Why censorship should be banned

Book banning, the most widespread form of censorship, occurs when private individuals, government officials, or organizations remove books from libraries, school reading lists, or bookstore shelves because they object to their content, ideas, or themes. Those advocating a ban complain typically that the book in question contains graphic violence, expresses disrespect for parents and family, is sexually explicit, exalts evil, lacks literary merit, is unsuitable for a particular age group, or includes offensive language.

The rally protested censorship by school and public libraries of certain books under pressure from right wing religious groups. Book banning, a form of censorship , occurs when private individuals, government officials, or organizations remove books from libraries , school reading lists, or bookstore shelves because they object to their content, ideas, or themes. Advocates for banning a book or certain books fear that children will be swayed by its contents, which they regard as potentially dangerous.

They commonly fear that these publications will present ideas, raise questions, and incite critical inquiry among children that parents, political groups, or religious organizations are not ready to address or that they find inappropriate. Most challenges and bans prior to the s focused primarily on obscenity and explicit sexuality. Common targets included D.

In the late s, attacks were launched on ideologies expressed in books. Often, the complaints arose from individual parents or school board members. At other times, however, the pressure to censor came from such public interest groups as the Moral Majority. Censorship — the suppression of ideas and information — can occur at any stage or level of publication, distribution, or institutional control.

Some pressure groups claim that the public funding of most schools and libraries makes community censorship of their holdings legitimate. In the landmark case New York Times v.

United States, the Court overturned a court order stopping the newspaper from continuing to print excerpts from the "Pentagon Papers", saying such prior restraint was unconstitutional.

In this June 30, file picture, workers in the New York Times composing room in New York look at a proof sheet of a page containing the secret Pentagon report on Vietnam. Censorship occurs when individuals or groups try to prevent others from saying, printing, or depicting words and images. Censors seek to limit freedom of thought and expression by restricting spoken words, printed matter, symbolic messages, freedom of association, books, art, music, movies, television programs, and Internet sites.

When the government engages in censorship, First Amendment freedoms are implicated. Private actors — for example, corporations that own radio stations — also can engage in forms of censorship, but this presents no First Amendment implications as no governmental, or state, action is involved. Various groups have banned or attempted to ban books since the invention of the printing press. Rowling and Judy Blume.

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and press, integral elements of democracy. Since Gitlow v. New York , the Supreme Court has applied the First Amendment freedoms of speech and press to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Kuhlmeier that school officials have broad power of censorship over student newspapers. Finley, used with permission from the Associated Press. Freedom of speech and press are not, however, absolute. Over time, the Supreme Court has established guidelines, or tests, for defining what constitutes protected and unprotected speech.

Among them are:. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Categories of unprotected speech also include:. Determining when defamatory words may be censored has proved to be difficult for the Court, which has allowed greater freedom in remarks made about public figures than those concerning private individuals.

In New York Times Co. Sullivan , the Court held that words can be libelous written or slanderous spoken in the case of public officials only if they involve actual malice or publication with knowledge of falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth. Lampooning has generally been protected by the Court. In Hustler Magazine v. Falwell , for example, the Court held that the magazine had not slandered Rev.

On the issue of press freedoms, the Court has been reluctant to censor publication of even previously classified materials, as in New York Times v. United States — the Pentagon Papers case — unless the government can provide an overwhelming reason for such prior restraint. The Court has accepted some censorship of the press when it interferes with the right to a fair trial, as exhibited in Estes v. Texas and Sheppard v. Maxwell , but the Court has been reluctant to uphold gag orders , as in the case of Nebraska Press Association v.

Stuart In Chaplinsky v. Since the backlash against so-called political correctness, however, liberals and conservatives have fought over what derogatory words may be censored and which are protected by the First Amendment. In its early history, the Supreme Court left it to the states to determine whether materials were obscene.

Acting on its decision in Gitlow v. New York to apply the First Amendment to limit state action, the Warren Court subsequently began dealing with these issues in the s on a case-by-case basis and spent hours examining material to determine obscenity. In Miller v. California , the Burger Court finally adopted a test that elaborated on the standards established in Roth v.

United States Miller defines obscenity by outlining three conditions for jurors to consider:. In the s, some individuals thought anti-war songs should be censored. In the s, the emphasis shifted to prohibiting sexual and violent lyrics.

In general, rap and hard-core rock-n-roll have faced more censorship than other types of music. Sexual education is watered down until it is practically worthless because parents might be offended at sexual references in school, and classic books like The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn are being banned in some areas because they have racial references that might offend some people.

The Effects of Censorship. While the attempt to keep children pure for as long as possible is admirable, it takes the form of leaving gaping holes in their education, if not academically, then about life. A child who grows up with no sex education will not have the knowledge of birth control or sexually transmitted diseases that could help keep her safe should she choose not to follow that particular piece of advice.

Worse, the only education on sex that she will have learned is the whispered advice of schoolyard friends. Without proper sex education, our girls may grow up believing rumors that they hear that may or may not be true. Censorship in schools can also lead to a narrow worldview with holes in the cultural and international education of our children. If a child does not know from literary examples that African Americans were ever abused in our society, then how will those same children understand the implications of marches or rallies for black rights in modern society, or the struggles that people of color still go through to be treated as equals in all ways?

These restrictive worldviews are the seeds of bigotry, with the implication being that anyone who believes differently from you must be foolish or misinformed. In our international economy with interactions on many levels with diverse individuals, this kind of closed-minded worldview is one that will not be tolerated for long. The businessperson who cannot relate to those of a different religion will not last long in any modern business looking to expand internationally.

Censorship in schools seems to come from a desire to ensure that our children grow up making the choices and following the beliefs that we desire for them by removing any other options. This may ensure that those children conform with our beliefs in the short run, but the risk is that they will react with hostility to those same ideas years later when they are exposed to other opinions.

Many would argue that a gay child who is not exposed to information about homosexuality may behave in a way that he is told is proper at first. Eventually, he will hear about homosexuality from someone and will be all the more upset at his former enforced ignorance of the subject, yet no less likely to act on his desires from then on. This is a matter of opinion and not of solid fact, but it is one that should be taken into account when we think about the potential effects of censorship in schools.