Thu 16 Oct, 2008
What is Censorship?
Comments (0) Filed under: Education, Reasoning, Society, Subsidiarity, Truth, WorldviewsTags: censorship, public appearances, public dialogue
Yesterday I participated in a televised panel discussion on censorship, related to a program sponsored by our public library to promote reading. The program focused on the book Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, which is popularly interpreted to be about censorship. I had a great time on the panel, which was truly a thoughtful exchange of ideas. However I was predictably the voice in favor of censorship compared to the other two panelists.
The first question was to define censorship. A public school librarian defined censorship as any attempt to suppress the free expression of ideas. When the moderator asked if I agreed with this definition, I said that I would add one more element to my definition. Censorship is the use of the power of authority to suppress the public expression of ideas. I stated that I did not consider the grassroots attempt to decide what should be taught in a community’s schools or what books should be in the school and public libraries to be censorship. It’s a matter of subsidiarity. Such decisions should be made at the lowest possible level of social organization. Furthermore, I believe that the public discourse that occurs when public works are challenged is healthy and good. A community should discuss what literature and media match the identity and purpose and which they consider harmful or contrary to community standards – and they should learn to critically, rationally and intelligently discuss these choices.
I do believe that whether or not particular expressions of ideas should be suppressed depends largely on the forum in which these choices are being made. Suppression of materials is perhaps less necessary in venues that offer more freedom, such as a public library. However, venues with a captive audience, such as school libraries and classrooms, may require more action to be taken based on community discussion. On the other hand, these forums need to offer more freedom by working with members of the community to offer alternatives to contested literature and media. Whether or not a particular public expression of ideas is suppressed by this process, I do not consider it censorship, but the free exercise of the democratic process.
I do not support a single person or minority making decisions for the rest of us what should be taught or made available in our community and what should not. Examples of disgruntled parents taking their case to court even though they were given alternatives to the contested literature would probably be considered censorship rather than public dialogue. Such action squelches community discussion. While authority may need to step in to make the final decision, it should do so only after listening to the community dialogue.
I summarized my point by challenging the popular interpretation of Fahrenheit 451. I don’t think the main theme of the book is censorship, but what happens when a community stops thinking. The blind acceptance of all ideas is just as detrimental to the health of society as blind censorship. The public discourse about ideas, including the occasional debate about whether or not a specific expression of ideas should be available in a particular venue, is healthy. The problem with the society in Fahrenheit 451 was not that the government started censoring ideas, but that the people did not want to be bothered with thinking. They would rather be entertained and taken care of by their government. They filled their lives with shallow, meaningless fun and entertainment. Books were burned because they led to the possibility of disagreement that would require people to think.
Of course, my ideas were not immediately accepted by the other panel members. To their credit, they were willing to consider them and we had a great discussion. As we discussed examples of “censorship” – both those that were considered acceptable and those that were not – we came closer to a consensus than I thought would be possible. We agreed that people need to think, judge and analyze what they read and see and hear. We agreed that sometimes choices need to be made in order to stay true to the mission of a community (to protect children, for example, or to offer good quality information, or to preserve the identity of a Catholic school). Also, I shared their anger at reports of valid scientific studies being suppressed because the results ran counter to the biases of the scientific community. I also agreed with their use of the standard of validity to select materials, even when the materials they would reject supported ideas that I believe are true (such as homosexuality being a condition that can be healed).
It was a fruitful discussion, and one that I really enjoyed. I can only hope that our culture will start to heed the warnings of Fahrenheit 451 – promoting intelligent public discussion rather than worrying so much about censorship. This reading program sponsored by our public library was a good start.
Read this book for yourself!
[ad#seasonal]
Related Links:
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
