Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Crying Censorship and the ALA; Don't Let the ALA Redefine Censorship

Stanley Fish has written an excellent article on censorship in The New York Times called "Crying Censorship." He points out that much of what people call "censorship" is really "judgment" that "has nothing to with freedom of expression," and is "not [a] blow[] against the First Amendment."

Specifically addressing libraries, Mr. Fish says, "Nor is it censorship when a library decides not to purchase a book or to withdraw a book from the shelves. You can still get it from Amazon.com. or buy it in Borders."

The American Library Association [ALA], on the other hand, pins almost its entire raison d'ĂȘtre on claiming to defend against "censorship" and First Amendment violations. For example, the so-called "Library Bill of Rights" includes, "Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment."

What is "censorship"? Stanley Fish defines censorship this way:

It is censorship when Germany and other countries criminalize the professing or publication of Holocaust denial. (I am not saying whether this is a good or a bad idea.) It is censorship when in some countries those who criticize the government are prosecuted and jailed. It was censorship when the United States Congress passed the Sedition Act of 1798, stipulating that anyone who writes with the intent to bring the president or Congress or the government “into contempt or disrepute” shall be “punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.” Key to these instances is the fact that (1) it is the government that is criminalizing expression and (2) that the restrictions are blanket ones. That is, they are not the time, manner, place restrictions that First Amendment doctrine traditionally allows; they apply across the board. You shall not speak or write about this, ever. That’s censorship.


The ALA defines censorship in a totally different way, likely using a Saul Alinsky technique of redefining the language for political gain, and notice how people are now called "censors" repeatedly:

What Is Censorship?

Censorship is the suppression of ideas and information that certain persons—individuals, groups or government officials—find objectionable or dangerous. It is no more complicated than someone saying, “Don’t let anyone read this book, or buy that magazine, or view that film, because I object to it! ” Censors try to use the power of the state to impose their view of what is truthful and appropriate, or offensive and objectionable, on everyone else. Censors pressure public institutions, like libraries, to suppress and remove from public access information they judge inappropriate or dangerous, so that no one else has the chance to read or view the material and make up their own minds about it. The censor wants to prejudge materials for everyone.


Source: "Intellectual Freedom and Censorship Q & A," American Library Association, 29 May 2007.

The Stanley Fish and ALA definitions are almost diametrically opposed. Everyone knows the Stanley Fish one is correct. The question is, when will people expose the ALA definition as being false?

"The ... elites have convinced themselves that they are taking a stand against cultural tyranny. .... [T]he reality is that it is those who cry 'Censorship!' the loudest who are the ones trying to stifle speech and force their moral world-view on others." That is from Dan Gerstein, an independent consultant and former communications director and senior strategist for Senator Joe Lieberman's presidential campaign. Stanley Fish would likely agree.

The take away from this is that when the ALA's false cries of censorship or First Amendment violations are being made in your town, do not let the ALA redefine the true definition of censorship. Do what the community knows is right and legal, not what the ALA wants or browbeats the community into. As former U.S. Department of Justice official Pat Trueman just said, "That's a ruse that the American Library Association, which is very pro-pornography and always files lawsuits against the federal government to try to keep pornography widely available, ...put[s] forward to scare libraries...."

Here is Stanley Fish's article reprinted for educational purposes:

"Crying Censorship", by Stanley Fish, The New York Times, 24 August 2008.

Salman Rushdie, self-appointed poster boy for the First Amendment, is at it again. This time he’s not standing up for free expression on his own behalf, but on behalf of another author, Sherry Jones, whose debut novel about the prophet Muhammad’s child bride had been withdrawn by Random House after consultants warned that its publication “could incite racial conflict.”

Random House is also Rushdie’s publisher, and his response to the news was to send an e-mail to The Associated Press. (I never thought of that; maybe I’ll try it myself.) It read, “I am very disappointed to hear that my publishers, Random House, have canceled another author’s novel because of their concerns about possible Islamic reprisals. This is censorship by fear and it sets a very bad precedent indeed.”

This little brouhaha has been widely reported and commentators have tended to endow it with large philosophical and political implications (the Danish cartoon controversy of 2005 and the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh are often referenced). A story in The Times of London online edition describes it “the latest showdown between Islam and the Western tradition of free speech.” One respondent declared bravely, “I will never buy another book published by Random House,” and added, in a frenzy of patriotism, “We are Americans. We are free to choose what we want to read.”

Well, I guess we are, although that wouldn’t be my definition of what it means to be an American. It is also true, however, that Random House is free to publish or decline to publish whatever it likes, and its decision to do either has nothing whatsoever to do with the Western tradition of free speech or any other high-sounding abstraction.

Rushdie and the pious pundits think otherwise because they don’t quite understand what censorship is. Or, rather, they conflate the colloquial sense of the word with the sense it has in philosophical and legal contexts. In the colloquial sense, censorship occurs whenever we don’t say or write something because we fear adverse consequences, or because we feel that what we would like to say is inappropriate in the circumstances, or because we don’t want to hurt someone’s feelings. (This is often called self-censorship. I call it civilized behavior.)

