Artistic Freedom & Censorship

[JAMESTHEKINGFAN]

I just read (and reread) Stephen King's article stating his opinion on book-banning and censorship. The article, which I found here on the site, was in response to a middle school taking a few of his novels off of the library shelves. And the high school in that district was considering the books limited access items (meaning the students would need written consent from the parents before checking the items out). I found the essay very good, and very thought-provoking. And it spurred me to write my opinion on the matter.

As far as banning books from schools, there may be to some level valid reasons--but the issue must be heavily discussed before a decision is made. From my view, there is a certain age in a child's life when the parents and people responsible must protect said children from certain material not age-approp -riate. If I had a ten-year-old son, for example, I wouldn't let him read The Happy Hooker (in fact, I don't recommend that book to anybody). But, such a decision (that being the decision to ban a book from school) should be made only after several meetings between the school and the parents are held to debate the issue. After all, deciding what your kids should and should not read is a serious matter, and sometimes the reasons for banning books seem frivolous when one thinks about them (A Wrinkle in Time, which is a Christian allegory, was banned because of the science in it; Mark Twain was banned because his very intelligent social satires had negative terms--ones that he was attacking!). Discussions should be held till a public consensus is met. That is democracy.

As far as national-level book-banning goes, I am against it. In a free society, such as American dem-ocracy, for the government to decide for you what material is right and what material is bad can be pot-entially dangerous. Some books they ban use possibly objectionable material to make a point against said material. We as people need to find out for ourselves whether that is the case. We as people need to educate ourselves, so as to not be ignorant of what is right or wrong. Don't let the government dec-ide for us! Book-banning is censorship, and it is a serious issue. Each book-ban case, as in the case with the school libraries, should be carefully debated till the decision is clear. We must not make the problems stated in Fahrenheit 451 come true--that would be a catastrophe!

I do not say we must form protest rallies or fuss & cry. But I do say a defense should be made, espec-ially for the writers and their stories. Literature is a treasure, and we must protect it!

[JohnDalglish]

Discussions should be held till a public consensus is met. That is democracy.

Hi,

Yes, but this is not

Athenian Democracy

But I agree with you.

Long days and pleasant nights

[Bryan James]

Stories and truth and things we want to become truths will always slink out.

[Tery]

Well, I do think we have protests. If we don't, we give tacit approval to censorship.

[bugaboosy]

there are always going to be people out there that are scared of ideas. they fear change and things they dont understand thats why they ban!! but have you ever noticed when someone bans something it makes people want it more? if they didnt make such a fuss then things would die out of their own accord. i do believe with children and young people tho it is the parents right to see what they are getting into and as such i have made sure i read what my daughter is into so i know she is reading appropriate material (sadly tho it has meant i have had to read twilight!! icky dang book).

[TriggerHappy]

