Censorship By Any Other Name...

by Jenna Ahern

In a world that has "moved past" literary censorship, is it ethical to prevent the publication of literature that conflicts with the popular public view?

Looking back on the history of publishing, we now think of the biased censorship that often occurred as being clearly unjustified and detrimental to the progress of independent thinking. But when we are living in a time of gray areas and thin lines, we realize that the answers aren't as cut-and-dry as they appear upon looking back. Hindsight may be 20/20, but it doesn't answer the questions in today's publishing world about what is justified censorship or if there is such a thing. After spending centuries fighting for freedom of speech, religion, information, etc., turning around and censoring texts that are deemed by a simple majority as being too extreme or radical is nothing but a modern version of censorship.

History of Censorship

In around 1439 CE Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press, changing the entire world. Books were now available to the common people, whereas previously, only clergy and the wealthy had the means to possess books of any kind. This limited availability of information maintained a widespread level of ignorance among the lower class, making it difficult for them to form independent thoughts and ideas.

While serving a mission for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Peru, I was severely limited in my access to information. I didn't have access to the internet (with the exception of two websites once a week), I couldn't watch television, and I wasn't allowed to frequent the library or even read books outside those that pertained specifically to the gospel that I was called to preach. With this limited availability of resources, it was rather difficult to learn more about the details and facts of quotidian events or objects. At one point, I wanted to know about the symbols on the Peruvian flag, but without the resources that we modernly have access to, I had to rely solely on the information given by those around me who had access to that information. I was thrilled to finish my mission and regain access to the information that we take for granted. Whoever said "ignorance is bliss" was gravely mistaken.

In the wake of the invention of the printing press, a whole society was essentially flooded with information that they could now read for themselves rather than having to rely on the knowledge of those in power. Access to knowledge sparked many people to question what they had always been taught (e.g. Martin Luther and the 95 Theses). And while those in power continued to try and censor or prohibit certain books and literature they felt would have negative effects on the readers, their efforts proved often unsuccessful, and information continued to spread. Access to this knowledge allowed the spread of new ideas and beliefs. And while the development of new ideas is undeniably a good outcome, it did cause to develop a rift between ideas that would continue to grow until the present day.

Side Effects That Never Go Away

We look at the censorship that occurred in the time following the invention of the printing press and agree that the prevention of the circulation of literature and knowledge was a mere attempt at continuing to control the lower class and keep them from revolting against the power (the church as well as the government). They thought that what they were doing was the obvious right thing; we think otherwise. Similar debates exist even today.

Following a six-figure book deal between alt-right author Milo Yiannopoulus and popular publisher Simon & Schuster, many people spoke out in rebuke of the publisher's choice to publish an openly prejudice author who was banned from Twitter for his violation of its harassment code. Many felt that publishing his autobiography, Dangerous, was supporting and promoting hate speech and views that were too extremely conservative. Eventually the book was dropped after yet another controversial comment made by the author and more backlash from the public.

Truth, holding a mirror and a serpent (1896)

This recent example of censorship shows that the conflict is still going but is much more complicated than our perception of it in the past. It might be tempting to look at this example and think that censoring an author of this reputation is the right thing to do because his ideas and notions would be detrimental to society; we obviously don't want to promote hate speech, and those who spoke out against this book deal felt that that is what the outcome of the deal would be. But who gets to be the judge of what is hate speech and what is honest opinion? It might seem clear to one group of people that certain extremist views are prejudice, but in the end we all have the right to free speech. So then who decides what is right? what is wrong? what is truth? Obviously publishers have the right to decide what they want to publish, and consumers have the right to decide what they want to read, but protesting a publisher for publishing a book that promotes ideas that are different or polarized is just a way of promoting censorship in literature, which is something that we all seem to be against.

Conclusion

Regardless of our personal beliefs, publishing should be encouraged to publish all varieties of books without backlash from the public. What may seem obviously "right" or "wrong" to one person may not hold the same weight for another (even if some of these things hold a majority opinion). Each opinion and belief has a right to be shared, even ones that strongly conflict with what we consider to be "obvious."  Publishing should continue to be neutral and, therefore, able to publish works from many different view points, even those that are deemed "too extreme."


Images credit: public domain images via Wikimedia Commons

Sources: 
Martin Luther and the 95 Theses
Publishers Encounter Political Storms in Turn to Right