The problem with book censorship
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, To Kill a Mockingbird, and Uncle Tom’s Cabin, all are examples of renowned books that’ve been praised for their influence in history, but they’re also examples of some of the most commonly banned books across the nation.
In 2016, there were 323 challenged books reported to the American Library System. Some of the most challenged of 2016 included the books Looking For Alaska by John Green, Two Boys Kissing by David Levithan, and many, many others. These books were banned because of a variety of different reasons, from being sexually explicit, to having LGBTQ+ content, or to having excessive profanity, leading to most people labeling them as “obscene.” However, throughout U.S. Court history, the word “obscene” has been defined again and again in different ways.
The most recent definition can be found from the Supreme Court case in 1973, Miller v. California, where they defined “obscene” material as “whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”
This leads to the question of whether books should be banned or censored if it fits the definition of obscenity.
On one side, the censorship or ban of books is seen as a violation of the First Amendment, which guarantees the freedom of speech and of the press. Many see the censorship of books as a direct attack on those rights. Censorship attacks this amendment by not only restricting those who people believe are too young or immature to read such material, but by also restricting everyone else from reading said material. (POSSIBLY ADD MORE)
On the other side, the censorship or ban of books is seen as necessary to protect those deemed too young to read such “obscene” material. This side believes that book censorship can be justified in some cases in order to direct people towards the best possible literature. The problem here, however, is that most literature considered classics and staples of our culture today can be defined as “obscene.” And these books fall under the categories of both obscenity and illustriousness because they’re the books that harness the most controversy because of their authentic yet usually crude manner.
The First Amendment in the Constitution states that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,” the major point is that Congress can’t restrict anyone’s freedom of speech, or in this case, freedom to share any opinion in the form of literature. This constructs a sizable hole in the argument for censorship, because censorship directly attacks the freedom of our press, and the right of citizens to access the products of that press.
As said by the author of The Perks of Being a Wallflower, Stephen Chbosky, “Banning books gives us silence when we need speech. It closes our ears when we need to listen. It makes us blind when we need sight,” meaning that books are our eyes, ears, and voice when we need insight or to give insight into the world we live in.
