (shameful or morbid) interest in sex, 2) depict sexual conduct in a “patently offensive way” as defined by community standards and 3) taken as a whole, a lack of serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value (ACLU). This is why some books such as John Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath (1939) can be banned in certain communities and not in others. Another standard set in Federal Communication Commission v Pacifica (1978) is the indecent expression in which the government can require radio and tv stations to air “indecent material only during those hours when children are less likely to be listening or watching. (ACLU). Second, pornography is protected by the First Amendment unless it meets the definition of obscene. Child pornography is not protected under the First Amendment. Lastly, libel and slander. Libel is a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation. Slander is the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation. For example, someone publishes a statement that another person is a bigamist when he or she is not. Slander is like spreading a rumor to harm someone’s chances for a promotion.

Internet censorship is the control of information that can be viewed on the internet. In the US, internet censorship is the least censored, (China being the strictest), it is highly regulated that many people self-censor (Poether, 2019). Many people distrust social media sites when it comes to censorship or removal of information. According to a Pew Research report, 85% of Republicans and Republican leaning-independents believe it is likely that social media sites are intentionally censoring political viewpoints, while 54% believe it is very likely (Etzioni, 2019). What are the pros to internet censorship? Ms. Poether (2019) discusses a few pros and cons. First, to limit content that no one wants or should see. For example, the Momo Challenge was a hoax that spread through the internet, causing concern for parents. Second, stopping fake news. Fake news is the false information that is presented as real news. Unfortunately, the speed in which news is brought to people through tv and phones, it is hard to distinguish fake news from the real news. Third, to stop access to harmful activities such as cyberbullying, sextortion, and predation. For every pro, there is a con. First, if information is too restricted, real information can be censored along with the fake. Second, who is in charge? Who decides what gets blocked and what doesn’t? Who decides the rules? Third, censoring free speech. Internet censorship limits want you can access was well as what you can post.

In conclusion, censorship is essentially “Don’t let anyone read this book, watch that tv show or view that film, because I object to it.” It is a very touchy subject that has no real clear-cut definition or rules. What is one man’s obscene art is another’s masterpiece? What one person considers to be fake news may be another’s real news? How to we tell the difference? Fact checking and research is a start. According to Vera Eidelman of the ACLU, “Defenders of free speech don’t think the power to censor should be in the hands of the tech companies” (Etzioni, 2019). I think tech companies want to make sure their users are safe and enjoy time spent on their sites; however, their own biases can come into play when deciding which information can be posted and viewed. The question of censorship doesn’t have an easy answer, but it is a question we need to discuss.

 

 

References

American Civil Liberties Union (no date). What is Censorship? ACLU.org. www.aclu.org/other/what-censorship. Retrieved October 4, 2020.

Etzioni, Amitai (Fall 2019). Should We Privatize Censorship? Issues. www.issues.org/should-we-privatize-censorship/. Retrieved October 9, 2020.

Poether, Bridget (November 18, 2019). How Internet Censorship Affects You (+Pros & Cons). Learning Hub. www.learn.g2.com/internet-censorship. Retrieved October 9, 2020. 

Cancel culture: good? bad? ugly?

Over the past few weeks, after the news broke of SNL’s firing of Shane Gillis for making racist jokes against Chinese, I heard the term, cancel culture, more and more. I wasn’t sure what it was. When it comes to the massive world of social media, I’m somewhat of a novice. Yes, I’m on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram but I don’t follow of a lot of people or really pay attention to current trends. I decided to investigate and write about cancel culture. What I found was overwhelming and left me unsure of what my stance would be. So, my goal of this post is an examine of what cancel is and how people are using it, reacting to it and give my thoughts on whether it is necessary.

Cancel culture, as described by Wikipedia, is “a form of public shaming that aims to hold an individual and groups accountable by calling attention to behavior, usually on social media, that is perceived as problematic.” It is also referred to as call out culture or outrage culture. It is essentially a boycott of a person, usually a celebrity, when he or she has shared a questionable or unpopular opinion or has behaved in a manner that is perceived as offensive. The person is “canceled” when a large group of fans completely boycott the individual’s work causing loss of jobs, massive declines in the celebrity’s career and fanbase. For example, when Rosanne Barr made the racist comment about Valerie Jarrett, she lost her reboot show. This opinion, statement or behavior can be from the present; however, more and more celebrities are being canceled for things said and done in the distant past. Kevin Hart was canceled earlier this year, and lost his job hosting the Oscar because of a joke he made on Twitter several years before. However, canceling of a celebrity is rarely permanent. For celebrities like Taylor Swift, the offense was quickly forgotten and she’s back on top with a bestseller album. 

