Their consistency problem is even greater than it appears. The whole point of freedom of speech is to protect the two things essential for decision making in a democratic society: expressions of opinion and the provision of information. All other matter are secondary. Personally, I think the people who want to keep To Kill a Mockingbird and Harry Potter out of public libraries would be better off getting a life. Nevertheless, the fact is that these books are products marketed for a profit, and therefore require less protection than the core issues. Also, at some point we have to insist that public libraries spend taxpayers’ money on quality literature (which include these books) rather than trash. But when you come to banning a documentary specifically designed to express an opinion and impart information, and to do so just before an election, you are attacking the fundamental basis of democracy. There is a certain political movement which believes in protecting freedom of speech in the areas where it least matters, and restricting it in matters where it matters most.
There are a few problems with what you’re saying, Malcolm. First, yes, a great part of our 1st Amendment guarantees that the government may not censure you in any way regarding political opinion. However, left unsaid is that government also has a duty to enforce your rights as they apply to me, talking to you. That’s not secondary- it’s essential if we are to have a free flow of ideas, no matter how wonderful or odious. Limiting this to mere political expression would be impossible. Second, I’ve never read the Harry Potter book series (I’m not quite the demographic age, dontcha know), but I have no problem at all with any protection they enjoy in our society. Same with To Kill A Mockingbird. I can only think of a very few books on general public sale that were written without a profit motive. Just because they made some money is not a reason to declare them unworthy of our bet efforts to protect them. It doesn’t take much to decide which stays and which goes, a la Fahrenheit 451. And anyhow, who decides? You? Me?
You can insist on “quality literature” for the Public Library all you want. Again- who decides? What is trash? Ulysses? Huckleberry Finn? Lady Chatterley’s Lover? Canterbury Tales? Those were all considered subversive or worse at one time or another. Before you even start- don’t bother with extreme examples, like the X-Men comics series. We both know better.
My point is, if you subvert the protections for a copy of Prairie Fire (Bill Ayers’ nasty little Anarchic screed) because you think it secondary, you may as well subvert it all, because that protection now isn’t worth the parchment it was written on.
Thank you for your feedback. Personally, I am not in favour of any of these radical ideas. All I was saying was that there is a hierarchy of items requiring protection. In my opinion, if To Kill a Mockingbird had been banned, it would have been a loss to literature, but there is a tremendous lot of good literature out there. You may have to sift away a lot of chaff to find the wheat, but it is out there. Society is not going to suffer as much as if a political opinion or a news item is suppressed. If To Kill a Mockingbird were removed from libraries, that would also be a tragedy for the reading public. Or maybe not. They could still buy it, and an author’s royalties, as I know from experience, are greater than public lending rights. As for who decides what goes into libraries, if the taxpayers are not involved, then it falls to the whim of the librarians. No doubt their judgment is very good 99.9% of the time, but at some point they must be held to account.
I take Malcolm’s point about about being marketed for a profit as indicating that there are people with an economic interest in fighting the censorship of these books. While we should fight censorship in all its forms, that fight costs money and the publishers (and writers) who have an economic interest in their sale are more likely to be willing to spend money to defend them, rather than people who wish to defend general principles and have to make decisions on which fights to pick when there is no profit involved.
Where is the line drawn for censorship? I know a librarian who used the “protect the children from the lead in ink” bit to totally revamp the children’s section of our local library. If you look at what was tossed and what was kept, the “lead” was just an excuse.
All I was saying was that there is a hierarchy of items requiring protection. In my opinion, if To Kill a Mockingbird had been banned, it would have been a loss to literature, but there is a tremendous lot of good literature out there. You may have to sift away a lot of chaff to find the wheat, but it is out there. Society is not going to suffer as much as if a political opinion or a news item is suppressed.
But you see, that’s where my point is. If you take away or reduce the protection for one, you have reduced it for all. There is a difference between personal opinion leading to “this idea is more important to me than that idea” and public opinion leading to the same. Society will suffer because an idea, thought or opinion has been suppressed. Think about it, Malcolm. This applies to not just books. It’s newspaper content, television, magazines, blogs, Sproul Plaza, you name it.
Yah, you’re right. There is a lot of chaff out there. It’s up to you to decide for yourself. But I am not going to let you decide for me. Much as you did, I am going to use my rights to free speech, so I can decide for myself.
You keep pointing to To Kill A Mockingbird. What about that book upsets you so? Or is that simply your analog for your argument?
Bob, I get that publishers do have a dog in that fight. I’m not going to say that society at large should foot the bill for some lawsuit because someone was offended. The larger point I’m trying to make- perhaps I’m overstating it- is that protection of an idea exists within the parameter of free speech, no matter what. It’s up to you to individually choose whether or not to approve or disapprove of an idea. On that, profit motive should not matter. Not in a library, or on the street, or even in your home.
Make the choice on the idea not because that rag of a book cost you however much, but because you don’t like the idea. Hating the book’s cost is merely a symptom. And yah, we all can relate to that.
“Forever Amber” (1944), by Kathleen Winsor: 70 references to sexual intercourse; 39 pregnancies out of wedlock; 7 abortions; 10 descriptions of women undressing in front of men; investigated by 14 states’ Attorneys General; condemned by the Roman Catholic Church as promoting immorality; & banned in Australia.
The result: Over 3,000,000 copies sold; translated into 23 languages; made into a major Hollywood movie; made the author a Millionairess; & it is still in print after over 70 years after it’s initial printing and the attempts to ban it.
9 Comments
And if you like “Madame Secretary” (aka “Helping Hillary”) and oppose Citizens United, you might have a consistency problem.
