(no subject)
What follows is not a rant, but an essay. Be warned, though: It contains conservative thought and ideals. Reader discretion is advised.
So the Central Branch of the Buffalo Library has a big display up on the subject of "banned books." They had some of the usual titles there, with others not so obvious:Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Fahrenheit 451, Where's Waldo?, Carrie, Daddy's Roommate, etc.
It got me to thinking about the stories behind why these books were "banned." Those I knew, anyway. In most cases, these were books removed from school libraries or reading lists because of the objections of a very small number of people. I am the last person you would see championing the will of the minority, and that isn't the case here. I firmly believe what a child reads should ultimately be left to parents to decide, not a school.
But I digress.
People who promote the "freedom to read" like to mention the First Amendment, the first part of which reads, "Congress shall make no law...." People fail to understand just exactly what this means, and it's that when it comes to the things specifically mentioned in the First Amendment, the only entity being specfically prohibited from abridging those things is Congress. Which places such matters in the hands of states, counties and municipalities.
But something funny happened along the way: It never happened. Not in my 39 years of existence. Not in my mother's 67 years.
Truth is, if someone wanted to take a book from a school's reading list or library, does that make it unavailable at the town library or bookstore? Of course not. If a town or county or state government said a book would no longer be available for public consumption within its jurisdiction, would it keep people from being able to order it from Amazon.com? No.
What if Congress passed a law regarding a particular book and ordered its publisher to stop distributing the book and bookstores to stop selling it? Would that keep the book from the hands of those who want it? Again, no.
(Hell, with the Digital Milennium Copyright Act, you are not allowed to manufacture, distribute, sell or even possess a non-region DVD player. But that has not stopped anyone in the Internet Age. But, again, I digress.)
The point is, nothing can truly be censored (or "banned") unless all reasonable avenues to obtain it have been quashed. And as I have said, as far back as 1939, that has not happened.
Which makes the words "censored" or "banned" when describing a printed work little more than an absurd misnomer.
So the Central Branch of the Buffalo Library has a big display up on the subject of "banned books." They had some of the usual titles there, with others not so obvious:Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Fahrenheit 451, Where's Waldo?, Carrie, Daddy's Roommate, etc.
It got me to thinking about the stories behind why these books were "banned." Those I knew, anyway. In most cases, these were books removed from school libraries or reading lists because of the objections of a very small number of people. I am the last person you would see championing the will of the minority, and that isn't the case here. I firmly believe what a child reads should ultimately be left to parents to decide, not a school.
But I digress.
People who promote the "freedom to read" like to mention the First Amendment, the first part of which reads, "Congress shall make no law...." People fail to understand just exactly what this means, and it's that when it comes to the things specifically mentioned in the First Amendment, the only entity being specfically prohibited from abridging those things is Congress. Which places such matters in the hands of states, counties and municipalities.
But something funny happened along the way: It never happened. Not in my 39 years of existence. Not in my mother's 67 years.
Truth is, if someone wanted to take a book from a school's reading list or library, does that make it unavailable at the town library or bookstore? Of course not. If a town or county or state government said a book would no longer be available for public consumption within its jurisdiction, would it keep people from being able to order it from Amazon.com? No.
What if Congress passed a law regarding a particular book and ordered its publisher to stop distributing the book and bookstores to stop selling it? Would that keep the book from the hands of those who want it? Again, no.
(Hell, with the Digital Milennium Copyright Act, you are not allowed to manufacture, distribute, sell or even possess a non-region DVD player. But that has not stopped anyone in the Internet Age. But, again, I digress.)
The point is, nothing can truly be censored (or "banned") unless all reasonable avenues to obtain it have been quashed. And as I have said, as far back as 1939, that has not happened.
Which makes the words "censored" or "banned" when describing a printed work little more than an absurd misnomer.