Same Discussion, Different Decade

I discussed in my previous post the troubles that the publishing world has to face in toeing the line between promoting free speech that might be poorly received or conforming to what the public wants at the expense of an author's voice. But let's be honest, this isn't a modern-day dilemma. Basically since the invention of the printing press, printers and publishers have face this problem. We can look back on those early conflicts and see that obviously the printers should have allowed more of their "controversial" books because they helped people learn to think for themselves. Today it doesn't seem as clear.

In the early years of the printing press it was common to have books on ban that were considered detrimental to faith or political loyalty. Even through the centuries we have many books now considered classics that were either banned or heavily challenged; Lord of the Flies,
Catcher in the Rye, To Kill a Mockingbird, and even Lord of the Rings have been challenged, burned, or banned at some point in time. It seems that as we grow in our understanding of the world and human nature, we are able to see the benefit in books that deal with more sensitive subjects, but the question still remains: are there books that take things too far?

The most recent topic of controversy in publishing occurred in 2015 when a publishing company made a book deal with an author that was known for his alt-right views and degrading speech. Many people thought that this author was too derogatory and hateful for any publisher to publish. Finally, after a public comment from the author about pedophilia, the publisher pulled the plug. It seems that not only are books being censored but authors as well.

So the conflicts stands. Are there things that publishers should be censoring, or is it the responsibility of the reader to decide what is appropriate or not?

image credit: public domain images via Wikimedia Commons