…except when it is.
Oh, I’m well aware of the arguments--those who read the short novel and come away saying, “it’s a warning against governmental censorship!” are entirely missing the point. Hell, even Captain Beatty, the conflicted cheerleader for the dystopian world he inhabits, says directly that censorship “didn’t come from the Government down. There was no dictum, no declaration, no censorship, to start with, no! Technology, mass exploitation, and minority pressure did the trick, thank God.” The people themselves, the vox populi, are responsible. Bradbury paints a bleak picture of a world of not just shallow non-intellectualism, but of active anti-intellectualism. The “firemen” (not firefighters--essentially an arm of the police state entrusted with carrying out the public’s will to suppress the intelligentsia) burn books more as spectacle than as governmental overreach.
Still, it’s worth making comparisons to State-sponsored, or at least State-tolerated censorship in the real world.
I teach at a suburban high school in a somewhat affluent area in Southern California. Although the state is usually portrayed as Democratic / liberal, I happen to live in a rather Republican / conservative cell within the state. And although public school educators are regularly painted in the bluest of blue hues, there are significant numbers of rather staunch conservatives in my school district.
To get to the point, my school district very recently removed a book from one of its school libraries. The book is called This Book is Gay, written by Juno Dawson, and is (to use the book’s own description) a sort of “instruction manual” for young persons coming out as gay.
The school received a complaint about the book, then convened a committee which voted to remove the book. There were no students on the committee.
To add some context to this story--several years ago my school district removed some books from our curriculum: To Kill a Mockingbird, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, and Of Mice and Men were removed (the district used the euphemism “paused”) and still have not been reinstated.
To belabor the obvious--of course, the district didn’t call the firemen and have the book burned in a public spectacle. But the whole point of science fiction (or, as many of its authors prefer, “speculative fiction”) is to extrapolate from the present, to use allegory and parable to comment on the zeitgeist of the times, to magnify that which is concerning so it can be better seen. Anyone who wants to claim that this is not censorship because the book can still be purchased and read privately is missing the point the same way those who claim Fahrenheit 451 is about government censorship are missing the point.
Censorship is not just a piece of duct tape over the mouth. Censorship is not just the government deciding what will and won’t exist in print. And censorship is not just book burning. Censorship is the chilling of free thought, free speech, and free inquiry. Any move in that chilling direction is problematic in the extreme. Removing a book from the library is a clear expression of disapproval towards that book. It is saying “we discourage you from reading this, and we are going to make it more difficult for you to acquire this book.”
One last point--for all of you who are saying, “then how come Twitter gets to ban people? Isn’t that censorship?”
To that point, I have two answers. First, public school libraries are publicly funded--they are funded through public tax money and are therefore owned by the people, not by a private institution. Twitter is not a publicly owned utility (I realize some folks are trying to argue that it is, precisely for this point, but since their funding does not come from the public, I do not agree) and is therefore not owned by the public. Twitter removing a tweet is fundamentally not the same as a public library removing a book.
Second, I do actually agree that when Twitter (or Facebook, or some other privately owned social media company) removes a tweet or post they are engaging in censorship and should not do this--provided the material is not libelous or a demonstrable, factual inaccuracy that directly and demonstrably endangers public health and safety.
For example, posting “I think being gay is great and everyone should be gay!” is 1) not libelous, 2) not a demonstrable falsehood contrary to fact, and 3) does not demonstrably endanger public health and safety. Oh, you may disagree with the opinion presented, but you simply cannot draw a direct line between that utterance and demonstrable public harm.
Posting “I think drinking bleach will cure COVID and everyone should do it!” is demonstrably untrue and does pose a direct threat to public health. Social media companies do have the right to censor this kind of thing. I could go even further to say that they have a responsibility to do so, but I will not argue that here.
But pulling a book from a public school library that informs young people about the social, physical, and emotional repercussions of coming out as gay--even if that information is direct and graphic (it would have to be in order to be effective, I’d think)--is fundamentally wrong and goes against the principles of free inquiry, free speech, and free thought our nation is built upon.
