Censorship
Below is a general appraisal of censorship: What it is, what forms it takes, and the general motivations of individuals and groups to engage in the practice. Why would someone object to a particular work, particularly Bridge to Terabithia? What individuals or groups engage in the practice?
What is Censorship?
Censorship is the suppression or removal of something in order to make it unavailable to an individiual or group. Although in the context of this website it applies to books, in a general sense of the word the banned item could be anything physical; persons, currency, automobiles, or paintings for example. It could also be an activitiy; sewing, singing or even marriage could be forbidden. It is usually practiced when an item or action is deemd bad, dangerous, or objectional in some fashion.
The term "censor" originated in ancient Rome. The censor was an official responsible for taking the public census. He was also charged with supervising public behavior and restricting that which was objectionable or immoral. Today, these two duties have been separated into distinctly separate activities. And it is still practiced, to a greater or lesser degree, across the span of society's endeavers.
Types of Censorship
Styles, or types of censorship can be fitted into two distinct categories: Direct Censorship and Self-Censorship. Although they contain differences, the origin and end result are the same for both.
Direct Censorship
This is the form that most people are familiar with. A book is found to be objectionable and attempts are made to remove it from circulation. This normally has a very polarizing effect; often it results in an emotional battle between those wishing to remove the work and those trying to preserve it
Self Censorship
This is the “silent” form of censorship; it is a direct result of direct censorship and is actually the deadlier form. After attempts are made to directly censor material, individuals become afraid of attacks because of potential controversy or harrassment and so avoid it. From the censorship standpoint, this is the more efficient and effective method because material is never placed in circulation. Books are not written, not placed in circulation and as a result are never read at all.
A Personal Position on Censorship
"I am opposed to any form of tyranny over the mind of man."
-Thomas Jefferson
Censorship has no place in any civilized society.
A society is composed of individuals. One of the key qualities that separate it from anarchy of individuals is communication. This brings it into being; each member works both for their own survival and the good of the group as a whole. Ideas and creativity are the food upon which it feeds. Like a young plant, it will grow only as much as it is given food and water.
Censorship runs counters this. Instead of nourishing the culture, it strangles it by cutting off the lifeblood of ideas. Removing alternative paths of though, regardless of good or bad, places that culture on an unswerving, unthinking path that has only one destination. As the world changes, the society cannot; it stagnates, begins to decay and eventually succumbs.
At the heart of all censorship actions lays the same basic motivations: fear and control. Ideas that are foreign to what individuals are used to threaten the status quo. Healthy, rational societies can inspect the ideas, compare them to ones already embraced, determine their worth, and accept or reject them at will. Unthinking cultures instead of examining it compare it to a predetermine standard which determines if it is “good” or “bad.” If the former, it is accepted; the latter is rejected, from which stems censorship. This is also the basis of “moral” societies, which tend to be fixed and inflexible. If societies or nations were a single homogenous mix, moralistic guidelines might not have quite as severe impact as they do now. Unfortunately, there are countless subcultures, each with their own moral standards. When brought together, these differing standards run counter to each other and so create conflict.
Those in power also use censorship to control and dominate those under them. This includes both domination of individuals and subgroups. Control of information is historically a primary tool. If the populace is kept ignorant of alternatives, they are more easily subjugated. Books which contain idea which undermine the official stance are a direct threat and are therefore censored. This concept is beautifully illustrated in the Academic American Encyclopedia from Prodigy on-line:
“Censorship has been practice in both the narrower and the broader senses as long as there have been organized cultures. Those societies which have been the most confident of their principles and of the loyalty of their members have allowed the greatest freedom from censorship, for they have been the least fearful of the consequences of dissent. In societies whose values have not been fully accepted by their people or whose leadership rests on shaky foundations, the heaviest hand of censorship has fallen.”
Controlling the flow of information is not new; it has been practiced for centuries. Entire populations, from medieval peasants to slaves were intentionally left illiterate because they were easier to control. Originally, books were difficult and expensive to produce; possession of them was a rarity normally reserved for the privileged. When the Gutenberg press was introduced with movable type in 1440, books could suddenly be produced quickly and inexpensively enough for the common person to acquire them. Plus, other printed medium such as papers and broadsheets could be printed and mass distributed. By the 17th century, European governments and the Catholic Church were attempting to regulate and control use of printing presses because they allowed widespread dissemination of information and ideas. One printer was burned at the stake in 1546; hundreds of others were imprisoned.
This is a repeating cycle. In the last decade, governments have been attempting to exert control over the internet because it allows free, unfettered access to ideas and information. More than once it has been referred to as the “Wild West” of the information age; the main argument given is that uncontrolled communication and commerce is dangerous and must be reined in. The time, place and medium are different, but the concept and intention is identical. Of course, this also leads one to ask who is placed in jeopardy by this free flow of data. Ideas in themselves are not dangerous; even bad ideas hold no harm. Free thinking individuals can recognize and reject bad ideas. Sheep need to be protected, not rational thinking people.