From the other direction, many think it censorship when an employee is disciplined or not promoted because of something he or she has said, when people are ejected from a public event because they are judged to be disrupting the proceedings, or when a newspaper declines to accept an advertisement, rejects an op-ed or a letter, or fails to report on something others think important. But if censorship is the proper name for all these actions, then censorship is what is being practiced most of the time and is in fact the norm rather than the (always suspect) exception.

But censorship is not the proper name; a better one would be judgment. We go through life adjusting our behavior to the protocols and imperatives of different situations, and often the adjustments involve deciding to refrain from saying something. It’s a calculation, a judgment call. It might be wise or unwise, prudent or overly cautious, but it has nothing to with freedom of expression.

Judgment is also what employers exercise when they determine that something an employee has said or written so undermines the enterprise that it warrants dismissal. To the objection that such an action would amount to a curtailing of the employee’s First Amendment rights, the Supreme Court has answered (in Connick v. Myers, 1983) only if the speech in question were directed at a matter of public concern; otherwise, wrote Justice Byron White, “when close working relationships are essential to fulfilling… responsibilities, a wide degree of deference to the employer’s judgment is appropriate.”

Many thought it was censorship in 2004 when ABC refused to air an ad critical of President Bush during the Super Bowl, or when affiliates of the same network refused to show “Saving Private Ryan” out of a fear that under new regulations they would be subject to fines for presenting material containing profanity and graphic violence. Again, these decisions may have been ill-advised or pusillanimous, but they were not blows against the First Amendment and they were not censorship. No doubt the ad played on some other day, and no one is interdicting the showing of the movie, which is readily available in any number of venues. Nor is it censorship when a library decides not to purchase a book or to withdraw a book from the shelves. You can still get it from Amazon.com. or buy it in Borders.

But if none of these actions fits the definition of censorship, what does?

It is censorship when Germany and other countries criminalize the professing or publication of Holocaust denial. (I am not saying whether this is a good or a bad idea.) It is censorship when in some countries those who criticize the government are prosecuted and jailed. It was censorship when the United States Congress passed the Sedition Act of 1798, stipulating that anyone who writes with the intent to bring the president or Congress or the government “into contempt or disrepute” shall be “punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.” Key to these instances is the fact that (1) it is the government that is criminalizing expression and (2) that the restrictions are blanket ones. That is, they are not the time, manner, place restrictions that First Amendment doctrine traditionally allows; they apply across the board. You shall not speak or write about this, ever. That’s censorship.

So what Random House did was not censorship. (Some other press is perfectly free to publish Jones’s book, and one probably will.) It may have been cowardly or alarmist, or it may have been good business, or it may have been an attempt to avoid trouble that ended up buying trouble. But whatever it was, it doesn’t rise to the level of constitutional or philosophical concern. And it is certainly not an episode in some “showdown between Islam and the Western tradition of free speech.” Formulations like that at once inflate a minor business decision and trivialize something too important and complex to be reduced to a high-school civics lesson about the glories of the First Amendment.

*****

(Note: The original version of this essay inadvertently omitted the words “by fear” in the quoted e-mail. This has since been corrected.)

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company


NOTE ADDED 20 JULY 2013:

Three links were updated to provided archived versions of those documents no longer at their original links.

4 comments:

  1. --I have been saying for almost 20 years that the ALA and its Bill of Rights' claim of 'censorship' is false. It's the ALA means of using tax $$ to forward their agenda and stack libraries with said materials. Every time a librarian "selects" items on or off the shelf --that process "limits" the collection and thereby automatically "censors" out many published materials. This process of "selective review" is turned on its head and called "censorship" when taxpayers voice objection to the faulty/abusive selection of p*rn and other sleazy publications paid for with tax$$. Note:choice of materials for the collection by librtarians is "selective review". Taxpayer objection to a poor/abusive "selective review" process is "censorship"
    By labeling the "selective review" objection "Censorship", the public and not the librarian becomes the target of attack.
    Nancy

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nancy, I don't keep up with library policies and procedures in general but I use my local library a lot and have observed and been involved with their practices. The librarians at our library select books, in great part, in response to the patrons who make requests "and also show interest in some topics over others through checking some books out and leaving others on the shelf.

    The librarian must add judgment and "selective review", but the books that are on the shelf are there because someone, if fact a large number of someones, want them to be there and find them enjoyable or useful. These someones, by the way, are taxpayers just like you.

    Next time you are in the library, walk around and take a look at who is there. Families, kids, some of your neighbors. Mostly people who are inclined to read and are probably a bit on the educated side. These are the folks who are requesting and actually checking out the books on the shelfs.