I’d like to close with something a bit more personal. I’ve never really understood this line of thinking from conservatives (nor from liberals, for that matter): “keep this book away from my child! I’ve done such a bad job of parenting that I don’t think my child will hold on to his or her ethics if someone shows them something different!” Furthermore, “You can’t tell me what my child can choose to read! But I do get to tell other people’s children what they can’t choose to read!!” Isn’t there something inherently self-contradictory about that? Isn’t there something wrong with deciding the answer to speech you don’t like is to silence that speech? Lots of conservatives are running around today screaming about “cancel culture,” but if this isn’t an example of that, then I don’t know what is. Or, to let Mr. Bradbury have the final word…
“There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches.” --Ray Bradbury
Oh, I’m well aware of the arguments--those who read the short novel and come away saying, “it’s a warning against governmental censorship!” are entirely missing the point. Hell, even Captain Beatty, the conflicted cheerleader for the dystopian world he inhabits, says directly that censorship “didn’t come from the Government down. There was no dictum, no declaration, no censorship, to start with, no! Technology, mass exploitation, and minority pressure did the trick, thank God.” The people themselves, the vox populi, are responsible. Bradbury paints a bleak picture of a world of not just shallow non-intellectualism, but of active anti-intellectualism. The “firemen” (not firefighters--essentially an arm of the police state entrusted with carrying out the public’s will to suppress the intelligentsia) burn books more as spectacle than as governmental overreach.
Still, it’s worth making comparisons to State-sponsored, or at least State-tolerated censorship in the real world.
I teach at a suburban high school in a somewhat affluent area in Southern California. Although the state is usually portrayed as Democratic / liberal, I happen to live in a rather Republican / conservative cell within the state. And although public school educators are regularly painted in the bluest of blue hues, there are significant numbers of rather staunch conservatives in my school district.
To get to the point, my school district very recently removed a book from one of its school libraries. The book is called This Book is Gay, written by Juno Dawson, and is (to use the book’s own description) a sort of “instruction manual” for young persons coming out as gay.
The school received a complaint about the book, then convened a committee which voted to remove the book. There were no students on the committee.
To add some context to this story--several years ago my school district removed some books from our curriculum: To Kill a Mockingbird, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, and Of Mice and Men were removed (the district used the euphemism “paused”) and still have not been reinstated.
To belabor the obvious--of course, the district didn’t call the firemen and have the book burned in a public spectacle. But the whole point of science fiction (or, as many of its authors prefer, “speculative fiction”) is to extrapolate from the present, to use allegory and parable to comment on the zeitgeist of the times, to magnify that which is concerning so it can be better seen. Anyone who wants to claim that this is not censorship because the book can still be purchased and read privately is missing the point the same way those who claim Fahrenheit 451 is about government censorship are missing the point.
Censorship is not just a piece of duct tape over the mouth. Censorship is not just the government deciding what will and won’t exist in print. And censorship is not just book burning. Censorship is the chilling of free thought, free speech, and free inquiry. Any move in that chilling direction is problematic in the extreme. Removing a book from the library is a clear expression of disapproval towards that book. It is saying “we discourage you from reading this, and we are going to make it more difficult for you to acquire this book.”
One last point--for all of you who are saying, “then how come Twitter gets to ban people? Isn’t that censorship?”
To that point, I have two answers. First, public school libraries are publicly funded--they are funded through public tax money and are therefore owned by the people, not by a private institution. Twitter is not a publicly owned utility (I realize some folks are trying to argue that it is, precisely for this point, but since their funding does not come from the public, I do not agree) and is therefore not owned by the public. Twitter removing a tweet is fundamentally not the same as a public library removing a book.
Second, I do actually agree that when Twitter (or Facebook, or some other privately owned social media company) removes a tweet or post they are engaging in censorship and should not do this--provided the material is not libelous or a demonstrable, factual inaccuracy that directly and demonstrably endangers public health and safety.
For example, posting “I think being gay is great and everyone should be gay!” is 1) not libelous, 2) not a demonstrable falsehood contrary to fact, and 3) does not demonstrably endanger public health and safety. Oh, you may disagree with the opinion presented, but you simply cannot draw a direct line between that utterance and demonstrable public harm.
Posting “I think drinking bleach will cure COVID and everyone should do it!” is demonstrably untrue and does pose a direct threat to public health. Social media companies do have the right to censor this kind of thing. I could go even further to say that they have a responsibility to do so, but I will not argue that here.
But pulling a book from a public school library that informs young people about the social, physical, and emotional repercussions of coming out as gay--even if that information is direct and graphic (it would have to be in order to be effective, I’d think)--is fundamentally wrong and goes against the principles of free inquiry, free speech, and free thought our nation is built upon.
I’d like to close with something a bit more personal. I’ve never really understood this line of thinking from conservatives (nor from liberals, for that matter): “keep this book away from my child! I’ve done such a bad job of parenting that I don’t think my child will hold on to his or her ethics if someone shows them something different!” Furthermore, “You can’t tell me what my child can choose to read! But I do get to tell other people’s children what they can’t choose to read!!” Isn’t there something inherently self-contradictory about that? Isn’t there something wrong with deciding the answer to speech you don’t like is to silence that speech? Lots of conservatives are running around today screaming about “cancel culture,” but if this isn’t an example of that, then I don’t know what is. Or, to let Mr. Bradbury have the final word…
“There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches.” --Ray Bradbury
RSS Feed