Censorship violates First Amendment

Over the past several years, more banned book lists have been appearing on the Internet, in the media and in our schools. Many have said that certain books are offensive and therefore do not belong in schools. However, if a book fits within the curriculum and has an educational purpose, schools should have the option to teach it to their students. The First Amendment has states this right, and the Supreme Court consistently reaffirms it.

One of the most controversial books people would like to ban is "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn," by Mark Twain. To some, it is offensive, uses inappropriate language and has no value to students' education.

English teachers and literary critics disagree. To them, the book is a masterpiece of literature that captures the true feeling of a time America would like to forget.

Excellent teachers and professors can teach "Huckleberry Finn" and other controversial books in a manner that proves literary importance, but also allows students the flexibility to learn in a comfortable environment. Teachers must create an atmosphere that does not force a student to accept something they disagree with philosophically or socially.

To accomplish this, teachers can ask questions such as: "Could you see how the book could be found offensive to some?" and "Do you think that the book should be taught in school?"

Consistently, the courts, including the Supreme Court, have ruled book banning is unconstitutional. One of the first victories came in 1913 in the case of United States v. Mitchell Kennerley. In this case, Judge Learned Hand wrote, "I question whether in the end men will regard that as obscene which is honestly relevant to the adequate expression of innocent ideas, and whether they will not believe that truth and beauty are too precious to society at large."

Additionally, in the case of United States v. Random House, Inc., Judge John Woolsey wrote of the book "Ulysses:" "Although it contains many words usually considered dirty, I have not found anything that I consider to be dirt for dirt's sake. A book like "Ulysses" is a sincere and serious attempt to devise a new literary method for the observation and description of mankind."

Mark Twain's masterpiece creates the same reaction. "Huckleberry Finn" uses "dirty language" to convey a true picture of society in the late 1800s. Twain was attempting to use the vernacular to create the best possible mood of that time. America must realize the hatred and language Twain uses in the book was used solely for the purpose of historical accuracy, and not for the purpose of offending.

The Court stated a strong opinion against book banning in Stanley v. Georgia. The Court ruled: "If the First Amendment means anything, it means that the State has no business telling a man what books he may read or what films he may watch. Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds."

Libraries must be unbiased places where anyone can get books on a wide variety of subjects. Fortunately, many of our school and public libraries do not ban most well-known books that some demand be removed. However, with individual library directors making the decisions of what books to purchase, many times an unbiased range of books will not exist.

As a result, the American Library Association Library Bill of Rights must become the adopted standard for book selection. Values of interest, information and enlightenment must be the basis for book selection. Never should a library reject a book because of the race or nationality of the author, or the social, political or religious views of the book.

Libraries should provide books from all different points of view and challenge attempts at censorship. The Library Bill of Rights further states that a library is "an institution of education for democratic living." Remembering these fundamental principles is essential to prevent book banning in America.

Perhaps America should also listen to the words of President Dwight Eisenhower on the importance of freedom. Eisenhower wrote: "Our librarians serve the precious liberties of our nation: freedom of inquiry, freedom of the spoken and written word, freedom of exchange of ideas."

All Americans should have all sides of each issue available to them, so they can make their decisions on what is good to read. President Eisenhower believed this was man's job, not the government's. Freedom cannot exist because of legislation. Also, freedom cannot come from censorship. Freedom comes from the people.

The libraries of America are and must remain the homes of free, inquiring minds. Citizens must be able to use libraries with clear confidence that they can freely seek the whole truth in such places of learning. Allowing libraries and schools to display and use controversial books is an excellent lesson in intellectual freedom. Eisenhower, the Courts and the American Library Association were ultimately all correct.

However, the First Amendment also means that people have the ability to write or speak that certain books must be banned. The First Amendment is blind to those people who write in favor of it, and those who write against it. Here, too, we must permit people to write in favor of book banning, because individuals must come to their own decisions from the materials presented and available.

Compared to high schools, the problem of book banning is less prevalent at the university level. Some may argue this is a result of the fact that college students are more mature. Rather, such freedom is due more in part to the effort of professors to make the university an institute of intellectual freedom. General public libraries and high schools must strive to do the same.

To this day, our libraries and schools must remain a haven for liberties and freedoms. If government continues to allow educational institutes to display and teach materials deemed worthy, America will be stronger because diversity of opinion exists and freedom persists.