Today, I want to talk about a topic that's usually avoided: censorship. Where did censorship come from? It started back in Ancient Rome, with the office of the censor, where "{the} officer, who conducted the census, regulated the morals of the citizens counted and classified" ("Censorship"). Ever since Ancient Rome, the connotations of 'censorship' have changed over the years, but one thing is clear: it is considered a topic of moral debate for whoever takes a side. When it began, it started as keeping track of citizens' morals around the different parts of the Roman Empire and was considered a noble office. It used to be said that generally, whatever is not expressly forbidden by law, is permitted by the public as long as it doesn't cause harm to oneself or others (including opinions). "Thus, as Leo Strauss [an American philosopher] the quarrel between the Ancients and Moderns then concerns [...] the status of 'individuality'" (Britannica, "Censorship"). The issue of censorship itself, then, goes into the debate and complicated relationship between the individual citizen and the state- or the government itself. To explore this topic some more, I want to take you on a little trip through time, exploring all the different ways people have tried to stifle education, to stifle individual liberties, and creative voices- the stories of the people.
The first stop is in London, England. The time is October 1928. World War I was over, and we saw economic growth and prosperity on both sides of the ocean. However, it was still very unequal in terms of education or gender in general. There is a letter I read to the Editor of the Times of London, from an Alexander Herbert, who it seems is just a concerned citizen and parent. There were some valid points made on what constitutes "immorality" and what is allowed to be published and viewed in schools for children. Herbert reviews:
"our moral reformers seem to have in mind only one department of misbehaviour. They complain that they see nothing but "sex" in the modern novel: and serious writers are entitled to complain that there is too much "sex" in many of their sermons. For the majority of the population [...] about books, and seeing plays, about successful murders, robberies, and embezzlements, about charming crooks and attractive burglars. [...] Does the Home Secretary think so many murders are good for "the little ones"? [...] And I wish to assure the Home Secretary that my wife and I are capable of watching over our family's reading without any Jixotic assistance from him. But I fear it is no use talking; and very soon, I suppose, we shall see him tilting fearlessly at John Stuart Mill.*
(*"We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavouring to stifle is a false opinion; and even if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still." -J.S. Mill)
Herbert shows us a glimpse into the literature of the time period, and that it isn't really different from today's time period. People were just fine to read about successful murders or robberies, and yet things of a "sexual or immoral" nature became banned or censored. As Herbert also noted, none of these topics are really suitable for children, but when the government bans something it affects everyone. This also looks at the debate between families and the government, and who knows better for their children. Families themselves should be able to decide what is allowed in each household or in each age group. Herbert also points out that just like today, a lot of times people that write letters with opinions are not heard where they need to be heard, but he still chose to write a letter to make his points in the paper. The quote from John Stuart Mill was also a nice touch- Mill makes the point that stifling voices is bad form, no matter what kind of voice it is. Stifling voices is already a recurring theme in censorship, and we haven't left England yet.
Next, we "hop over the pond" to Germany, a more well-known and "hot" time. I found this picture as it illustrates an important milestone here- 100 years have just passed since the first book burning in Nazi Germany. In Germany, we go back 10 years earlier to 1918: Kaiser Wilhelm abdicated power in Germany at the end of WWI. He is of importance here, as many historians consider him to be the most responsible for the outbreak of this war. Wilhelm envisioned an empire of Germany "so that the German people could enjoy their "place in the sun" (Llewellyn and Thompson). This man had controversy surrounding him like bears to a beehive full of honey- known as strong-willed, impatient, racist, stereotypical, and throwing out inflammatory remarks that continued to add to rising European tensions in the years before the War officially started.
Okay! I started with a brief background to understand what kind of leadership Germany just finished with; in August of 1919, the Weimar Constitution "promised Germans both the right to free speech and freedom from censorship" (Ritzheimer 1). I found a book that was intriguing on this topic: 'Trash,' Censorship, and National Identity in Early Twentieth-Century Germany, and this book delves into the topics that the government so eloquently contradicts itself in its own Articles of Constitution. Here's an excerpt:
"Article 118 declared: “Every German has the right, within general statutory limitations, to express his opinion freely by word of mouth, writing, printing, picture or otherwise. No relationship of labor or employment may hinder him in this right, and no one may wrong him if he makes use of this right. ” In both spirit and practice, this [...] the repeal of censorship that Germany’s postwar interim government had issued on November 12, 1918, just one day [...] following Kaiser Wilhelm II’s abdication. But Article 118 contained two additional and significant sentences that read: “ A censorship is not had; however, divergent provisions for moving pictures may be made by statute. And statutory measures are permissible for the suppression of trashy and obscene literature, and for the protection of young persons in public performances and exhibitions. ” In the space of two sentences, Weimar lawmakers distinguished between films and free speech, constitutionalized the suppression of smut, and opened the door to laws restricting young people’s access to commercial culture" (Ritzheimer 1). The German Constitution effectively contradicted themselves and made it lawful to say they're not censoring, but then turns around and says that it is "for the good of the people".. so then the question becomes one of choice agan- what constitutes as "trashy or obscene," (normally it is self-explanatory, but I'm thinking of all the different perspectives in the world), and the whole "protection of young persons in public performances and exhibitions"... we are seeing a lot of similar comments that Herbert had to deal with in London. The government and the news take over what is and is not allowed, "for their own protection," or "for the common / national good." The German law makers use this to fuel their ideas of "trash" books and that things are "not acceptable" for people, and so they get burned, or banned, or otherwise destroyed. This book goes into detail about a lot of things, which while they are really interesting on this topic, I have to abbreviate for lack of space here- but I want to detail that it has to do with words... the rhetoric that is used. The way leaders speak and change words, using their rhetoric to make things sound even better than they are.
