In recent years there’s been concern of the government’s censoring powers stemming from the passage of the USA PATRIOT act. As a result of 9/11, this well intentioned but hastily written legislation conveys extraordinary powers to the FBI to remove information from the public domain which it deems harmful to the nation’s security. It further authorizes the government to obtain records of online and published documents viewed by individuals. The entire process is secretive, without independent review, so civil libertarians have argued the government has too much power to censor information. Taking its lead from the US, both the European Union and the Australian government are now enacting similar legislation empowering them to ban print and electronic materials that would promote or aid terrorists. The question is: can the government be trusted with this editorial power to ban the right books?
Book banning and censorship has existed probably since Guttenberg invented his printing press. Banning books in the US has mostly occurred at the community level where non-governmental civic groups have lobbied or forced libraries, school districts and bookstores to not order or remove books from their shelves. The American Library Association (ALA) has a website listing famous and popular literature that has earned the distinction of being banned in recent times (George Orwell’s 1984 included). Until recently, the US government’s banning practices mainly focused on blocking the distribution of obscene or pornographic materials. While most cases were cut and dry, there are instances where its reasoning was more mob driven rather than morally determined. Yet while the government has occasionally erred in its responsibility to protect its citizens, its mainly gotten it right, and in the instances where it has failed, the courts have been the recourse to set things right.
The problem we are facing today is that the 200+ year old formula that protects free speech has been short circuited by well intentioned, but myopic, lawmakers. Given the government’s ability to block or remove information from the public domain without reason, review or disclosure, it has the potential to manipulate information of any form at any time. While some may argue that literary works aren’t as likely to be targeted as technical information that can be used to harm the country, I would argue that social or political literary works (or most meaningful fiction) can be subjected to the same scrutiny or control. The point is, without the ability to know or challenge the censorship, or banning of books, there’s no way to check our government when it inevitably goes astray. Yet while the ACLU and other organizations fight to undo the damages done by the PATRIOT act, I wonder why more people don’t get the injustice perpetrated against them. I can’t help but think of Lord Acton’s dictum of absolute power and Orwell’s other banned book Animal Farm and ask: why are we’re letting the pigs get away with it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Maybe what's necessary is to make a distinction between freedom of speech and freedom of access to information. I don't think the book banners are arguing that the authors don't have the right to write the books, or that the publishers don't have the right to publish them. They just want to restrict access to them.
Post a Comment