Morrison Stays Involved

Toni Morrison, whose books have been censored or threatened with censorship for years, has been in the news several times in the past few weeks. On June 3, 50 publishers, writers, and other intellectual freedom supporters got together to launch the Free Speech Leadership Council, a branch of the National Coalition Against Censorship. For the launch, the featured speaker was Morrison. When I read about this gathering, all I could think about was how cool it would have been to be there, not just to hear Morrison, but to just be in the same place as all of these people so active in the movement to protect the right of people to read what they want.

As part of her speech, Morrison talked about learning that her book Song of Solomon was not allowed at a Texas prison because of the fear that it would cause a riot. Instead of being angry that her work was being censored, Morrison’s reaction was to think about how powerful her book must be to enact that kind of fear. It is an awesome response to censorship, and one that must be a fear for many people who try to censor books.

In addition to the Free Speech Leadership Council, another of Morrison’s recent projects was editing and contributing to the book Burn This Book, a collection of essays about censorship. The blurb about Morrison’s recent activities had this quote from Morrison on censorship: “The thought that leads me to contemplate with dread the erasure of other voices, of unwritten novels, poems whispered or swallowed for fear of being overheard by the wrong people, outlawed languages flourishing underground, essayists’ questions challenging authority never being posed, unstaged plays, cancelled films – that thought is a nightmare.”

That is an aspect of censorship that I hadn’t thought about. Fighting against censorship is important not just for the works of yesterday and today, but also for the potential works of the future. If potential authors and creators decide that creating isn’t worth the risk, all of the debate about censorship fades away because there won’t be anything left to censor.

As long as there are people like Morrison, who are willing to publicly lead the charge, hopefully there will be people like librarians who are there to back them up to protect all creativity, past, present, and future.

Censorship in West Bend

Back in April, four members of the library board at the West Bend Community Memorial Library in West Bend, Wisconsin, were dismissed from the board for refusing to remove controversial fiction and nonfiction books about homosexuality from the young adult section after two patrons complained to the West Bend Common Council about their pornographic nature. One of the aldermen on the board justified his vote by saying that he was “concerned about the morality of this city.”

When I first read this blurb on the National Coalition Against Censorship website, I actually had to walk away for a bit before coming back to write my blog. At an age when gay, lesbian, and questioning teens need all the resources they can get, the West Bend Common Council in West Bend, Wisconsin, took it upon themselves to not only remove all the resources, but to dismiss the four library board members who supported the material. That sends the message to that extra vulnerable population that if they would have been interested in those books—or had already read them—that they must be obscene and in need of restriction, too.

Beyond the topic of the specific topic of the censored books, who died and made the West Bend Common Council the information gods? As the NCAC pointed out in their letter to the West Bend Common Council, just because a book is on the shelf does not mean anyone has to read it – or that it’s even appropriate for everyone to read. But those books with the controversial topics—whether it be sex, drugs, homosexuality, or whatever—can be lifesavers for anyone questioning, especially teenagers and young adults.

The blurb on the NCAC website can be found at: http://www.ncac.org/Free-Speech-Groups-Criticize-Wisconsin-Library-Board-Dismissals. A link to the letter that was sent to the West Bend Common Council can be found there as well.

China 20 Years After Tiananmen Square

Thursday marks the 20^th anniversary of Tiananmen Square in China. In preparation for this anniversary, China has blocked about a dozen major websites, including Twitter, YouTube, Blogger, and Flickr. The blackout of information about what happened 20 years ago continues to be so absolute that many young Chinese students do not know it happened. The event has been erased from textbooks and banished from the media.

I tried to think about what it would be like to find out that the U.S. Government had censored an event like Tiananmen Square so absolutely that I didn’t know about it. Of course, the irony there is that if the government was doing that, I’d never know because it would be censored, but I have a feeling that people living in China don’t have too much trouble imagining their children not knowing about a major event. One of the questions posed in my forum group last week is whether I felt lucky to be protected by the First Amendment. I said I did, but now that’s even more amplified. The First Amendment protects against this type of blanket censorship.