    Since we live in a free society, it is almost a given that we live in a pluralistic. Not everyone is the same, and we don't all take the same approach to life. Some of the folks in the library are interested in gardening, some in model airplanes, but most of them are not. Some want to get rich quick while others might think money is the root of all evil. Are some of them interested in the joy of sex? Yes. Are some of them interested in the joy of gay sex? Yes. Do some of them think sex is the root of all evil? Probably.

    Since we are a pluralistic society, the library has to serve all of these people. They are all taxpayers, they all live in your neighborhood, and they all obey the law. When you call a book that some of them are interested in "porn" or "sleaze" and demand it be taken off the shelf, you are basically saying that that they don't count as much as you do, their judgment is illegitimate, and that you should decide for them what they should have access to in the library. You are indeed acting as a censor, attempting to oversee and control public morality.

    Rather than getting upset that there are taxpayers in your community who have different tastes and habits than you do, why don't you just request the books that you want to see in the library? Instead of complaining about others, make a positive suggestion. Add to the collection instead of detracting from it. Some of your neighbors might find your choices interesting and informative also.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Alan--I think you missed my point. The issue at hand is the overreaching control of ALA Bill of Rights, its selective review policy and phony 'censorship' claim within the local library resulting in the policy of non- removal of material unless by court order.

    Books in the library may come from a patron's request, but more often than not the selection is from the ALA Booklist and/or Publishers Weekly.

    While the collection certainly has worthwhile material, the growing newspaper accounts of objectionable library selections and Internet sleaze have many parents concerned about the explicit downnward trend in public and school libaries.
    Today children and even library employees are being exposed to trashy books and Internet p*rn on the library premise. Case in point--the complaint filed by librarians in Minnesota of workplace sexual harrassment(see following:Feds Back Minnesota Staffers' Complaint
    Library seeks nonmonetary dialog; attorney says librarians deserve $
    By Michael Rogers and Norman Oder -- Library Journal, 7/1/2001
    The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has supported claims by 12 staffers at the Minneapolis Public Library that exposure to heavy porn surfing by patrons constitutes a hostile work environment and thus sexual harassment....)

    Another case in point-- American Libraries report of Sept. 10, 2004--Phoenix Council Demands Porn Filters on All Library Computers
    The city council of Phoenix, Arizona, voted unanimously September 8 to bar adults from unrestricted Internet access on all public library computers....

    So you see, no library serves all people. This, like censorship, is a fallacy. The library has an obligation to enrich, enhance and protect the common good in society and most especially children. It cannot and should not answer all requests as content, space and money necessarily limit what is available.

    Out of many comes ONE and if the common good of the ONE is lost, then both the many and one are ultimately destroyed.

    We in the US are losing our bearings based on the false assumptions and unfounded rights never stipulated in the Constitution.
    Having just read the life of Ben Franklin who established the
    1st library, I think he would be astounded to see how distorted the selective review library process and the 1st Amendment have become in the 21st century.

    Taxpayers want the best for their buck. This cry is heard from Washington DC down to the local library with no exception. Unfortunately in too many instances, the taxpayer is getting short changed even in libraries. Nancy

    ReplyDelete
  4. RE: The library has an obligation to enrich, enhance and protect the common good in society... Out of many comes ONE and if the common good of the ONE is lost, then both the many and one are ultimately destroyed.

    Nancy, I think you really have this wrong. There is not one and only one "common good". In a free society there is, necessarily, MANY conceptions of the good, based on many different religions, philosophies and world views. We live in a pluralistic society, and we all have the right to the pursuit of happiness, as we ourselves conceive of it.

    What we have in common in a FREE and FAIR society is not a single concept of the good, but a public concept of JUSTICE. This public concept of justice defines the terms and conditions on which we cooperate (or not) towards our own conceptions of the good.

    The public library should serve our public concept of justice and support our individual pursuit of happiness within that frame work.

    For instance, my own conception of the good views the excersise of my sexuality as a legitimate and necessary component of my happiness. And I mean that as an end in itself, not as an instrument to some "greater good" such as children and family life. I also extend that concpetion to my children, and have taught it to them as part of my parential duty. For me, it is right and appropriate that the public library help me (and, I must emphasise, my children) with information and other interesting and enjoyable materials related to this subject. I expect my tax dollars to, at least to some small extent, be spent in that way. It is good for me, for my children and a lot of others who live in my community.

    Unfortunitly, there are a few prudes and puritians on the loose who think that their concept of the good is the common conception of the good. I don't know how they arrived at that conclusion, and they don't actually let anyone know; they just assert it in an arrogant, self-rightious and sometimes hysterical manner.

    Often times these illibral, authoritatian puritians claim that the library matterial I am intersted in is "pornography" and "sleaze". I take this as a personal offence and as an attempt to dictate the terms and conditions of my happiness. It is, indeed, censorship, which is the attempt (successful or not) to regulate public morality according to one's own conception of the good, rather than to find ways in which we can all live together and pursue happiness as we individually see fit.

    ReplyDelete

Comments of a personal nature, trolling, and linkspam may be removed.