Censorship:

Protecting Ourselves Out of the First Amendment

Recently our town council heard a complaint from a parent regarding the appropriateness

of James Joyce’s classic novel, Ulysses, borrowed from the public library by their child, a high

school senior. The council has responded to this complaint by seriously considering the removal

of all questionable books from our public library. Respectfully I submit that the council’s

consideration of this matter is moot. Any proposal that would remove material from the public

library would be unconstitutional, unrealistic and would seek to take the job of parenting away

from parents and put it in the hands of government.

The Constitution does not allow states, cities, towns, etc. to make their own laws

regarding freedom of speech. The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law…or

abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” (Cummings A-7). It says that even the highest

law-making body in our country is not to make any laws that even abridge, that is to edit or

abbreviate, freedom of speech or of the press. The Constitution of the United States of America

makes clear what powers the states, their towns and cities shall maintain and what powers shall

be maintained by the federal government, censorship is not a power that is given to either.

President Harry S. Truman, in his Address at the National Archives Dedicating the New Shrine

for the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, on December 15,

1952, said:

The first article of the Bill of Rights provides that Congress shall

make no law respecting freedom of worship or abridging freedom

of opinion. There are some among us who seem to feel that this
 provision goes too far, even for the purpose of preventing tyranny

over the mind of man. Of course, there are dangers in religious

freedom and freedom of opinion. But to deny these rights is worse

than dangerous, it is absolutely fatal to liberty. The external threat

to liberty should not drive us into suppressing liberty at home.

Those who want the Government to regulate matters of the mind

and spirit are like men who are so afraid of being murdered that

they commit suicide to avoid assassination (Woolley).

In this speech, President Truman addresses the primary concern of parents in regards to the First

Amendment, the danger that comes with freedom. President Truman is correct; the freedoms

guaranteed by the First Amendment are dangerous. Some use our Freedom of speech

irresponsibly, inciting riots or spreading hate. Neo-Nazis use the First Amendment to propagate

a message of hate and white supremacy. This is an example of an irresponsible use of the First

Amendment, many people do not agree with the message of white supremacy, but the First

Amendment guarantees Neo-Nazis the right state their beliefs. Not everyone uses the First

Amendment in an irresponsible manner. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was exercising his First

Amendment rights when he gave his famous “I Have a Dream” speech in 1963. Most of us

would agree that our country is a better place today because Dr. King gave that speech, but some

do not. Neo-Nazi groups are offended by Dr. Kings speech, should we censor this inspirational

address because some people find it offensive? Whose liberty do we suppress and who do we

allow to retain the fullness of their liberty? The Dictionary defines liberty as 1 freedom from
2
captivity, imprisonment, slavery, or despotic control. the right to choose: the freedom to think
3
or act without being constrained by necessity or force. basic right: a political, social, and
economic right that belongs to the citizens of a state or to all people. Is the council willing make

a decision that will be, as Truman put it, “absolutely fatal to liberty”? This town is not prepared

to give up our country’s most basic and treasured freedom simply because some people find

certain books offensive or inappropriate. To give up one freedom for an illusion of safety will

only lead to giving up more freedoms as more people become offended or afraid.

Even if the council were to find that, the entire town is willing to give up their First

Amendment rights in favor of the proposed censorship of the library the proposal would still

generate the questions of decision: Who decides? What is unacceptable? To whom are we to

give this absolute power? Do we give it to religious leaders? Do we give it to a group of

parents? Do we give it to teachers? The “who question” is not an issue that could ever be

resolved as long as there is still at least one person willing to take a stand against any censorship.

The differences among this country’s citizens in background, upbringing, cultures, beliefs, etc

that make this a rich and diverse country also make it impossible for us to ever agree on who to

give such an absolute power to. Make no mistake the ability to decide for the entire town what is

or is not acceptable to read is an absolute power. Not only does our constitution forbid absolute

power, but absolute power is a corrupting force as well. No one shows the correlation between

corruption and power as well as “John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, British historian and

liberal philosopher, who is famous for his statement, ‘Power tends to corrupt and absolute power

corrupts absolutely’ (Encarta John). The corruption that stems from absolute power is often a

double standard. One set of rules for the people and another set for those who wield the power in

the case of censorship, this means removing access to knowledge from the people and giving that

access to a small group of people or worse, a single person. If knowledge is in the hands of a
minority then that minority may seek to use that knowledge to their own advantage by

controlling other aspects of people’s lives and that is unacceptable.

The “who question” is not the only question of decision that such a proposal would face.

