You Can’t Ban Books In A Free Society

A critique on the method and nature of book banning in the United States

Jared Beardsley

19 August 2023

Introduction

“I have no idea. I’d probably just burn them.”

This was Senator Jerry Sexton’s response when asked in the 112th Tennessean House legislative session what he planned to do with all the banned books. His response was not to restrict them from certain age groups. Not to take them out of primary school libraries where they might be deemed objectionable. Not even to let the school settle the matter based on the curriculum. The Tennessee Legislature wanted to burn the books and the ideas they contained. 

If shown this clip in isolation, you’d likely assume that it was decades old, an antiquated viewpoint of a bygone era. If shown the date, April 27, 2022, you’d likely assume it must be satire. I know I laughed when I first saw it. Unfortunately for all of us, the clip is real, the sentiment is real, and it’s not just in Tennessee. 

The process of banning books has been happening in America since before we even became our own country, with the first-ever banned book being New English Canon by Thomas Morton, all the way back in 1637. It was banned for critiquing the current system of government and societal values. This would set a pattern of book banning that was dead set on stopping the spread of ideas deemed “harmful” to the status quo, and nearly 400 years later, we’re still following it. With 2,571 unique titles banned or challenged just last year, there is a new wave of literary censorship sweeping the nation. 

Ironically, as we embrace the new age of information, we find information and expression being challenged at a higher rate now than ever before. Today, I’d like to break down the most common challenges being made against books today, analyze the flaws in those approaches, and then address the harm of book banning on a holistic scale in the United States. For sake of clarity and brevity in this essay, I will be focussing on book bans and challenges in the United States. Furthermore, due to the low rate of national book bans in the US, and the ALA’s own restrictions towards the matter, I’ll keep this focussed on books being banned in schools, both public and private. Finally, while the topic of this essay is the banning of books, I’ll be addressing books that have been challenged as well, as it is the mentality of censorship that acts as a blight on knowledge. 

There are a plethora of reasons that books are challenged or banned, with the most common complaints being sexually explicit content, violence, “unsuitable” content, and political or religious content. While this seems broad, the vast majority of challenges to content can be broken into two categories. The first is books that contain graphic or unsuitable content, either to a particular age group or students in general. The second is books that contain contested ideologies or perspectives, more commonly the subject of general bans.  

Graphic and Explicit Content

While there’s a wide variety of content that can be labeled graphic and explicit, it is not all equal in value, and thus can not be banned or acquitted under the same pretenses. For the sake of clarity, I’ll address the following topics separately: sexually explicit material, violent/graphic content, and LGBTQIA+ content. 

Sexually Explicit Material

By far the most popular complaint about literature, being present in 92.5% of books challenged in 2020, sexually explicit content has been the vanguard of censorship for centuries. Now before we talk about its merit (or lack thereof) in being included, let’s get on the same page. Sexually explicit is “content having as a dominant theme (i) any lascivious description of or (ii) any lascivious picture, photograph, drawing, motion picture film, digital image or similar visual representation depicting a lewd exhibition of nudity, sexual excitement, or sexual conduct.” according to Law Insider. 

With this definition in mind, one of the most common faults in charges of sexually explicit content is the defamation of content that is not actually sexually explicit. The definition provided by legal experts and used in conjunction with constitutional law would entail that books depicting graphic sex and nudity would be banned, but this is not always the case. Content marked as sexually explicit is either drastically over exaggerated, or simply does not contain sexually explicit content at all. For the kinesthetic learners among us, I’ll give a few examples.

The Catcher in the Rye by JD Salinger has faced challenges of explicit content since it came out in 1951, but it is a victim of blatant over exaggeration. Claims that the novel is “graphically inappropriate” are unsubstantiated, because while sex is mentioned in passing by the protagonist Holden and his classmates, the discussion does not feature nearly enough detail to be considered explicit, and while Holden does order a sex worker to his hotel room, nothing explicit occurs between the two due to Holden’s own embarrassment. While not suitable for groups of every age, the novel is by no means sexually explicit or inappropriate. 

Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret by Judy Blume has also faced criticism for explicit or inappropriate content, despite not actually featuring any. Contenders of the novel point to the discussion of menstruation, and the protagonist’s own anxiety about developing breasts, purchasing bras, etc. Outrage about this novel is amusing for a few reasons. First of all, the novel is flagged as sexually explicit and not age appropriate. Not only does the novel not feature any sexually explicit content, but it is written about an 11 year old girl, trying to understand experiences that are absurdly common to 11 year old girls. Additionally, according to the author herself, the novel is meant to be a guide for young girls, helping them understand what they’re going through, and, more importantly, letting them know they’re not alone. Blume has been abundantly clear in interviews that she wrote Margaret to give girls the help she wanted at that age. Censorship of something that is not only not sexual in nature, but virtuous in intent, is a sad reflection of how we value women's issues today. 

With those examples and my own commentary in mind, it is not rational to ban books for being sexually explicit that do not feature sexually explicit content. Discussions of sex, puberty, relationships, menstruation, etc would fall under the the branch of sexuality, which is not an explicit topic by itself. Sexuality deals with feelings, thoughts, and behaviors towards oneself and others in a sexual manner, but, provided that it does not infringe upon the previously established definition of sexually explicit content, it should not be banned for being such. Despite complaints towards such content being marketed towards teenagers and young adults, this is not meant to “sexualize the youth” as some contenders claim, but rather function as an outlet for their growing feelings and emotions, which is often not dealt with adequately by schools. While it may not be prudent, it is not inappropriate or unsuitable for a student to read about social and physical issues that they are bound to experience. The restriction of such content in the name of protection or purity not only leaves kids dangerously confused, but will just lead them down other avenues of discovery, not stifle their curiosity. 

The Value of Explicit Content

Now that we’ve addressed the baseless complaints about sexually explicit content, what about the challenges that have ground to stand on? How should we deal with literature that does contain sexually explicit content? Shouldn’t this be kept out of all schools? What could possibly be the justification for content that can be mistaken for pornography? Surprisingly, more than you might initially think. While the inclusion of sexually explicit material in literature warrants an essay by itself, I’ll present a brief case of my own here. 

First and foremost, I always look at the purpose, symbolic or otherwise, that sexual content would serve in a story, and determine the merit. There is a very distinct difference between gratuitous nudity, and sexual content that actually serves a purpose in the story. For example, in the popular banned book 1984 by George Orwell, Winston’s affair with Julia is sexually explicit, but the purpose of the affair being in the novel is to represent Winston actively claiming his own individual identity in a collective society, and finding a freedom of expression in an activity that is often stifled by the society he lives in (and ironically enough, our own). Because the sexual content is essential to the plot of the story, and bears both symbolic and literary merit that justifies its own inclusion, 1984 ought not be banned for sexual content. 

So, does this mean if a lesson can be effectively taught using sexually explicit content, that it is suitable for every age level? Obviously not. I wouldn’t put 1984 or Ulysses in an elementary school library for several reasons. I would, however, put them in a high school library. Why? Because not only would the books not be exposing them to anything new at this age, but it would allow them to rationalize and contextualize their own experiences. The great benefit of all literature is it exposes us to two forms of thinking: the familiar and unfamiliar. If a high school student is going through an emotional journey and finds solace or comfort in literature, there are certainly worse alternatives. While this is my opinion, I find it irrational to bar sexually explicit content if a child already knows what sex is. This does not mean I want children exposed to pornography or gratuitous content, but it does justify the inclusion of explicit material that can prove literary or symbolic merit.

For further discussion on the inclusion of sexual material in literature, I’d encourage everyone to read Judge Woolsey’s opinion in the case United States v. One Book Called Ulysses, as not only did it result in a landmark decision to allow explicit material in literature to be sold in the US, but it also addresses the topic better than I ever could. Unfortunately so, as despite being a significant moment for the history of censorship, many people overlook it. I’ll include a source in the bibliography of this essay. 