There is, of course, a difference between restriction and censorship. Free flow of information does not mean everyone should have access to everything. This is one of the tight wires that governments must traverse. Some information must be restricted in order to avoid placing citizens or the country in jeopardy, especially in times of war. Things such as troop movements, strategic plans, and other sensitive material could prove fatal to the country if given to a hostile enemy. The cry of “Censorship of the press” is often raised in these situations. However, the value of free flow of this sort of information must be balanced against potential harm to the nation and its citizens. The government would be fulfilling its duty of protecting its citizens by restricting this flow of sensitive information. When times of national urgency are over, such urgent measures should be relaxed. Even then, however, there would still be some data that should be kept within protected channels to safeguard the citizens and the state. This is not censorship; it is protection. Citizens, however, should be free of any restrictions on what they read and write.
Societies that are healthy are composed of healthy, free thinking individuals. Unfettered communication and exchange of ideas indicate that it is vibrant and growing. Conversely, the level of censorship is a direct index of the internal rot present. The banning of books cuts off the cultural lifeblood of a civilization and sooner or later, will cause its demise.
Motivations Behind Book BansThere are a myriad of reasons for wanting to remove books from circulation. Governments, and some groups such as religious orders, seek to maintain their power and position and clamp down on perceived threats. Individuals, on the other hand, have more personal reasons which, while they vary greatly, can be summarized into a few distinct groups. 1. Nearly all complaints are raised because the material in question violates either religious moral standards or cultural norms. While statistics provided by the American Library Association show that religion is rarely given as a reason for book challenging, it is the underlying factor in the majority of cases. 2. The main objectionable topic is “sexual content,” which spurs nearly one-third of all complaints. In surveys, homosexuality has been counted as a separate category, although it should be included here. The second major offense is offensive language. This is understandably vague; terms are offensive based on how they are used and how the reader interprets them. While some are agreed upon as vulgar according to dictionary definitions, some go to extreme (as in the case of Bridge to Terabithia) to protest the use of an ordinary word because it was used in what they consider an irreverent fashion. Together, these two categories currently account for six out of every ten book challenges. There are other reasons, but they are minor. Examples include: -Unsuitable for age group -Racial references -Violence -Political viewpoint -Religious reasons Aside from age unsuitability, these reasons show up less than 1 in 10 times. Of course, individuals have different tastes, expectations and viewpoints. It is impossible to universally please everyone with a single idea. If challenges are raised to works such as “Winnie the Pooh,”, “Where’s Waldo?” and Dr. Seuss’ “The Lorax,” then certainly there will be protest against a work addressing or even touching upon any serious social issue. When people experience something that runs counter to their personal moral code, the impulse is to quash it. The actual objection may vary, but it can all be traced back to the protester’s personal beliefs. |
Reasons for Banning "Bridge to Terabithia"Since it's publication in 1977, Katherine Paterson's book has garnered both praise and condemnation. The reasons given for wanting the book banned have varied greatly. However, they can be grouped into five basic categories. Below is a summary of objections given to the book, and factual information drawn from examination of the story itself. 1. Death as an Integral Part of the Plot. The accepted storyline of most books and movies is that forces of good prevail, and forces of bad are punished. If someone is killed, it is those on the side of evil. Good, lovable characters as a rule do not die. Occasionally this does happen, usually in “noir” films; and virtually never in children’s stories. John Wayne, for example starred in hundreds of films during his career. Out of these, only seven ended with his death. It is the exception, rather than the rule, for the protagonist to die. This does not make a bad story, but it is considered unacceptable in general by literary standards. For this reason, John Paterson found it difficult to market his screenplay. A number of studios insisted that it be rewritten so Leslie did not die, and rejected the story as written. 2. Promotion of Non-Christian Beliefs. There is no promotion of non-Christian religion in the story. In fact, there are only two reference to religion. The first is when Leslie wants to go to church with the Aarons. She discusses how much she liked the story of Jesus; Jess’ sisters are appalled that she takes a logical, objective view of the crucifixion instead of a reverent one. This is not critical of religion but of unthinking dogma. Yet it is the suggestion of other viewpoints that can be considered to border on heresy and heathenism. The second reference was when Jess’ father was consoling him after Leslie’s death; he states “God ain’t gonna send no little girls to hell.” 3. Combining Fantasy with Reality. Oddly enough, there is not even really part of the story. Granted, they have created a fantasy world that they rule together. But this is simply a game of “let’s pretend”, in reality no worse than the story of Snow White. They live and deal with the real world around them, and then retreat to Terabithia to play; they successfully separate the two. There is no mention of fantasy creatures, no magic anywhere in the story. 4. Objectionable language & profanity. In the conventional sense, there is no profanity of any kind in the book. None of the common terms. The only conceivable objection would be using the word “Lord” outside the context of a prayer. 5. Disrespect Shown by Children to Adults. There is some disrespect only by children towards their parents. But this is primarily from Jess’ sisters, and it is given as a negative example, much like Cinderalla’s evil stepsisters. Jess and Leslie on the other hand are very respectful. Jess does assigned chores on a regular basis, listens to directions given him, helps Mrs. Burke with house renovations. The story even includes his concern to get Christmas presents for family members and Leslie. If one actually reads and examines the book, it can be seen that most of the objections are entirely groundless. The only point which has any real merit is inclusion of death as a major plot component. Most of the remaining allegations are groundless, and many are not even included in the story. Of course, the story could also be accused of accurately depicting reality, which is probably the true source of the protests. |
CENSORSHIP GROUPS, PRO AND CON
Individuals may successfully fight for or against censorship, but alone it usually requires tremendous effort. Persons with the conviction, resources and stamina to do this are rare. So although objections raise may originate from an individual, the greatest impacts are created by groups dedicated to forwarding their censorship ideals, whether positive or negative. Pooling of time, resources and talent, these organizations forward their intentions much further than any solitary citizen could hope to imagine. Therefore it is good to know that they exist; they are a formidable presence in the censorship battle.