A proposal to ban books from the library would face the question of “what”. What do we

consider unacceptable? Again, our diversity makes a solution to this problem unreachable. As a

child, my parents encouraged me to read any and every book that I could get my hands on and I

did. To this day, I have the most eclectic collection of books of anyone that I know. A short list

of the contents of my own personal library contains: The Complete Works of Shakespeare, The

Harry Potter series, The Misfortunes of Virtue and others by the Marquis de Sade, The Complete

Tales of Winnie the Pooh, Brave New World, Dracula, A Clockwork Orange, Human, All Too

Human by Friedrich Nietzsche, The Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf and no less than eight

copies of the Holy Bible. Books by the Marquis de Sade contain social philosophy and politics

wrapped in scenes of gratuitous sex. Aldous Huxley’s novel Brave New World promotes drug

use as a solution to problems or ideas that make one uncomfortable. “Brave New World was

removed from a class in Miller, Missouri and challenged at the Yukon, Oklahoma High School

and the Corona-Norco, California school district simply because it ‘centered around negative

activity’” (Yanosko). The Holy Bible contains at least one scene of incestuous rape and let us

not forget the sexual content within the Song of Solomon. Some of the books in my library

many consider to be unacceptable, but how do we decide what the criteria is for acceptability.

Do we deem a book unacceptable if it contains one scene of sexual or violent content? This

would disqualify the Bible, Shakespeare, Dracula, A Clockwork Orange and Mein Kampf.

Where would we draw the line? Will the Bible be immune because it is a religious text? Will

Shakespeare be banished after nearly 400 years? Blanket censorship is too difficult for humans
to control that is why the framers included a protection against it in the Bill of Rights. The

bottom line is that if we as a town or as a country allow a few people to decide for us what is or

is not acceptable to read then we are no longer living in a democracy where rule is by the many,

we are living in an oligarchy where rule is by the few.

Censorship only becomes an issue when people are afraid. In this case, parents fear for

their children. Parents fear the alteration or destruction of the morality and beliefs of their

children by certain books and the ideas contained therein, this concern is valid because freedom

can be dangerous.

…in a free society, freedom will frequently be used badly.

Freedom, by definition, includes freedom to do good or evil, to act

nobly or basely. Thus we should not be surprised that there is a

considerable amount of vice, licentiousness, and vulgarity in a free

society. Given the warped timber of humanity, freedom is simply

an expression of human flaws and weaknesses. But if freedom

brings out the worst in people, it also brings out the best (D’Souza

1011).

Human nature combined with freedom can cause people to commit some atrocious acts. In the

years leading up to World War II, Adolf Hitler granted those associated with the Nazi party

freedom to herd, cage and torture Jewish people and other minorities. In our own country,

people use freedom to disrespect and burn the flag of the very nation that grants them the

freedom to do so. Freedom allows us as humans to act in terrible ways, but it also allows us to

act in noble ways. Freedom gives my brother in law the right to decide whether to protect his
country and his family and he chooses to do so. Freedom gives us the right to disagree with the

government without fear of retaliation. It gives us the right to choose our own religion and to

worship where and when we please. Freedom allows us to create beauty from macaroni

sculptures to the Mona Lisa nothing is excluded. Books are like life they are not all pretty.

Books do not always have happy endings. It is not the responsibility of an author, library, book

or government body to teach belief and morality to children. That responsibility lies with the

parents. What censorship does is say that if a child allows the morality he or she grew up with to

be completely altered by a book then the book should be held responsible, not the failure of the

parents to teach their children in a lasting, memorable way. As stated “in a free society, freedom

will frequently be used badly.” This does not mean that we should give up our freedom. Books,

especially controversial books provoke thought, discussion and change. Instead of petitioning

for a removal of unacceptable books, parents should discuss what their children are reading with

them and use that opportunity to explain why they consider that book inappropriate and more

importantly to listen to what their children think about the issue at hand.

Censorship is not an acceptable solution. Our Constitution forbids censorship and it is

unrealistic. The important questions of “Who” and “What” will always be impossible to agree

on because of the rich diversity that defines our country. We must realize that censorship cannot

be controlled, once begun it will continue to gain ground because there will always be something

that someone will consider offensive, inappropriate or unacceptable. Though it may seem like a

protection, the only thing that censorship will wind up protecting us from is our freedom.
 Works Cited

D’Souza, Dinesh. “America the Beautiful: What We’re Fighting For.” Lunsford, Andrea A.,

John J. Ruszkiewicz and Keith Walters. Everything's An Argument. Boston: Bedford/St.

Martin's, 2007. 1011.

"John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton." Microsoft® Encarta® 2006 [DVD]. Redmond, WA:

Microsoft Corporation, 2005.

“The Constitution of the United States of America.” Cummings Jr., Milton C., David Wise.

Democracy Under Pressure: An Introduction to the American Political System. Belmont:

Thomson Wadsworth, 2005. A-7.

Woolley, John and Gerhard Peters. Harry S. Truman: Address at the National Archives

Dedicating the New Shrine for the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the

Bill of Rights. 15 December 1952. 26 June 2007

<http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=14358>.

Yonosko, Janet. The Forbidden Library: Banned and Challenged Books. 6 March 2005. 27 June

2007 <http://title.forbiddenlibrary.com/>.