Their consistency problem is even greater than it appears. The whole point of freedom of speech is to protect the two things essential for decision making in a democratic society: expressions of opinion and the provision of information. All other matter are secondary.
Personally, I think the people who want to keep To Kill a Mockingbird and Harry Potter out of public libraries would be better off getting a life. Nevertheless, the fact is that these books are products marketed for a profit, and therefore require less protection than the core issues. Also, at some point we have to insist that public libraries spend taxpayers’ money on quality literature (which include these books) rather than trash.
But when you come to banning a documentary specifically designed to express an opinion and impart information, and to do so just before an election, you are attacking the fundamental basis of democracy.
There is a certain political movement which believes in protecting freedom of speech in the areas where it least matters, and restricting it in matters where it matters most.
Hey! Free speech in play. Whodathunkit?
There are a few problems with what you’re saying, Malcolm. First, yes, a great part of our 1st Amendment guarantees that the government may not censure you in any way regarding political opinion. However, left unsaid is that government also has a duty to enforce your rights as they apply to me, talking to you. That’s not secondary- it’s essential if we are to have a free flow of ideas, no matter how wonderful or odious. Limiting this to mere political expression would be impossible. Second, I’ve never read the Harry Potter book series (I’m not quite the demographic age, dontcha know), but I have no problem at all with any protection they enjoy in our society. Same with To Kill A Mockingbird. I can only think of a very few books on general public sale that were written without a profit motive. Just because they made some money is not a reason to declare them unworthy of our bet efforts to protect them. It doesn’t take much to decide which stays and which goes, a la Fahrenheit 451. And anyhow, who decides? You? Me?
You can insist on “quality literature” for the Public Library all you want. Again- who decides? What is trash? Ulysses? Huckleberry Finn? Lady Chatterley’s Lover? Canterbury Tales? Those were all considered subversive or worse at one time or another. Before you even start- don’t bother with extreme examples, like the X-Men comics series. We both know better.
My point is, if you subvert the protections for a copy of Prairie Fire (Bill Ayers’ nasty little Anarchic screed) because you think it secondary, you may as well subvert it all, because that protection now isn’t worth the parchment it was written on.
Thank you for your feedback. Personally, I am not in favour of any of these radical ideas. All I was saying was that there is a hierarchy of items requiring protection. In my opinion, if To Kill a Mockingbird had been banned, it would have been a loss to literature, but there is a tremendous lot of good literature out there. You may have to sift away a lot of chaff to find the wheat, but it is out there. Society is not going to suffer as much as if a political opinion or a news item is suppressed.
If To Kill a Mockingbird were removed from libraries, that would also be a tragedy for the reading public. Or maybe not. They could still buy it, and an author’s royalties, as I know from experience, are greater than public lending rights.
As for who decides what goes into libraries, if the taxpayers are not involved, then it falls to the whim of the librarians. No doubt their judgment is very good 99.9% of the time, but at some point they must be held to account.
Bill H:
I take Malcolm’s point about about being marketed for a profit as indicating that there are people with an economic interest in fighting the censorship of these books. While we should fight censorship in all its forms, that fight costs money and the publishers (and writers) who have an economic interest in their sale are more likely to be willing to spend money to defend them, rather than people who wish to defend general principles and have to make decisions on which fights to pick when there is no profit involved.
Bob
Where is the line drawn for censorship? I know a librarian who used the “protect the children from the lead in ink” bit to totally revamp the children’s section of our local library. If you look at what was tossed and what was kept, the “lead” was just an excuse.
All I was saying was that there is a hierarchy of items requiring protection. In my opinion, if To Kill a Mockingbird had been banned, it would have been a loss to literature, but there is a tremendous lot of good literature out there. You may have to sift away a lot of chaff to find the wheat, but it is out there. Society is not going to suffer as much as if a political opinion or a news item is suppressed.
But you see, that’s where my point is. If you take away or reduce the protection for one, you have reduced it for all. There is a difference between personal opinion leading to “this idea is more important to me than that idea” and public opinion leading to the same. Society will suffer because an idea, thought or opinion has been suppressed. Think about it, Malcolm. This applies to not just books. It’s newspaper content, television, magazines, blogs, Sproul Plaza, you name it.
Yah, you’re right. There is a lot of chaff out there. It’s up to you to decide for yourself. But I am not going to let you decide for me. Much as you did, I am going to use my rights to free speech, so I can decide for myself.
You keep pointing to To Kill A Mockingbird. What about that book upsets you so? Or is that simply your analog for your argument?
Bob, I get that publishers do have a dog in that fight. I’m not going to say that society at large should foot the bill for some lawsuit because someone was offended. The larger point I’m trying to make- perhaps I’m overstating it- is that protection of an idea exists within the parameter of free speech, no matter what. It’s up to you to individually choose whether or not to approve or disapprove of an idea. On that, profit motive should not matter. Not in a library, or on the street, or even in your home.
Make the choice on the idea not because that rag of a book cost you however much, but because you don’t like the idea. Hating the book’s cost is merely a symptom. And yah, we all can relate to that.
“Forever Amber” (1944), by Kathleen Winsor: 70 references to sexual intercourse; 39 pregnancies out of wedlock; 7 abortions; 10 descriptions of women undressing in front of men; investigated by 14 states’ Attorneys General; condemned by the Roman Catholic Church as promoting immorality; & banned in Australia.
The result: Over 3,000,000 copies sold; translated into 23 languages; made into a major Hollywood movie; made the author a Millionairess; & it is still in print after over 70 years after it’s initial printing and the attempts to ban it.