OPINION: Never Censor...Ever? A Response to Banned Book Week

("Censored" by Peter Massas via Flickr)

This week, The American Library Association (ALA) conducted its annual "Banned Books" Week in which it seeks to raise awareness about the harms of censorship. UT-Tyler's Muntz Library also participated with on-site displays and a social media campaign along this same theme. 

However, ALA's view that censorship is always bad draws serious hesitation from this observer when one considers the extreme these advocates go to protect profane and morally hazardous content. 

For example, one social media post on X (formerly Twitter) displayed the library's collection of Alfred Kinsey's two works "Sexual Behavior In The Adult Male" (1948) and "Sexual Behavior In The Adult Female"(1953) which the posts cite as significant research that others tried to ban. As many readers may know, many critics question how Kinsey could observe sexual responses in children without sexually abusing them himself or witnessing their sexual abuse in-person. 

The library display also presented ALA's 13 Most Challenged Books in 2022, most of which its website states were banned in public libraries or subject to challenge due to their LGBTQ+ and sexually explicit content. Such works include Gender Queer: A Memoir by Maia Kobabe and This Book Is Gay by Juno Dawson.

Now, before I get to my position on censorship, ALA's bending-over backwards to promote and even champion content as this makes me realize that the Modern Liberal view of free speech, which dressed up as liberation and anti-censorship, appears to be really a manifestation of The Left's underlying problem with authority. 

With a mind that is always  curious about new information, it seems to me that one never arrives at wisdom. That is, The Modern Liberal view, with its moral relativism, is always learning, but never arriving at a knowledge of the truth. It can never arrive at an acceptance of absolute truth because of its presuppositional committments to rebel against moral authority. In this sense, the Liberal view must defend anyone's right to say anything when, in reality, the Liberal impulse is really about its attempt to avoid the objective moral world. 

This problem with moral authority and objective moral truth is by nature adolescent and immature. For those of us who come to accept moral authority in the created world, including that authority which rest with the Creator--even if it is not the Christian creator, but The Divine Being whose transcendent nature shines through the natural world--we can never proceed to a higher life of wisdom in the public realm if we must defer to every folly and profane thing man can observe. In other words, without some censorship, we are wedded to a life of immaturity, higher virtues constantly subject to obscenity and profanity. 

So, the Liberal impulse to defend every view as though it were a work of great literature limits higher moral virtue and undermines good social order. 

One comes to reject the proposition that censorship is never appropriate given the folly anti-censorship advocates display by bolstering every word and work that is obscene. Surely, there is some content we can prohibit from public space.

However, the concern with censorship is its possible abuse. That is, whoever it is who does the censoring (in this case, it would be the government) can go too far, be too narrow or too prejudiced in its prohibition. It can oppress innovation or restrict freedom of thought. To fear government's abuse of censorious powers is a legitimate concern. 

Yet, destruction comes from both sides: from both the chaos of uncensored obscenity in the public square and from a crushing orthodoxy in heavy-handed government censorship.

Therefore, this calls for prudence. We cannot have a chaotic society and we cannot have one that is overly burdensome. Yet, some limits are appropriate. Therefore, we must be prudent in our application of government power and we must leave these kinds of censorious decisions to the majority of a community population in a locale. Those who are closest to the situation are those who can best find the proper balance in their solution. 

So, though I am independent-minded by personality, I cannot accept that there is no occasion in which it is right for the government to censor content. The American Library Association's anti-censorship campaign makes this clear. 

While I value individual liberty, a man's highest mission is to serve others, and this places ultimate priority on the community rather than the individual. Governments should encourage virtue for the stability of human institutions which serve man in community: marriage, family, township and church. Governments have the power to create the structure that facilitates flourishing for these institutions. Civilization is the goal. While I proceed cautiously, I cannot accept that there is never a time to censor obscenity in the public square.

Sign-up for my newsletter! 

X: @Jhescock12

Feature Image:  "Censored" by Peter Massas via Flickr