Violent Material

Before videogames were marked as the harbinger of evil behavior into this once perfect society, it was movies. Before movies reared their wretched heads, comic books brought vice and impurity to us. Before the comic books, wrought with their wicked depictions of evil and gore, filled the hearts of our nation's children with malicious intentions, it was literature that coaxed the minds of men to corruption. The effect of plays was deemed inconclusive, yet warrants further investigation should Hamlet ever make a comeback.

There were several directions I could’ve taken this section, and it could easily be its own essay as well, but I’ll address what appears to be the most pertinent point to me. While I’m tempted to address the (erroneous) claims that violent media causes violent behavior, not only have there been enough psychological and social studies that have disproved this with various forms of media, but it is clear that backlash against violent media goes farther than its alleged effects on young minds. Therefore, in this section, I’ll discuss the merit that violence brings to literature, and how I believe that merit outweighs the calls for censorship. 

One of the original functions of violence in media is that of catharsis. Catharsis comes from the Greek word “κάθαρσις,” which translates to purification or cleansing. Aristotle teaches in his acclaimed work Poetics that by viewing violent content, one can properly process the tragedy and thus rids themself of the violent action and desire. In Chapter VI of Poetics he writes:

“Tragedy, then, is an imitation of an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude; in language embellished with each kind of artistic ornament, the several kinds being found in separate parts of the play; in the form of action, not of narrative; through pity and fear affecting the proper purgation of these emotions.”

It is through viewing violence, vice, and tragedy that we can properly contextualize, process, and understand it. And in undergoing this emotional journey through a fictitious lens, we find ourselves purged and vindicated of the same emotion ourselves. Aristotle’s sentiment has since been verified to some degree through several studies, and in a beautiful stroke of irony, we find that violence in entertainment can actually reduce the appearance of violent behavior. The simulated violence provides a harmless outlet for aggression. However, while psychologists have seen direct benefits as a result of catharsis theory in the media, it is worth noting that it is unable to treat psychological disorders.

The Potential Virtue of Evil Content

Due to the limitations of cathartic effects, many still decry the presence of violence in media, with complaints of its gratuitous nature taking a forefront. It begs the question, despite the apparent benefits of violence in entertainment, if it is worth the risk? Why not instead feature virtue in entertainment? Why glorify, or even feature violent behavior? Here we find the second key function of violence in media: violence and evil is a contextualization of good and virtue. To illustrate this, let’s examine another banned book.

In A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess, the protagonist Alex is wickedly violent, commiting acts of assault, murder, theft, rape, and battery all within the first chapter. Through an experimental (and fictitious) form of treatment, Alex is then rendered incapable of committing evil, with the very thought sickening him. This however, as noted by several characters and Alex himself, does not make Alex good. It simply renders him “a creature incapable of choice,” with a chaplain decrying that the removal of free will strips Alex of his very humanity. A Clockwork Orange was banned for violent content, ironically missing the very message the book proclaims.

The violence in the novel does not exist to glorify violent behavior, but to reaffirm the nature of goodness. Goodness does not exist in a vacuum as behavior, but in contrast to violence and evil. Without the existence of evil and violence, good and virtuous action could not be appreciated to its full extent. As Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard says in his novel The Sickness Unto Death: “It belongs to the imperfection of everything human that man can only attain his desire by passing through its opposite.” We cannot appreciate and understand goodness and virtue without properly understanding violence and evil. Thus, the call to ban a book for the presence of violence, regardless of function to the story, is a disservice to readers everywhere. 

As per my previous section, apply discretion. Should a first grader read stories of murder? Probably not. But such has not been the spirit of censorship. If one thinks they can prevent violence and promote virtue by banning violent content, they’re irrational. Think instead to recognize the virtue of violence.

LGBTQIA+ Content

I’m sure there are at least a few readers who question my inclusion of LGBTQIA+ content among “graphic and explicit” material, and they’d be right to raise complaints. The method behind my organization initially saw me just dealing with sexually explicit material, but after I saw how many books featuring LGBT characters, messages, and themes were filed under “sexually explicit” or “unsuitable for any age group” purely for featuring LGBT anything, I felt it necessary to address it separately, but under the same banner of banned material. 