Some have called cancel culture an extreme form of the PC culture and the popular catch all to describe a social justice warrior agenda (Butler, 2018). One author from an online magazine makes the argument that we have always lived in a cancel culture (Semiramis, 2019) and various people from history as examples. Alice Bell, who developed a cure for leprosy has essentially been “canceled” since she is a black woman and her contribution has been hidden. Alan Turing invented one of the core concepts of computer science but since he was gay, his name lives in obscurity. Today’s cancel culture is simply the minorities, the oppressed, reclaiming their power and fighting back (Semiramis, 2019). Some have even claimed that a cancel culture doesn’t exist as some who have been “cancelled” themselves back in the public’s good graces as time goes by (Butler, 2018). Others have claimed that there is only critics of cancel culture because most “victims” are usually white men (Semiramis, 2019) and they aren’t used to being held accountable for their actions. However, more and more victims of cancel culture are minorities and women who don’t always follow the new PC culture.

There is an equal argument against cancel culture. According to critics, the problem with cancel culture is the methods used to cancel certain people and ideas. “A small number of online progressives have appointed themselves a moral vanguard” to expose a transgression and enforce a punishment through a “digital mob” (Linker, 2019). It is an attempt to police American culture, to draw a line on what is acceptable in life and especially comedy as seen in the outrage over jokes made by some stand-up comedians. The most current comedian to be in the spotlight due to cancel culture is Dave Chappelle after his Netflix special Sticks and Stones ignited a firestorm online. Taylor Swift, a victim of cancel culture, spoke out against it, saying that cancelling someone can send the wrong, even tragic, message. Dr. Pamela Paresky calls cancel culture apocalyptic. “An apocalyptic culture is not interested in wounded hearts. It wants to destroy, not heal. It wants retribution for moral impurities, not forgiveness” (Paresky, 2019). Cancel culture is born out of a knee jerk reaction instead of asking “why did he say that?” (Paresky, 2019). As Wesley Morris writes in this article, The Morality War, the intent is ignored and only what is said is what matters (2018).

As I said earlier, this topic was very overwhelming. It took several days of reading article after article and gathering my own thoughts about cancel culture to be able to sit down and write this post. On one hand, it is important to call each other for things that are wrong and hopefully help them see the error in their statement. On the other hand, cancel culture really isn’t doing that. Cancel culture also doesn’t allow for a person to change their minds. Say someone made a statement twenty years ago and someone calls him or her out on it in the present, the outrage usually ignores any statement made since that clearly shows that the person no longer believes in the past statement. Cancel culture is essentially shunning, a Scarlet letter for the world to see. It is an extreme form of a boycott and in most cases, it is downright bullying. It’s one thing to call for a boycott to hurt a company or individual’s bottom-line, like the Montgomery Bus Boycott (1995-1956). However, it is entirely different to destroy their lives. Some in the cancel culture frenzy have called for the offender’s death and the death of his or her family!

In conclusion, the motives behind cancel culture is on the right track. We need to call each other out when statements or actions are made that are harmful. However, if I don’t something an actor, artist, writer or even politician has said or done that I don’t like, I simply stop watching their movies/TV shows, stop buying their music or book and I won’t vote for them for political positions. I will stop following them on social media. However, I will not call for them to be harmed or even killed. Cancel culture leaves no room for correction, no open dialogue. No opportunity to prove the statement wrong. It is essentially “I don’t like what you said, so you must disappear.” As you can see from the pictures I have found online, there are many in social media who question the firestorm of cancel culture. We can do better than that. Most of my research has shown me that there are plenty of people who are tired of the cancel culture and very few who see its merits.

References

Butler, Danielle. October 23, 2018. The Misplaced Hysteria About a ‘Cancel Culture’ That Doesn’t Actually Exist. The Root. https://verysmartbrothas.theroot.com/the-misplaced-hysteria-about-a-cancel-culture-that-do-1829563238/amp.

Linker, Damon. September 20, 2019. What is ‘cancel culture’ and its critics get wrong. The Week. https://theweek.com/articles/866329/what-cancel-culture-critics-wrong

Morris, Wesley. October 3, 2018. The Morality War. The New York Times Magazine. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/03/magazine/morality-social-justice-art-entertainment.html

Paresky, Pamela B. June 19, 2019. The Apocalyptic Cult of Cancel Culture. Psychology Today.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/happiness-and-the-pursuit-leadership/201906/the-apocalyptic-cult-cancel-culture.

Semiramis. April 10, 2019. The Untold Truth about ‘Cancel Culture’. Medium.  https://medium.com/@vcasaisvila/the-untold-truth-about-cancel-culture-3675cac983c3