Censorship: The Adversary of Integrity

Censorship has been an element of almost every society that has existed since the idea of free thought was first conceptualized. The language used by a community is a major factor in that community's social structure, and therefore the censorship of any form of media affects the ways in which the society develops. For as long as censorship has been involved in the development of cultures and communities, it has been a controversial issue.
In ancient times, censorship was used by those in power to control their societies by only allowing the general public access to certain information. Some of the most notable examples of this include the Catholic Church's repression of the astronomical discoveries of Copernicus and Galileo, which defied the Bible's representation of the the Universe. Not all censorship was intended to maliciously repress knowledge, however. In The Republic, Socrates encourages heavy censorship of art, music, and poetry in his theoretical Ideal State. The reason he gives for this is that these depictions of reality are inaccurate, and therefore inherently flawed. When an audience is subjected to these, they interpret them differently than they would the real objects they depict, and this can lead to a false view of reality (Plato, Book X). In this way, Socrates makes the greatest philosophical argument for censorship.
The problem with Socrates's view of censorship is that he bases it upon a society which has been very precisely structured to be a perfectly just aristocracy, and such a society has never existed. Rather, in democracies, like ancient Athens or modern America, each individual has the right to interpret reality in whatever way they choose, and is usually entitled to act in self-interest rather than the goals of the community (Plato, Book VIII). This is why one of the founding principles of the United States is that every citizen has the rights of freedom of speech, press, and peaceful assembly. Similar basic freedoms can be found in many of nations that proudly claim to uphold the values of individual rights and intellectual freedom. These simple rights have, and will forever continue to generate meaningful discourse and rational thought, which ultimately leads to the adaptation of social structures to better fulfill the needs of the population. Without them, societies resist natural change by replacing the value of individuality with that of conformity.
When those who have power in a society hold certain values, they fear a social change that could lead to the loss of their influence and the development of contrary ideals. In the communist country of China, all forms of media are heavily regulated and censored in order to “make sure content promotes and remains consistent with party doctrine,” (Zissis). According to the Chinese constitution, all citizens are granted the freedoms of speech and press, however they “must defend 'the security, honor, and interests of the motherland,'” (Zissis). These media controls are designed to uphold the values of those in power within China, giving them the power to quell any dissent that may be offered to their regime.
Similarly, though far less drastically, in America, different special-interest groups seek to impose media controls over the population to promote their own doctrines. Many extreme liberals and conservatives believe that some form of censorship is necessary in order to avoid offending people, but few can agree on what should be censored. While this censorship is certainly well-intentioned, it is not in the interest of the individuals in a society, but of certain groups with a particular set of values.
Religious groups tend to be very zealous regarding which values should be taught because theirs remain constant while the wants and needs of every society constantly change. Like the repression of the scientific discoveries of Galileo, certain Christian groups in America believe that evolution should not be taught in public schools despite the fact that there is no evidence which disproves this theory. Some “progressive” Christian groups feel that Intelligent Design, a theory who’s only support comes from a 2,000 year old work of fiction, should be taught alongside evolution in schools in the interest of “equality.” To add further insult to this repression of scientific knowledge, some Christian groups would like to control the availability of works of fiction which contain themes contrary to those found in their own fictional literature. Some of these themes include what Christians believe to be the Pagan influence of witchcraft, magic, and talking animals.
In America, the opposing side of this argument is equally vehement about the censorship of literature, though for different reasons. Rather than trying to protect our youth from “Pagan influence and immorality,” they are attempting to keep them from exposure to what they consider to be racist, sexist, or otherwise intolerant language and behavior. The irony of this, of course, lies in the fact that in censoring this material, they are sending the message that intolerance of certain material is acceptable so long as the material in question disagrees with the common beliefs held by society. This method very closely resembles the forced unity that is the goal of Communist China’s media controls. Some of the material that these groups consider offensive includes classic works of literature such as Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn and Maya Angelou’s I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings for racism, and Laura Ingals Wilder’s Little House on the Prairie for sexism. Anyone who is familiar with any of these works can immediately recognize the irony of censoring them for containing these themes. Both Twain and Angelou use the themes of racism to disprove the commonly accepted stereotypes of race that were held at the time, while the Little House series is designed to abolish sexist thought. Easily the worst among the examples of literature censorship is that of Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, which portrays censorship as the catalyst which leads to a dystopian society in which free thought no longer exists.
Many other classic literary works are under attack or already banned from schools for containing material that is considered racist or sexist, even though these themes are historically accurate representations of commonly held beliefs. Among these are Harper's To Kill A Mockingbird, J.D. Salinger's Catcher in the Rye, and even The Diary of Anne Frank. Some parents do not want these books being used in schools because they feel that exposure to these themes will teach their children bad habits such as intolerance for other ethnicites or religions. When these books are properly taught, the students should understand the injustice of prejudice, and the values of acceptance and rational thought.
Racism and sexism are not the only topics that many parents consider too controversial for their children to read. Edward B. Jenkinson's list of the 25 most common reasons for the banning of books includes many themes that do not relate to prejudice, but rather to free thought and non-conformity. The list includes:
“Children questioning authority of parents and other authority figures,... Works that do not champion the work ethic, Books that do not promote patriotism, Negative statements about parents, authority, US traditions, … Books promoting self-awareness, self-understanding, Books promoting critical thinking,” (Winkler 49).