A cursory search quickly reveals that there are almost as many censorship organizations (both pro and con) as there are reasons to banish. Therefore, this is not a complete list of organizations, but a sampling to give an idea of the kinds of groups that currently exist to service needs of concerned individuals.
Anti-Censorship Groups
Just as there are a myriad of pro-censorship groups, there are just as many working to preserve literary freedom. A quick search reveals one website (“The File Room”) listing over 60 organizations actively working against censorship.A few of the more powerful & well known groups are:
American Booksellers Association. Resists attempts to restrict publication of material and promotes freedom of the press. Admittedly this is based on commercial interested, but the end result is attempts to eliminate censorship. American Civil Liberties Union. A national, non-profit organization dedicated to preserving individual liberties guaranteed by the United States Constitution. This includes freedom of the press. American Library Association. This national association promotes freedom of access to everyone and resists attempts to ban or restrict written material in libraries. Their website is an excellent resource for information and they are very active in impartially promoting freedom of the press. A few other regional, national and international organizations of note are: American Society of Journalists and Authors Amnesty International ArtFBI Article 19 Authors League of America Center for Civic Education People for the American Way The Artists of Refuse & Resist The most common factor among these is that they are not promoting freedoms "for" anyone or anything. Just freedom of the press and free access to information and material. |
Pro-Censorship Groups
This is a short sampling of some of the regional and national organizations directly or indirectly promoting some form of censorship. It should be noted that in many cases, censorship is not a primary goal but rather a tool used to forward their personal objectives.
American Center for Law and Justice. Promotes Christian freedoms and legal rights while attacking activities and ideals outside their personal beliefs. Focus on the Family. Promotes a pro-religious lifestyle while condemning various activities and publications including “pornography”, which is considered “addicting.” The Constitution Party. Among their many goals, promotes censorship and a pro-Christian government and society. Some additional organizations that reportedly practice or promote censorship are:
|
It is interesting to note that regardless of their objectives, none of these organizations state that they are in favor of censorship. All claim they are working towards freedoms of one sort or another. To determine the exact motives and intentions of these groups, it requires careful inspection of their literature.
Fortunately, there are subtle indications that can be looked for. Pro-censorship groups claim to advocate liberty and freedoms. Couched within these statements will be indications that these freedoms are for a specific group, idealogy or religious affiliation. Keywords tend to relate to a particular religion, as well as terms such as "Morality" and "Evil." The common demoninator is rights protection of one group or mindset, while either neglecting or removing them for others.
Anti-Censorship groups, on the other hand, have no such restrictions in their state goals and aims. Their scope is broader and impartial. Freedom is freedom, regardless of race, creed, religious beliefs or the type of dog that one favors.
Works cited:
American Library Association.www.ala.org.
“American Library Association.” Wikipedia. 11 Oct. 2011. Web. 28 Nov 2011.
“American Civil Liberties Union.” Wikipedia. 23 Nov. 2011. Web. 3 Dec 2011.
“Anti-Censorship Organizations.” The File Room. Web. 25 Nov. 2011.
“Constitution Party National Platform.” The Constitution Party. 2011. Web. 3 Dec 2011.
DesiQuotes.com. Web. 11 Dec 2011.
" Index Librorum Prohibitorum." Wikipedia. 29 Nov. 2011. Web. 10 Dec 2011.
"John Wayne Died in These Films.” Newt’s John Wayne Site. Web. 24 Nov. 2011.
“Know Your Enemies.” Rock Out Censorship. 2009. Web. 24 Nov. 2011.
Lehrer, Tom. "Smut." That was the Year That Was. Reprise/Warner Records, 1965. LP.
“Life Challenges.” Focus on the Family. 2011. Web. 3 Dec 2011.
"Our Mission.” American Center for Law and Justice. 2011. Web. 3 Dec. 2011.
Paterson, Katherine. “Bridge to Terabithia. New York: Thomas Crowell Company. 1977. Print.