Book banning has been a recent and consistently controversial topic in both liberal and conservative conversations about free speech, inside and out of political spheres. In treading the edges of this ever-prevalent conversation, it’s important to look at why books are banned, and if they are being restricted for the right reasons or not. As a college student studying English and political science as well as an avid reader since childhood, the recent news surrounding this topic has piqued my interest heavily.
In order to fully explore this topic, I want to lay out a brief historical precedent. Book bannings are often utilized by governments to restrict access to information during times of political turmoil. In history, book burnings are a prime example of this censorship, and one would argue that in today’s political climate, we aren’t even close to a state like such. However, it is still incredibly important to acknowledge that history only repeats itself, and understanding patterns like these in politics – something ignorant individuals may refuse to acknowledge.Â
When books are banned, the topics and stories within are often taken to an extreme, viewed as politically incorrect or inappropriate by one side or the other, but those declaring a book to be these things may simply not be the audience for the book and its topics. This issue brings up the conversation of subjectivity in writing and whether books are being restricted for the right reasons, if the right reasons exist at all. Reviewers and those pushing for books to be banned justify their dislike through reasons such as “not liking the writing style” or “not liking the plot,” when the real issue comes down to, for example, a 54-year-old man not liking a YA fiction novel targeted towards girls. Reviewers like these may become more and more of an issue however, thus leading to more inappropriately-restricted works.Â
Recently, children’s to middle grade books have been a prominent target of book banning, backed up by the idea that bans “protect the kids.” Thus, books containing inclusive characters and stories are restricted to prevent the spread of one’s political agenda and another’s destruction of society. A recent example I found interesting was the banning of Freckleface Strawberry by Julianne Moore, a short children’s book I, along with many others, grew up reading. It follows a young girl who is made fun of for her freckles and red hair but eventually learns to embrace them, encouraging the readers to find empowerment in their differences, not to shy away from them. The book was banned in military family schools as a part of Trump’s Department of Defense compliance review. Books like such should be taken into further consideration as to whether it sets one person off, or spits an entire political agenda. It is a children’s book after all, right?
Political biases motivate most, if not all, book bannings, which begs the question of what isn’t, or rather, what should and shouldn’t be considered a political matter. It becomes a deeper issue as well, when we, free individuals become subject to subjective topics and decisions being made for us, as opposed to the free will that is allegedly promised by the constitution. If a parent doesn’t want their child to read a specific book, they don’t have to allow them, however, that should not be a federal governance in libraries and classrooms nationwide.Â
The best way to avoid censorship is to take it upon yourself to find information, and to encourage those around you to do as such as well in order for everyone to be able to develop their own opinions and views, rather than the government and people with no sensitivity imposing one view or another. With that, it’s also important to exercise free speech in ways like writing to local and federal governments, voting, and other liberties that we are so lucky to have. Authors should not live in fear that their works will be diminished by the wrong person, and readers should not have to worry about their consumption of information being restricted. Individual knowledge is power, something thoroughly more important than restrictions imposed by a few individuals.