Is it Ever Moral to Ban a Book?
The UK currently holds no laws or government initiatives to ban books specifically. Despite this, even with legislation dedicated to protecting freedom of speech and expression, books are often restricted and challenged. For most, this notion of censorship and banning of books is archaic, reminiscent of the fascist dictatorships of the 20th century. Yet, the secret crusade on racial identity, LGBTQ+ and ‘controversial’ themes in particular occurs nonetheless. In an era where information is readily shared and accessed, is it ever morally right to ban a book? Should the law determine what we choose to read?
Whilst the UK has no law specifically banning books, a series of acts allow the government to restrict publications under specific circumstances. Under the Obscene Publications Act 1964, Material containing immoral sexual content, violence and profanity that may ‘deprave and corrupt’ its readers can be prohibited. As well as this, The Public Order Act 1986, amongst others, can allow the government to restrict publications that display racial or religious hatred likely to incite violence or conflict.
The brunt of the restrictions challenging books in the UK and USA today does not come from government organisations but from parents of children in education. Index on Censorship, an organisation dedicated to opposing challenges to free expression, revealed that over half of UK school librarians, within their investigation, have been pressured to restrict books that contained LGBTQ+ and racially controversial content. The United States faces larger issues: the American Library Association reported that requests for banning a book had led to 4240 new books being challenged.
The censorship of books holds the basic assumption that the words we read directly impact our lives, mould our minds and influence our future actions. Those who wish to restrict books do so because they believe these publications to be immoral or threatening to the status quo. This is the case with school parents believing LGBTQ+ content to be destructive to children. Yet within this lies a paradox – is it inaccurate to say that one person’s idea of dissenting opinions is another’s perception of a call to arms? With all books aiming to impress us with the author’s reality view, the only threat books hold is to encourage ‘immorality’ within those who already endorse it. But even so, to restrict books to fit within certain approved standards of morality raises issues of immorality within itself. Where would the line between condemnation and approval be drawn? Should distinct legislation decide this? If every publication were scrutinised against lines of law, there would be a risk that the only finished products would be permeations of a few accepted messages.
The lack of respect for freedom of expression is worrying and immoral. Whilst the restriction of books containing paedophilic or terrorist content, for example, is not contested, the banning of books for supposed morality reasons, as prevalent currently in the Western world, infringes on our right to hold opinions, share information and express ourselves. Book banning, particularly at an educational level, infringes upon opportunities for children to enhance their understanding of complex issues. This can lead to cultural narrowing, posing the threat of the creation of echo chambers where existing prejudices are reinforced, and empathy in wider society is lost. Most particularly damaging would be the psychological effect on those whom the book restrictions target, chiefly LGBTQ+ and minorities. Being unable to read about themselves and the issues that face them threatens their identity and inclusion in society.
But if the state of book banning in the UK depends on pressure on librarians, is there no auxiliary or legal support for these librarians? Most public and school libraries in the UK follow guidelines created by the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP), which promotes intellectual freedom and aims to defend librarians from censorship pressures. Yet, with suppressions rising, these guidelines are increasingly incompatible with targeted libraries. More needs to be done to protect the integrity of schools and public libraries, particularly by schools themselves. The government must take the initiative and legislate to prevent arbitrary censorship -- or at least implement a transparent review process to ensure fair restrictions.
It is largely immoral to ban books regardless of content. However, in instances such as paedophilia or terrorism, the practice is vindicated, and the law is responsibly suppressing these materials. However, banning books solely for self-perceived morality reasons displays clear immorality, and the law’s lack of initiative to combat this is feeble and demands reform.
By Adam Nealon
