Censorship and Banning Books Has No Place in the Modern Democratic Societies - Essay Example

Book Banning of the of the Concerned Professor November 11, 2009 Book Banning In the modern Western civilization, if the freedom of expression is gaining grounds on the one hand, there have been ample incidents where some sections of the society and the state machinery tend to support censorship and banning of books at one pretext or other. The point that needs to be understood is that every idea carries in its fold multiple ramifications and it is always easy and feasible to justify the suppression of an idea or a piece of literature by alluding to the possibly negative impact it may have on the masses in general and the children in particular. One could always come out with the excuses that a specific work of literature or a book could destabilize the society or may have a drastic affect on the impressionable minds (Nocera, 1982).. However, the very act of banning books violates the freedom of speech guaranteed in the constitution and amounts to the deplorable act of suppressing an idea. No free society can allow for the suppression of original and innovative ideas. Freedom and creativity is primarily about allowing for a free play of ideas in a nation and a society, and the act of censorship or the suppression of ideas amounts to intellectual and academic elitism or for that matter orthodoxy. Books should never be banned, especially in the multicultural societies, which are always open to relative and multiple interpretations of ideas. In a free society, every idea and ideology has the right to find its place in the print. Just because a vast section of the society or a majority group does not particularly agree with an idea, this in no way allows for constraining or hampering the dissemination of an idea cherished and liked by a minority part of the society. Certainly, it does not mean that there exists nothing like bad or evil ideas. However, even if an idea is bad or evil in its ramifications, the censorship or banning of such an idea not only bolsters its hold over the society, but hits hard at the very fundamental ethos of the democratic societies like free speech, tolerance and the acceptance of off beat or innovative ideas and views. Ideas should be counteracted, and opposed by ideas and not by autocratic and coercive means like statutory provisions and governmental or state regulation (Nocera, 1982). Such ethos not only allow a society to be ever fresh, innovative and vibrant, but usher in a quintessentially tolerant and catholic intellectual atmosphere, where a free flow and interaction of multiple ideas leads to growth, development and a continual revival of the society. A controversial work of literature always has the potential to give way to debates and discussions in the social arena, which is the hallmark of all the free and democratic societies. To some extent, the banning of the books is justified, especially in the contemporary scenarios marred by a widespread proliferation of hate ideologies and international terrorism. However, the kind of books that need to be banned are the ones that promote hate and intolerance against a particular section of the society, that teach people to operate lethal weapons and how to make bombs, that intend to perpetrate violence and abuse, that threaten or intimidate the masses or that discernibly and unambiguously intend to jeopardize social, religious and political harmony and tolerance. Yet, the very act of censorship and book banning cold be carried beyond the limits of reason and understanding by framing or dubbing the diverse or varied interpretations of ideas as being blasphemous, anti-social, pervert or unpatriotic. So its better that the national conscience and the state focus their power on obstructing and suppressing the obviously violent and intolerant groups and texts, rather then coming heavily on the seemingly innocuous and essentially cerebral works of literature which express or profess a different or a relatively unpopular perspective. The very act of counteracting intolerance should never be allowed to degenerate into a system that is in itself intolerant of diversity and intellectual freedom. What is freedom but allowing the people to choose what the want to read and respecting their right to choose In an adult scenario, it sounds totally nonsensical and absurd for the intellectual elites and the state to decide what people may read or what they should not read. Censorship and banning books in a way is tantamount to demeaning and insulting the citizens' capacity or ability to discern and choose and their right to make choices for themselves. There should be no curb on the publishing and sales on any work of literature or non-fiction and people must be allowed to decide whether they want to read a particular book or not. When it comes to the children, parents do have the right to decide whether the reading of a particular book is good for their children or not. Parents do have the right to make choices as to the preferences or the reading habits of their children. However, clamoring for the banning of a book is excessively much and one simply cannot be delegated the right to decide for other people's children. "now the gate is open so wide that some parents believe that they have the right to demand immediate removal of any book for any reason from school or classroom libraries (Blume, 1999)". For an idea that is, obnoxious to one may be stimulating or motivating for someone else. Everyone has the right to select the intellectual diet one wants to consume. Hence, censorship and banning books has no place in the modern democratic societies, barring the works that conclusively intend to propagate violence, intolerance and abuse. Democracy is about allowing the proliferation of diverse ideas and a willingness to allow for the interaction and collision of ideas. The state should be very careful and discerning while exercising the power of censorship and must avoid being swayed by the majority or popular opinion. The right and the ability of the masses to choose for themselves ought to be respected. Parents do have the right to regulate the reading preferences of their progeny, but no authority or parent can be allowed to make decisions for other people's children Total Words: 1,007 Works Cited Blume, Judy (1999). Is Harry Potter Evil Retrieved November 11, 2009 from National Coalition Against Censorship Web site: http://www.ncac.org/censorship_news/ 20030305cn076Is_Harry_Potter_Evil_by_Judy_Blume.cfm Nocera, Joseph. (1982). The Big Book-Banning Brawl. New Republic, 20, 2225. Read More