I wonder what it would feel like to be a young Chinese traveling outside the country and finding out for the first time about something so significant to your country, something that much of the rest of the world already knows at least something about. And I wonder how the Chinese government has managed to keep something so huge suppressed for so long. There are hints in the articles I read: intimidating reporters, jamming outside newscasts, using powerful filters to block out certain words, and creating uncertainty that leads to self-censorship.

The blackout is not complete, of course. Foreigners travel in and young Chinese travel out. But the censorship on information available inside China is almost staggering in its completeness. For me, it is a powerful reminder of what could happen if people stop fighting for intellectual freedom.

A Silver Lining of the Ban?

While traveling last week, I stayed with a friend who grew up in Germany. He asked me about the class I am taking, and during the course of the resulting discussion, Mein Kampf came up. Mein Kampf is the autobiography/manifesto of Adolph Hitler, and it is currently banned in Germany. The copyright is set to expire in 2015, which will end Germany’s ability to ban publication and distribution of the book. This is causing a huge controversy about whether there should be an official copy released.

When I got home, I looked to see what more about the current debate. I couldn’t find anything too recent, but I did find an article at time.com from August of 2008 discussing the ending of the ban, and the possible ramifications of that ending (http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1831786,00.html). The debate revolves about whether a new German edition should be released containing annotations that explain where Hitler got the information he used. The pro side believes that releasing such a book would exorcise the mystique surrounding the book, diminishing any potential power it might have. The con side believes that releasing the book in any form believes that there isn’t a demand for the book and, for those that want to read it, it is available on the Internet.

There does not appear to be a consensus at this point as to what the state of Bavaria, which currently holds the copyright, will do, but there is suggestion that there will be no official German copy printed. The Time article ends with the observation that no matter what the outcome is, Hitler would have been pleased with the attention.

The whole situation has made me think about one of the unintended benefits of attempting to ban books: it makes them irresistibly interesting. My friend said he never would have picked up Mein Kampf if it hadn’t been banned in Germany, and found it to be poorly written and not really worth the read once he was able to obtain a copy in the U.S. Giving any publicity—even if it is negative—spreads the word about something. And maybe it’s just me, but when someone says I can’t, it usually makes me want to do it even more. I know that there are books on common banned books lists that I would never have even thought about reading if they weren’t banned – not because they aren’t good books, but because they don’t necessarily fall within my interests. But when I see a book is banned, I want to know why, which causes me to pick it up and read it.

I’m certainly not advocating that books should be banned, but as long as it’s happening, I guess I’m trying to see a silver lining. I still hope for the day when everyone respects the rights of others to self-determine what is appropriate for themselves, but until that happens, I’m going to hang on to my silver lining.

Facebook and Intellectual Freedom

While surfing the New York Times site, I came across an article about Facebook taking a stand against censorship. The headline was: “Holocaust Deniers Gather on Facebook.” The article outlined how Facebook refused to remove pages about the Holocaust being a hoax, as long as they didn’t move from expression of information into hate speech based on the definition they provide in their Terms of Use. Not surprisingly, Facebook has taken some pretty hard knocks for allowing any of these sites to remain active.

Facebook released a statement saying that they check every site like this for violations in the Terms of Use and if none exist, it is allowed to remain up. They continued on by saying that while they find “Holocaust denial repugnant and ignorant,” as long as groups remain within the Terms of Use, the groups are allowed to continue. They are trying to remain true to their idea that “ignorance or deception” is better fought through openness rather than censorship.

Facebook has a strong desire to remain a place where all ideas, even the controversial ones, can be discussed. I admire how Facebook is sticking to its guns. Clearly, they understand that removing one controversial group abiding by the Terms of Use could lead to another controversial group requested for removal, and another, and another, and so forth. It’s nice to know that librarians have allies in the technical world of people who understand how censorship works and why intellectual freedom is an important cause to champion.