As clarified before in my section on sexually explicit material, it is irrational to ban a book for containing sexually explicit material if it does not in fact contain sexually explicit material. As a reminder, sexually explicit content is defined as “content having as a dominant theme (i) any lascivious description of or (ii) any lascivious picture, photograph, drawing, motion picture film, digital image or similar visual representation depicting a lewd exhibition of nudity, sexual excitement, or sexual conduct.” Therefore, if the content does not mean the above guidelines, it is not sexually explicit. The existence of a gay character or the portrayal of a gay relationship is not sexually explicit. However, if two gay characters were to have sex, and that act be described in words, then it would be sexually explicit, and the same rules and recommendations would apply in this case.

Complaints Against LGBTQ Content

So, what other complaints would be leveled against LGBT content? A survey by the Washington Post published in May of this year took book challenges from 150 school districts nationwide submitted in the 2021-2022 year, intaking 1,065 unique challenges overall and analyzing 986 (the rest being ineligible or submitted outside the 21-22 academic year). 43% of overall concerns mentioned LGBT characters or themes, with 62% of those claims mentioning sexually explicit content. 37% of LGBT themed books, despite not containing sexual or graphic material, had bans submitted because the novels depicted LGBT lives and lifestyles. Several challengers stated fears of such novels having the ability to alter a child’s sexuality or gender identity. Finally, approximately 8% of claims against LGBT books cited a fear of grooming children towards “LBGT behavior” and “sexual deviancy.” (For those wondering why the percentages do not add up to 100, please note that for every challenge put forth in a book, multiple issues can be cited with the contents.)

Dealing with these complaints is complicated, to say the least, due to many concerns put forth not being strictly based in facts. Before I begin to address these, note that I’m not a licensed expert, and the facts I present are the result of the research I’ve done. The claims leveled against LGBT content for simply featuring lifestyles and perspectives, I’ll deal with in my section on contested ideologies and perspectives. As for claims regarding the alleged effects that LGBT content can have on children, I’ll address here to the best of my ability. In my opinion, sexually explicit material of any kind has been thoroughly covered. 

The main challenge appears to be the widely held belief that LGBT material will cause children to question and even alter their gender and sexual identity. To be perfectly honest, if the problem is this simple, just give the kid a straight book and change them back. If that doesn’t work, then maybe the book wasn’t the problem. If this sentiment were even remotely true, not only would gay conversion therapy have a much higher success rate, but the music of Elton John would’ve caused a surge in the gay population that has not been reflected in today’s demographics. In all seriousness, there have been no official studies that have suggested that consumption of LGBT themed media has the ability to alter the sexual or gender identity of a child, regardless of how graphic the material in question. 

Another concern raised regarding LGBT content in school libraries was the grooming of children. In more depth, many parents are concerned that the presentation of LGBT books in schools, in addition to schools teaching about sexual and gender identity in early grades would lead to sexual indecency and non cis hetero identities. However, I won’t be dealing with this in this essay because it deals more with the attitude of a school curriculum towards LGBT content, which is very different from the independent reading of LGBT books.

Because all of the other complaints deal with the inclusion of LGBT content at all, regardless of its alleged effects, I’ll progress this essay into the broader topic of ideological differences, wherein everything I say regarding an ideological disharmony that results in a ban can be applied to LGBT content.

Ideological Conflict

Herein lies the other side of book banning. While the majority of reported book banning occurs based on objections to the content on a surface level, be that sexually explicit material, violence, drug use, etc, the heart of book banning typically pushes forth an ideological standard for writers to create and minds to follow. When a book is banned, it is sending the message that the content therein is unsuitable for our society. Sexual content being censored drives forth the message that such matters ought not to be discussed or explored, for example. Ideological censorship is more sinister. When ideas that differ from the status quo or popular opinion are actively censored, the underlying message is clear: You’re not to differ too radically from the status quo, or incite any events that would reshape it.

