Attempts to ban books usually backfire; but is it necessarily censorship?

Question

Tell a high schooler to do something and they won’t. Tell them not to and they’ll suddenly want to (apologies for the stereotyping, but stay with me on this…)

If anything, having your books banned is a boon for an author. But is it censorship?

The Supreme Court has ruled that “community standards” dictate what is obscene, not any dictum from the federal government. So if a small town decides for themselves that Pat Conroy’s writings violate their local standards and don’t want the library to carry them, that, according to the Supreme Court, is permissible.

If the community is not permitted to decide for themselves, then doesn’t “anything go?” Why shouldn’t the library stock Penthouse magazine or some racist rantings, for instance, as well?

Talk amongst yourselves.

Answer 1

That Supreme Court case predates the internet, and more recent cases have lead to different standards applying. Look up the history of obscenity cases at the Supreme Court for details.

So the premise of your argument is wrong, but the question is still good.

Librarians and bookstores DO promote a "banned book week" because it is good marketing, ans savvy politics to remind people what kind of ordinary books small minds try to ban often.

The community is always allowed to decide for themselves what they will read. Anytime a book is present, they can chose to read it or ignore it.

What they are not allowed to do is to legislate what books others may sell or read.

They can only make the decision for themselves.

IMHO, the library *should* contain racist rantings and anything else controversial. That is what the 1st Amendment protect: unpopular speech, as popular speech really needs no protection :)

Which reminds me. one of the most frequently banned books is Huckleberry Finn, primarily because of the name of one of the characters. Hint: His nickname starts with "N".

For that the "small towns" you speak of would ban that book from its stores and libraries if they could.

Answer 2

You make some interesting points. But you can't forget that the students are part of the community, and therefore should have a say in "community guidelines." If a particular parent has objections to a particular book, then they should have the right to prohibit their minor children from reading them. But they do not have the right to ban the book because they happen to find the material distasteful.

Answer 3

It sounds like you're in favor of banning books. If you see nothing wrong with it, you need to read Ray Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451" if it hasn't been banned by your community. It illustrates exactly where banning and censorship would lead if allowed to proceed unchecked. In the not-too-distant future world of "Fahrenheit 451", ALL books have been banned and it's the job of the Gestapo-like firemen to find and burn all remaining books. Is that what you want?

Books enrich our lives in many ways, by informing us, entertaining us, broadening our minds, and helping us to see the world in new ways. If we banned every book that offends someone, we would soon find ourselves with nothing more challenging than "Thomas the Tank Engine" in our libraries. Soon someone would find fault with it too (discrimination against semi-trailer trucks perhaps) and we'd have nothing to read at all. If people don't want to read a particular book, they don't have to read it. There's no need to ban anything.

Answer 4

Censorship in any circumstance is unconstitutional.

And, you are wrong that a community can make decisions about books. The community can decide what books can be displayed in PUBLIC, tax-payer supported buildings but not in private businesses.