by Alex T. Arnold
For whatever reason, the topic of banning books has been featured heavily in the spotlight recently, even though the controversial issue has existed for years. When a book gets banned, it usually is either because it is so horribly graphic and explicit that it is deemed unsuitable for normal readers, or because it expresses political or philosophical ideas that those who hold social powerwould rather be suppressed.
In any case, a banned book is representative that “free speech” has limits in every society. Everyone loves to praise the theoretical concept of complete freedom of speech and democratic thinking. Still, human experience has proven that in the real world, almost everyone has a tipping point where opposing ideas become overwhelming and annoying. A full democracy will inevitably lead to the extreme ends of every spectrum being brought out for examination.
Thus, banning books limits free speech. The action seems to make everyone uncomfortable because it is an affront to American ideals. “We should not ban books because they limit freedom of speech” is a good argument if and only if it can either be proven that freedom of speech is good in all circumstances or that you can add a qualifier.
To be upfront, I don’t think that freedom of speech should be tolerated in every single instance. For example, a privately owned business, in my opinion, should have the right to prohibit the use of certain words or phrases that they consider improper for the establishment. Someone who interrupts a public funeral with the intention of using disrespectful words toward the deceased should also not be tolerated. I am especially wary of allowing any and all kinds of free speech around children and young teenagers, or anyone else that can be easily manipulated.
However, I don’t think there’s any effective way to regulate this. If a government is given too much power in this matter, the road toward a totalitarian system will be short. It is clearly inappropriate for children to be exposed to graphic, sexual, or mature themes when they are objectively not ready to handle and assess the information. On the other hand, the pendulum swinging too far will allow authorities to claim any opinion or work of literature is “inappropriate” for the public. We should also consider that allowing the widespread production and promotion of immoral material and entertainment will lead to the downfall of a society’s ethical standards (simply study the last 100 years of American history for evidence). Studies have shown that younger people who watch movies involving a “cool” character who regularly smokes increases their chances of taking up smoking as a habit. So, how do we protect people without restraining free thinking?
I believe that the answer lies in a small-government system. Hypothetically, every state and semi-major city should have at least one public library and archive that offers free access and records to all mainstream public works. There is no issue with there not being enough space considering the existence of the internet. In case there is anyone who does not have access to the internet or is a good distance away from these libraries, schools should have a catalogue system set in place so that any book can be ordered and lended to the student for research purposes.
Ideally, a federal library would also be preferred for a checks and balances system. At a local level, schools and privately owned bookstores can ban whatever books they deem unfit for their collection and audience. There should also be a corporate state-wide education committee so that appeals can be made if the ban seems wrongful.
This way, the vulnerable don’t have to be prematurely exposed to harmful books and the curious and inquisitive researcher can find, study and read whatever they want.
In conclusion, books should not be burned or withheld from the general public, but there are certain circumstances that should allow leeway for exceptions. Additionally, this only solves the problem of dangerous ideas being spread. I do think that if a country’s democratic majority concludes with a vote that a book is so vile, grotesque, pornographic or immoral that it should be banned, then they should be able to do so, with the possibility of reexamination every few years or so.
Comments