3/26/2000

The issue of book banning is a very controversial one because it is a blatant attack on the first amendment. Book banning is all about one thing and one thing only: the suppression of unpopular ideas. I have often found that the only ones who will defend book banning are social/religious conservatives and they defend it as something necessary to ensure the healthiness and stability of the community. However this does not justify the suppression of unpopular ideas because ideas which used to be unpopular such as racial equality and separation of church and state have played a key role in making us the great nation that we are today. Book banning is nothing more than an attempt to use the government to crush unpopular speech. It is both harmful to the community that it is occurring in and harmful to the nation.

The first amendment was not created by the founders because they wanted to protect popular speech, it was created by them to ensure that unpopular speech could not be suppressed by the government. Popular speech would not need government protection because it would have the backing of the populace, but unpopular speech would not and thus need government protection. Without the first amendment, the populace would be able to use the government to suppress any ideas it is uncomfortable with or does not approve of. Book banning is very similar because it too is an attempt to suppress an unpopular idea, however the thing that makes it unique is that it is often a minority of the populace which pushes for it (though sometimes it is a popular cause).

What many morality pushers forget is that a government with the power to ban something they find offensive such as Playboy or "Heather has 2 Mommies" (I believe that's the correct name), is a government powerful enough to ban the Bible. Book banning is a double edged sword and when the morality pushers are out of power and another faction is in power, books like the Bible could very easily be a target. One of the most disturbing parts of book banning though is the fact that of all the books which could be targeted, typically classics like Huck Finn, Tom Sawyer, 1984, Animal Farm and more are the ones being targeted for banning.

If you are offended there are plenty of ways to fight a particular book without banning it. You can push your local libraries to not buy it and work to get other people to tell the libraries that they don't want the book purchased either. That does not stop someone from donating a copy if they so choose to, it just ensures that a book the public doesn't want purchased with tax payer's money. Most people will not donate controversial books like "Heather has 2 Mommies" so it is a safe bet that by not buying them, the community will not have them in their libraries. Even if someone were to donate them, the community would have peacefully and constitutionally stated its stance on the book and even though the book is in the library, it was not bought with tax payer's money.

Book banning is never acceptable because it is the suppression of unpopular ideas. Whether banned for political reasons (anti-leftist like 1984) or for "morality" reasons ("Heather has 2 Mommies") it cannot be accepted. Book banning can only harm the community rather than helping it because book banning keeps the community from being informed on differing ideas.