Now, being a huge science fiction fan, I cannot let the opportunity pass without a Star Wars reference. The meme this film comes from, Episode III: The Revenge of the Sith, is a bridge of storyline between the newer movies and the original series that changed the world of cinema; it serves as the backdrop of war and imperialism, and consequently has one of my favorite quotes here- we, the audience, see the dark times in the movie- evil is taking over the known universe, with the Emperor at the helm of the new government. The Emperor disguises this new rhetoric as "ensuring security" and "helping the people." The senators that are watching on, that know the truth, are dismayed as to what will come. While Star Wars has become a popular staple of society, some of its themes that discuss Imperialism and how rhetoric can change society are tied to censorship itself and how they restrict society.
Speaking of restricting society, there is another immensely popular and debated novel that is almost a hundred years old- Fahrenheit 451, by Ray Bradbury. Fahrenheit 451 is set in a dystopian society, where books are burned to control "dangerous ideas", and when the central character starts to question things, he undergoes a great transformation himself. This book is a great "makes you think" book, and takes a look at the parallels with our current society, and the things that we do question, or why other things that happen that aren't questioned. For example, the main character's wife has a drug overdose at the beginning of the book; there are no more doctors, they say because overdoses are so common. They pump her stomach and give her a blood transfusion. She has no memory of any of this the next day; she is completely detached from her emotions, and events happening. When books are discovered in this society, firemen are called to come to the houses to burn them. People gather to talk about superficial things and watch "entertainment" on wall-to-wall screens; they don't want to talk about anything 'real' or they shut down their emotions, and their brains.
How did book burning get started in this dystopian society? Beatty, the main character's boss, talks about it being not the government at all. "Beatty, justifying the burning of books, says that "we can't have our minorities upset and stirred" (p. 59). What the people want, Beatty argues, is safe speech, not hate speech; they want "pleasure" and "titillation" (p. 59). Books should be burned because they make us think about unpleasant things like racial stereotypes, prejudice, and repression" (Somers 902). Unfortunately, some of this sounds familiar to our real readers: while it's true, that we don't want to upset anyone, the question becomes, where do we draw the line? Everyone gets upset by different things and different experiences. This book caused a huge uproar in schools and libraries and still does today. Why, though? The debate is on what is acceptable for kids to read, or in what age groups it becomes acceptable... funny enough, we saw the same argument in 1928 London.
The term most popular today is "book challenge"- what happens in the process to get a book banned? Quite often, all the sides think they're right, and it's a fine line in the middle in trying to make everyone satisfied. I took a closer look at some of the books around the school systems because that's where we hear about it the most in the news.
We have the teachers themselves, the students, school principals, parents, librarians., and then if things get bad enough, the courts, "Usually by the time a book challenge reaches the legal system, a number of things have gone wrong; most importantly, those concerned feel they haven't been heard or respected, [...]. Each side believes itself to be right: they are defending classroom, school, or school board autonomy, intellectual freedom, community values, and ultimately, the Constitution" (Town 6). In reading through some of this book "Unsuitable" Books: Young Adult Fiction and Censorship, delve into some of the finer points of why so many books get challenged. So many opposing viewpoints and nobody wants to leave anyone upset; as the times are changing with society, the topics that are most heated change also. I want to end this discussion by looking at the most recent list of books here: I looked at the top most challenged books for 2022, and it lists why they are challenged, and by whom. In the last year, the American Library Association (ALA) tracked 1,269 challenges to the library and public school/ university materials; of the top 13 listed, over half were cited for LGBTQ+ content, along with claiming to be sexually explicit, or profanity, or including sex education. Today, all the hot topics in literature are not "new" by any means, but more and more people are pushing to be heard and let their voices be heard, and so we get more pushback from those who would stifle voices, who would use their rhetoric "for the good of the people." Personally, I would rather be a voice for freedom and equality than a person that quiets those or burns pages.
- Here is a link to the American Library Association where they talk about challenged books, their research, how to support them, and any other info about their association.
- On the other side of the argument, see this article on many different reasons why books should be banned.
Works Cited and Referenced
Anastaplo, George. "censorship". Encyclopedia Britannica, 26 May. 2023, https://www.britannica.com/topic/censorship. Accessed 4 June 2023.
Collis. “Top 13 Most Challenged Books of 2022.” Advocacy, Legislation & Issues, 24 Apr. 2023, www.ala.org/advocacy/bbooks/frequentlychallengedbooks/top10.
Herbert, A. P. Censorship of Books: To the Editor of the Times. Times of London] (Newspaper). Alexander Street, https://search.alexanderstreet.com/view/work/bibliographic_entity%7Cbibliographic_details%7C2235542.
Llewellyn, Jennifer, and Steve Thompson. “Kaiser Wilhelm II.” Alphahistory.Com, 10 Oct. 2019, alphahistory.com/worldwar1/kaiser-wilhelm-ii/#:~:text=Kaiser%20Wilhelm%20II%20was%20the,outbreak%20of%20war%20in%201914.
Lucas, George, director. Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. Lucasfilm Ltd., 2005.
Ritzheimer, Kara L. “Trash,” Censorship, and National Identity in Early Twentieth-Century Germany. Cambridge University Press, 2016.
Smolla, Rodney A. “The Life of the Mind and a Life of Meaning: Reflections on ‘Fahrenheit 451.’” Michigan Law Review, vol. 107, no. 6, 2009, pp. 895–912.
Somers, Jeffrey. "Fahrenheit 451 Summary." ThoughtCo, Aug. 28, 2020, thoughtco.com/fahrenheit-451-summary-4176865.
Town, Caren J. “Unsuitable” Books : Young Adult Fiction and Censorship. McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, 2014.
Comments