Banned Books Week
You might be aware that it’s Banned Books Week, which celebrates the freedom to read and the importance of the First Amendment. As an aspiring author and avid reader, and as a person who grew up in a house where certain things (though not books) were censored, it’s always an interesting time for me to reflect.
My family never banned books. I was always free to read whatever I wanted, which I usually bought at Waldenbooks or borrowed from the library. That means that the Babysitters’ Club and Sweet Valley High gang are near and dear to my heart, along with the characters from The Rain Catchers, Summer of My German Soldier, Jacob Have I Loved, and many other books. But there were certain TV shows I wasn’t allowed to watch: just about anything on MTV besides the actual music videos was forbidden (no Beavis and Butt-head for me), and certain Nickelodeon shows were also off-limits, like Ren and Stimpy. I wasn’t allowed to watch The Simpsons, which means that every reference to that show is completely lost on me. (Apparently it was a pretty seminal show for my friends, who just shake their heads when I stare blankly at them.)
I’m still not sure how I feel about that situation. Do I think I would be a better person, or that I somehow missed out on something, by not being allowed to watch Beavis and Butt-head? Of course not. But I am uneasy with restricting people’s freedom, and that’s exactly what people who seek to have copies of Laurie Halse Anderson books pulled from the shelves are doing.
Nathan Bransford had a good post on the subject which concluded with a lot of questions:
Censorship and book-banning was certainly an important issue pre-Internet, when libraries and bookstores (if you were lucky enough to have both) were the only places where books could really be acquired. But these days the Internet has made any book readily available. Is the issue of censorship as pressing as it used to be, when the banning of HUCK FINN at a library meant a kid really couldn’t read it? Is the [Wall Street Journal] editorial correct that if censorship means actually suppressing a book’s availability, it is moot in the Internet age?
And perhaps more importantly, where is the line between parental and public discretion vs. censorship? Should public libraries stock everything and let patrons decide what is inappropriate? What about books that, say, incite prejudice or that the majority of a community feels is inappropriate for children?
I get what he’s saying about Internet ubiquity diluting the debate over censorship. But it’s important to remember that not every person has Internet access and that removing Huck Finn from the shelves of an inner-city middle school is probably very effective at shutting down a child’s chance to read it.
As to the line between parental and public discretion vs. censorship: it’s a matter of freedom to me, like I said earlier. I think that if a school librarian has decided to place a certain book in her library, it should be available to students based on their age and maturity level. Does this mean that ten-year-olds should be reading Speak? No, probably not. But fourteen-year-olds should be. And I don’t think a parent has any right to forbid a child—theirs, or anyone else’s—from reading it.
Also, if you’re in Pittsburgh or thereabouts, come to the Banned Books Reading at the Carnegie Library in Oakland, sponsored by the Library, the ACLU and WYEP. I’ll be there and it sounds like a lot of fun! Tonight at 7 PM in the Lecture Hall. Be there!