While this certainly seems extreme, let’s take a look at the one of the most infamous banned books in American history: Uncle Tom’s Cabin by Harriet Breecher Stowe. Being one of the few books to be able to take at least partial credit for a war, Stowe’s work is infamous for its abolitionist message and its ability to unite many in the North prior to the Civil War breaking out. It faced bans in several southern states, due to strict bans on anti-slavery rhetoric. To this day, it remains banned in several states, despite the end of slavery occuring over a century ago. 

So, does that mean someone can ban a book purely because they don’t agree with its message? Unfortunately yes, to some extent. According to a 2020 survey conducted by the ALA, 26% of book challenges mentioned a religious viewpoint, 6.5% mentioned a political ideology, and 7% mentioned “anti-family” content. Initially, when writing this, I wanted to mimic the style of the prior section and break down specific complaints against noted banned books. I could discuss how a majority of books banned on “religious viewpoints'' were eastern religions or notably anti-christian. Books banned for political viewpoints typically criticize the current or popular regimes of the country. Books that express or support ideas different than those who oppose them are banned, either explicitly because of their ideas, or under a different ban entirely (remember how a lot of LGBTQIA+ content is marked as “sexually explicit” despite not containing sexual content?). The drive to censor contradicting ideologies and perspectives has taken America by greater speed than ever before. Unlike graphic and explicit content however, which is easily broken up and dealt with in separator segments with hardcore evidence, the banning of books due to an ideological conflict typically stems from one common desire: to eradicate an ideology from a society. Therefore, because ideological banning stems from a common source, I’ll focus less on disproving the practice with specific attacks and instead attack the practice as a whole. 

The Doctrines Behind Free Speech

How would someone, or a group of people, effectively destroy an ideology? Whether it’s because the ideology is in conflict with one’s own, or it threatens to destroy America, or could corrupt your children, the methodology is usually the same. Destroy all traces of it. Keep it out of reach from your children. Protest against the teaching of it in schools. Ban books that mention the subject. The practice of banning books, even going so far as to burn books, is rooted in the inability to change. A drive or desire to accept the status quo, regardless of moral superiority or correctness. A desire to take that immovability, and spread it to everyone around you. A rejection of progress and change. 

As a note, this essay, while citing facts and attempting to present things objectively, is opinion based at its core. That being said, there is no solid justification for banning books out of ideological dissonance. Earlier in this essay, I limited my arguments to book bans taking place in the United States, and while I’m reemphasizing this point, and will be using US law and cases to justify my answers, it is worth noting that the censorship of knowledge in any capacity is a moral evil, regardless of the country it occurs in. 

The freedom of speech (and expression, depending on how you interpret laws), is guaranteed under the first amendment of the Constitution. For those that prefer I not cite the laws of any particular country, freedom of speech is also recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights released by the United Nations. The freedom of speech and expression goes as far back as ancient Athens, firmly cementing the freedom to say what you wish (verbally or otherwise) as a human right that is protected by the government, not granted. While restrictions against the freedom of speech have been published (such as “Time, Place, and Manner” restriction) they apply more towards verbal speech and assembly, and must pass a three pronged test of content neutrality, being narrowly tailored, and provide an alternate avenue of expression. The only censorship that applies to book specifically was settled in the Supreme Court case Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District v. Pico (1982), which decided that public schools could bar books that were “pervasively vulgar,” but could not restrict books on the basis of content disagreement. As for pervasively vulgar content, we’ve already seen how that can be abused, and it is rarely ever used with proper intent.

So, if the United States is protecting freedom of speech, it follows that it cannot ban books. The banning of books is a direct violation of freedom of speech. A government that restricts information, knowledge, or expression in any capacity can never be described as free. A society that does not have full access to information, whose thoughts and words are restricted, cannot be described as free. Now while this restricts the government from banning books on a holistic scale, what about schools? What about individual complaints? The first amendment may prevent the government from censoring speech (unless there is a “clear and present danger,” as established in US vs Debs in 1919, but more on that later), and schools cannot remove books based on opinion as settled in Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District v. Pico (1982). So, what’s to stop individuals from filing challenges? Aren’t they simply exercising their freedom of speech? Why can’t they prevent books that they don’t agree with from being published?

