From the beginning of the written word, authorities have applied censorship or banned controversial literary works, such as those opposing political subjects, containing obscene sexual content, and promoting alternative lifestyles like LGBTQ+. Books were banned in the United States even before it was the United States. The first was published in 1637 by Thomas Morton; the book, titled New English Canaan, was banned because it challenged the customs and traditions of the Puritan community. Authorities try to do what is best for the communities by banning possibly damaging and influential literary works. Opponents of censorship and the banning of literary works fight for intellectual freedom, moral obligation, and the safety of all Earth’s inhabitants.
People have a right to know and should make their own decision about whether to read literature, but not decide for others. This is also the case for parents when it comes to children and young adult literature, which is usually the main focus of book banning in the current United States. While people in favor of banning books are well-meaning toward the targeted audience, this type of authority can be easily abused. This was the case in Australia between 1934-1937, when T.W. White, the Customs Minister, focused on banning communist books. It has been found that T.W. White’s motivations for banning communist materials were instilled in him during his World War II wartime captivity, and he later fled with Russian anti-communists. This is an ideal example of how authorities can take advantage of the power over those with different lifestyles, ideals, and beliefs.
Having intellectual freedom allows people to experience new ideals, empathize with different perspectives, and, my personal favorite, feel less alone about their own situation. One side touts the First Amendment right in the U.S. Constitution, especially because those who drafted this iconic document were persecuted for writing and distributing material that would spark rebellion among colonists against the British Empire. There have been numerous U.S. Supreme Court cases that have addressed this very subject. Many were instigated by parents or the school board, or both, who banned books they believed were not safe for children. Teachers and the children themselves would fight and appeal the banning or censorship actions, citing the 1st and 10th Amendments: freedom of speech and freedom of expression. The most notable case was Tinker v. Des Moines School District, where it is said that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse” (Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 1969).
Those with access to various subjects should allow others to use them. We have a moral obligation to teach our youth about the real world and cultures that aren’t just outside their doorstep. We also have a moral obligation to learn these things ourselves so that we become better human beings to each other. For example, in my personal experience, I was a leader in the Army Reserve when President Obama repealed any restrictions for trans persons to serve in the military. So, I learned as much as I could to understand these people so that I could support them better. If I were restricted from those subjects, being from a conservative Christian and Republican household, being trans is against their beliefs and principles. Without access to knowledge about their lives, I wouldn’t be able to assist my Soldiers whom I have a moral obligation to support as their leader.
Now revisiting the Australian Censorship example, had the United States adopted the same example regarding books about communism, Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) Harold G. Moore, Jr., may not have been so successful in the Vietnam War. LTC Moore’s moral obligation to the safety and welfare of his men was his reason for researching how the French attempted to control the Vietnam region. He, himself, stated, “Through greater detailed preparations the 7th Cavalry rose above others, they understood the people, the tactics, and history of the area of Vietnam” (LTC Moore leads 7th Cavalry, n.d.). LTC Moore’s leadership during the Battle of the Ia Drang Valley (also known as the Valley of Death) is viewed as a success because his battalion held its ground despite being greatly overwhelmed by the enemy.
A third example from Australian censorship: T.W. White’s list of censored literary materials as confidential and not released to the public. Banning or censorship of literary works should not be done for the health and welfare of all inhabitants of the Earth. So, the Australian citizens would be completely ignorant of the existence of such material, which means if there was ever any violent action against Australia by a communist country, or organization, or in reverse, the Australian citizens would not truly understand anything about this enemy. This would be as misguided as the Battle of New Orleans, which happened after the treaty to end the War of 1812.
The omission of literary works can have dangerous effects, no more dangerous than the lack of distribution of climate change information. The subject of climate change is often politicized, and government administrators have been known to influence the distribution of such material. The first known scientific fact to be censored or banned involved Galileo, and the question of who it was about. In the past couple of decades, scientists have found themselves restricted about the subject of climate change. “James Hansen, the [former] head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who has vociferously complained in the media of being silenced by the Bush administration for his research on global warming” (Murray, 2006). Sadly, after the presidential election of 2020, the facts of climate change became even more politicized and used as a polarizing argument between political parties. Despite whatever you may think about climate change, the effects of ignoring these facts may be fatal.
Those who fight censorship and the banning of literary works cite intellectual freedom, moral obligation, and the overall health and safety of all inhabitants of Earth as reasons to continue the fight. History is full of mistakes, research, and analysis that are vital to the overall welfare of the human race, and the exclusion of this information can lead to fatality.
Sources
Joel Barnes. “The Right to Read: The Book Censorship Abolition League, 1934–37.” Labor History: A Journal of Labor and Social History, no. 107, Nov. 2014, pp. 75–93. EBSCOhost, https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/eds/detail/detail?vid=2&sid=00c22815-b73a-41f6-97b4-c1dbf71d3d6a%40sessionmgr4008&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=edsjsr.10.5263.labourhistory.107.0075&db=edsjsr.
Lieutenant Colonel Moore leads 7th Cavalry into La Drang Valley (n.d.). The University of Richmond. https://historyengine.richmond.edu/episodes/view/5269
Murray, I. (2006). Eco-Censorship: The Effort to Thwart the Climate Change Debate. The New Atlantis, 14, 134–137. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43152294
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969). https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/21
The Banned Book Reviewer 
Leave a comment