Parents are growing increasingly more concerned about the ability of their children to make their own competent decisions, and so tell them not to question the authority figures. Questioning authority is a theme that appears in one form or another in the majority of literary works. The removal of these works from schools would leave children with very little ability to reason on their own, and would be significantly detrimental to their overall education.
In addition to questioning authority, racism, and sexism, some parents seek to ban books from middle and high schools for examples of situations that teenagers may face and should be knowledgeable about. The biggest “threats” these books contain are scenes dealing with sexual issues. This may include anything from safe-sex and homosexuality, to more complex issues such as teen-pregnancy and abortion. One such book that is highly unpopular among parents is Robert Cormier's The Chocolate War, which ranked number four on the American Library Association's ten most frequently challenged books of 2005 due to its sexual content and use of profanity. While parents tend to disprove of this kind of literature in schools, it is exactly the type of writing in which today's adolescents are interested. By banning books like these which actually capture the attention of adolescents, parents are slowly destroying the literature experience for future generations. Since this age group tends to find many classic works of literature boring, “There is more to be gained by gently luring them to these [Cormier's] books rather than trying to cram a lifetime's experience with reading into six years because 'it may be the only opportunity they have,'” (Redmond 92).
Writer Judy Blume also receives heavy criticism from parents for her books which are targeted mainly at middle school aged children. Her works often include real-world problems that children may be undergoing such as divorce or domestic abuse. These themes make her books highly popular among children because they “give the impression of being derived not from the recreation of closely observed individuals but from the fleshing out of general life processes derived from the statistics of contemporary psychology,” (Garber 56-57). In other words, her books are so popular among children because they are, as one avid 11-year-old reader describes them: “'about life the way it really is,'” (Garber 56). Most of her adolescent books contain endings in which the main characters, who had previously undergone stressful challenges, return to the course of their daily lives. Despite their optimism and uplifting morals, the books of Judy Blume, most noticeably Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret, are still being taken off school library shelves across America.
The Harry Potter series, another set of books that is incredibly popular among youth in America, is also objected to by many groups which feel that it is having a negative impact on children. The same Christian groups which protest the teaching of evolution as “only a theory,” would like to see the Harry Potter series removed from libraries because they feel it has a Pagan influence on children and promotes an interest in the occult. Author Judy Blume comments on this phenomenon in a New York Times editorial: “In my books, it's reality that's seen as corrupting. With Harry Potter, the perceived danger is fantasy.” (Blume 456) This comment illustrates the utter failure of trying to appease the population by censoring unfavorable material: everything is unfavorable to someone. Other than this the only thing any of these “controversial” books have in common is that their authors spent a great deal of time and effort in producing them so that the readers could be entertained and briefly perceive the world from a new perspective.
The overall goal of any form of censorship is to control media, and by extension control those influenced by the media by focusing their perception upon the goals of those in control. The majority of groups that seek to impose their own views on others through some form of censorship believe that this control is necessary because people are generally incapable of coexisting peacefully without it. Each time a form of media is censored, the ability of future generations to shape their own societies based on their needs is hindered. Whether the goal is to fight racism, sexism, wavering obedience to authority, smut, or religious doctrines, censorship in any form is immoral, and enemy of all intellectual freedom.

Works Cited
Blume, Judy. “Is Harry Potter Evil?” Exploring Language 11th Edition. Ed. Gary Goshgarion, Longman Press, 2007. 456-457. Print.
Garber, Stephen M. “Judy Blume: New Classicism for Kids.” The English Journal, Vol. 73, No. 4 (April 1984). Pages 56-59. Found at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/816587?seq=2&Search=yes&term=blume&term=judy&list=hide&searchUri=/action/doBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Djudy%2Bblume%26gw%3Djtx%26prq%3Djudy%2Bblumr%26Search%3DSearch%26hp%3D25%26wc%3Don&item=1&ttl=599&returnArticleService=showArticle&resultsServiceName=doBasicResultsFromArticle
Plato. The Republic. Ed. Andrea Tschemplik, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 2005. 420 pages. Print.
Redmond, Judith K. “Young Adult Literature: Is There Life After Judy Blume?” The English Journal, Vol. 71, No. 3 (March, 1982). Pages 92-94. Found at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/817046?seq=1&Search=yes&term=blume&term=judy&list=hide&searchUri=/action/doBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Djudy%2Bblume%26gw%3Djtx%26prq%3Djudy%2Bblumr%26Search%3DSearch%26hp%3D25%26wc%3Don&item=2&ttl=599&returnArticleService=showArticle&resultsServiceName=doBasicResultsFromArticle
Winkler, Lisa K. “Celebrate Democracy! Teach About Censorship.” The English Journal, Vol. 94, No. 5 (May, 2005). Pages 48-51. Found at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30047353? &Search=yes&term="Lisa+K.+Winkler"&list=hide&searchUri=/action/doBasicSearch %3FSearch%3DSearch%26Query%3Dau:%2522Lisa%2520K.%2520Winkler %2522&item=1&ttl=1&returnArticleService=showArticle
Zissis, Carin. “Media Censorship in China.” Council on Foreign Relations. Found at: http://www.cfr.org/publication/11515/#p2