If freedom of speech (literature included) is a human right, then any restriction of this is a human rights violation. It is important to recognize that the violation of one’s human rights, be that done by a government agency or individual, is never protected. No, you can’t censor someone else and call it freedom of speech. That’s not equal protection under the law. Now nothing would stop an individual from challenging a work, or writing their own dissenting opinion. That would be freedom of speech. But beseeching public schools and government offices to restrict others' free speech and expression is not an exercisement of your rights, it’s a suppression of theirs. 

The Mentality of Censorship

There appear to be two core reasons why someone would want to censor a book that they do not agree with: Control, or Fear. An ideology could be censored due to one’s desire to control the thinking of a group, or because one fears what exposure to such an idea would do to a group's behavior or mentality. 

Control

To address the first reason, book banning for means of control. The control of information, or more importantly, the censorship of dissenting, unapproved opinions is a hallmark of an oppressive organization. If the belief of a group can only be maintained by the censorship of dissent, then the belief of the group is not worth holding. If banning books is the only way to maintain control, then the control is in no way deserved. Astoundingly, if you are forced to utilize the same tactics as fascist regimes and cults to maintain the belief of those that listen to you, it is your ideology that is flawed, not whatever you’re trying to censor. 

Fear

Now onto the remaining reason for book banning: fear of the ideological effect on readers. The most common form of this is parents who worry that their children will adopt different ideologies and lifestyles after being exposed to books that feature them. While this can stem from a sense of ideological control (Ex: Conservative parents wanting their children to remain conservative), the fear apparent in this form of censorship comes from the idea that the opposition is morally evil. Thus, rather than a sense of preference or control guiding the desire to censor literature, fear-based book banning comes from a drive to maintain moral rightness in others, be that children or an entire society.

Now, while the sense of moral rightness can come from many sources (political, religious, social, or otherwise), barring schoolchildren from reading it is never the correct option. It actually does them a fundamental disservice, as instead of growing and learning to differentiate right from wrong on a holistic scale, certain ideas are demonized without ever being fully explored. 

What would I suggest instead? I’d suggest exposure. 

Instead of banning books, let people read those books, and encourage critical thinking. Parents should never encourage children to blindly or aggressively follow any ideology, whether they agree with it or not. Rather than banning things that don’t fit a certain worldview, exposure to the ideas should be encouraged, so people, children especially, can learn to analyze various different perspectives and make properly informed decisions. Intentionally exposing yourself to literature that you don’t agree with can actually strengthen some of your own views, and if not, can force you to reevaluate core beliefs. Take Decarte’s approach: forcefully reject all your beliefs, and then, through careful consideration and analysis, figure out what is true, and what misconceptions you may have held. 

For those opposed, allow me to briefly examine a fault in the alternative. When ideas are demonized, portrayed as a moral evil with little to no explanation, it abandons critical thinking. When one only spouts the harms of an opposing idea in a book, without really examining what those ideas are from a holistic perspective, it inherently bars proper critical analysis. What this does instead is produce one-sided and uninformed belief in something based on a set of fear-based morals. Furthermore, because ideology presented in literature is banned, the elusive and unknown nature of such books can become appealing through the “forbidden fruit effect,” where things that are forbidden are inevitably the most inviting (Guess what that’s a reference to). In banning books from your children, you make those books more appealing to your children. Rather than providing reason to support your own beliefs, you merely made the opposition more appealing.

Conclusion

In the end, the banning of books is rarely, if ever, justifiable. Other than potential age restrictions for explicit/graphic content (again, I’m not advocating for first graders to read Fifty Shades of Grey), we see that banning books has no inherent benefit. Instead of sheltering children through fear and control, what if we encouraged them to think, rationally, and confidently. What if people could express their ideas without censorship? What if, for once, we listened to opposition instead of throwing stones? What if we stopped caring so much about the culture warfare of literature, and instead focused on issues that truly matter?

That being said, I’ve got some reading to do. One thing fire can’t destroy is my love of learning.