I completely agree with your point, but I'd like to elaborate a little. Sure, some sort of censorship is unavoidable - in the U.S. you got the ratings system for movies, the parental advisory stickers for music, etc. But what it comes down to, basically, is access. Access to certain material for certain people (e.g., children) is - and probably should be - restricted. However, the materials themselves should be, I believe, allowed to be produced and to exist. In Ukraine, where I live, we have a so-called "National Morals Commission," which is a bunch of ancient morons who decide if the subject matter of a movie, concert, or book is somehow "damaging to the public morale" or (you just got to love this) "is not in line with traditional Ukrainian values." Now, over the last few years they've banned a number of movies from being shown in cinemas (you can still buy the DVDs): both Hostels, Bruno, and the last Saw sequel among them. Now here's the thing: regardless of what I think of the movies in question, I believe a movie theater should be free to decide what to show, and if the public doesn't want to see it, it just stays at home; problem solved. Or is it? Some people argue that certain stuff can be damaging even if you are aware of the contents and adult. I'm not so sure. In fact, I believe many more kids now stay at home to play voilent videogames instead of going out and picking fights; I cannot seriously contemplate the idea that someone who isn't already a Nazi will become one after reading Hitler's Mein Kampf (which is banned both here and in Germany). On the other hand, the very fact that something is banned may a) make it more desirable for some people, and b) act to reinforce the fact that it has great value. Like, you know: "Oh, so the government doesn't want me to read Helter Skelter (or whatever)? Wow, now that must be a mind-changer!"
My friend once told me that movies like The Poughkeepsie Tapes must be banned, since they may (or actually will) be used by serial killers as learning material to escape justice. Well, excuse me, but I think that's a load of bull. The whole point of scary movies (and books) is to show us something we may never encounter, and wouldn't want to. Real disturbed people don't watch that. Ted Bundy would fall asleep watching Se7en, believe me. Charlie Manson wouldn't find any messages in the songs of Cannibal Corpse. Art is not dangerous, it's us that read danger into it when it suits us. (Gee, now I sound like Manson myself.)
So: would I want my 5-year-old daughter to watch Cannibal Holocaust? Or read American Psycho when she's 10? No. Would I mind her reading or watching this stuff? Nope. I probably could show her something like 28 Weeks Later right now (I'm not going to, relax), and she'd ask me to switch to Winnie the Pooh after all of 6 minutes. I remember trying to read some book about sex when I was 7, after my parents wouldn't let me (I snuck into their bedroom when they were at work). You know what, I was baffled. It was boring! I couldn't understand a thing! And that, I think, is what I've been trying so lengthily to say all along: age appropriateness is redundant. Some of the imagery in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe was pretty scary and disturbing to me as a kid. It is not anymore; and I don't believe I would've lost any sleep after reading The Shining, simply because back then I wouldn't have been able to read it. "Adult" stuff is adult exactly because it is meant for adult brains. Kids are scared and disturbed by different things. Sex doesn't make sense to them, blood disgusts them, and serial killers are a concept too complicated to grasp. We, as grownups, tend to think by extrapolation: if Narnia is scary to my kid while it isn't for me, then something that is scary for me will be even scarier to my kid. Well, I don't believe it works that way. I read Apt Pupil at 14, and loved it, and was scared by it (I did not become a Nazi, or try to kill a cat, or wish for a shotgun so I could shoot me some innocent drivers). Incidentally, the second King book I tried was Gerald's Game; I found it so boring I didn't even get to the good bit with the dog. Now, in fact, I like it more than Apt Pupil.
All right, I believe I've (over)stated my view for now. If you have any further thoughts on this, I'd be happy to continue this discussion.

[JAMESTHEKINGFAN]

Hi,

Yes, but this is not

Athenian Democracy

But I agree with you.

Long days and pleasant nights

What exactly are you saying isn't democracy? If you are saying that in reference to the US, I know our government system, by virtue of what is written down constitutionally, is a federated republic. However, we run many things democratically. And, we have the right to free expression.

[JohnDalglish]

And, we have the right to free expression.

Hi,

We have the right to remain silent.

Full stop,

Long days and pleasant nights

[bugaboosy]

fantastic post there ..i do have some comments and questions tho ...you say you have like moral police there that ban certain movies ..yet do they not go after computer games and such? i think some of it isnt about banning and all its more to do with control and their own inforced ideals on your society.
i know that they (the man! lol) got the kids book noddy banned coz they thought that noddy and big ears were gay coz they slept in the same bed!! now thats a case of some uptight homophobe enforcing their sick twisted ideas onto an innocent group of ppl ..because what child knows what they do in bed? heck what kid would even think that? its the fault of us ..the adults of the world, because we are the ones who make the rules and enforce them ..we are the ones who children look to for how to act and react to situations.
change begins with us!!

[TriggerHappy]

Ha, videogames in my country are freely downloaded off the Web, sometimes months before their official release. Ukraine is an intellectual-piracy leader. I'd like to see them try banning that.
I believe you're right about the kiddie books. I think you have to be an adult to read all that stuff into a book (film, play etc.) intended for kids. And this sort of bigostry comes from both sides of the political spectrum - fundamentalist homophobes and PC-obsessed intellectuals truly deserve each other.