School Library Censorship: Ethics, Obscenity, and Childhood

(Note: This is a paper I wrote for an English class I was taking two years ago. The research and the writing were rushed, and it was essentially me just taking advantage of an opportunity to write some philosophy for a college class. I only wrote on this topic because it was one of three I was allowed to do, and the sources I could find to cite weren’t necessarily the best. This is a construction of an argument out of the sources available to me at the time and not necessarily an accurate depiction of the nuanced views I have on this subject. I still believe this is a decent paper that makes some good points.)

      Kentucky has recently passed a bill allowing parents to complain about obscene literature in their children’s school library. This legislative action raises several philosophical questions about intellectual freedom, obscenity, and childhood. The government should protect the right of the public to determine what is contained in the collection of their public libraries, but it should also educate the public about the long-term consequences of their decision to ban certain books, the subjective nature of obscenity, and the negative impact of sheltering children from critical topics that are considered obscene. 

First, a fundamental question: should issues of intellectual freedom be decided by human rights or positive consequences? Appealing to positive consequences may have the unfortunate result of violating human rights to obtain the greatest good. To understand this objection, consider whether it would be ethical to murder one person to prevent a billion people from stubbing their toe. It is this counterargument that compels Ward to state, “Rights take precedence over utility; thus, deontological theories take precedence over consequentialist theories” (85). This consideration is essential because the debate over library censorship is centered around the right of the public to determine what their taxes will support, not the right for an author to freely express himself. In the same way that the government has a moral responsibility to protect the freedom of expression, it also has a moral responsibility to protect the freedom to determine what taxpayers want to support with their money. The government should step in to allow the taxpayer to decide whether they want their money to support the books found on the shelves of the public library they funded. However, while the primacy of human rights above positive consequences mea ns that the public should be allowed to determine the contents of library shelves, this does not mean the potential for negative consequences is not worth considering.  Ward also notes, “The librarian is in a special position to aid the public in understanding that, while it has the right to remove or ban books from publicly supported institutions, doing so is unwise. Such removals are wrong and constitute bad public policy just because the long-term consequences may be disastrous” (90). While taxpayers have the right to determine which books are allowed on the shelves, they have no such right in determining the employment status of the librarian anymore than they do a judge or a police officer. Therefore, while the government should prioritize the rights of the public, it should also support the librarian and fund education efforts that aim to prevent unwise censorship that may lead to unintended long-term negative consequences.

Next, how is obscenity conceptualized? While the public has every right to divert tax dollars from obscene books, part of the reason doing so may be unwise and lead to unintended negative consequences is due to confusion surrounding obscenity. Obscenity is commonly understood as something that is inappropriate or offensive in an obvious and static way, as if what is obscene here and now has been obscene to everyone forever everywhere. This is simply not true. Obscenity is not a static concept; it varies between cultures and people. Americans find nudity more obscene than Europeans, and Europeans find violence more obscene than Americans. Some people consider exposure of the shoulders to be offensive while others consider swimswuits perfectly acceptable. This inconsistency in what is considered obscene can harm groups and individuals. An example from Rumberger explains, “And Tango Makes Three (Richardson and Parnell, 2005), a book that features two male penguins raising a baby penguin, has been consistently on the list of attempted banned books for years, cited as a book that promotes homosexuality. This censorship teaches that family structures are normal while making other ways of being a family invisible” (417). There is no universal obscenity, being homosexual is obscene to some and appropriate for others, banning books because of the inherent obscenity of homosexuality will lead to harm and erasure for many in society. The government has a responsibility to educate the public that having a different race, sexuality, or political ideology is not inherently or universally obscene to reduce the potential harm caused by censorship of books based on understanding what is inappropriate as such. 

Finally, should children be sheltered from critical media that is considered inappropriate? This claim centers around the assumption that children are vulnerable and require protection. This protection is often expressed in the form of over managing what and how they are allowed to observe based on reading level, content, and behavior.  Rumberger states, “To critique their world and the power hierarchies that exist within it, however, children need to be exposed to and not sheltered from current events, controversial topics, and relevant conversations with the understanding that they will form their own opinions when given the opportunities and tools to do so” (412). Not only is sheltering children from media deemed inappropriate often detrimental to their ability to critique the world they live in, it can also impart limitations on their ability to exercise agency. Rumberger notes, “When libraries protect authoritative knowledge—as it did at City Partnership School— and do not offer students the opportunity to exercise their own agency and meaning making, students are potentially limited, particularly those from historically marginalized groups” (412). The government has a responsibility to educate the public about the negative consequences of sheltering children from critical media because a vast majority of book bans come from the idea that censorship is the only way to keep their kids safe and healthy when the exact opposite is true. 

Libraries are essential to the access of information, and governments are essential to the protection of rights. The public has the right to choose what they do and do not wish to support with their taxes. The government has a responsibility to make decisions about intellectual freedom in a manner that prioritizes rights above positive consequences. However, it also has a responsibility to educate the public about the negative consequences of their decisions so that the public may have the information at their disposal to lead them towards the brightest future possible. If not given enough information about common place false conceptions surrounding obscenity and sheltering children from critical media, the public may exercise their freedom unwisely and ultimately find themselves in a future full of completely avoidable negative consequences.