SILENCING THROUGH CENSORSHIP

    In Silences, Tillie Olsen rightly points out that censorship in its most extreme form is that which is imposed by the state.  In the United States, free speech is guaranteed in the first amendment via the following words:
       

      “Congress Shall Make No Law Respecting an Establishment of  Religion, or Prohibiting the Free Exercise Thereof; or Abridging the Freedom of Speech, or of the Press; or the Right of the People Peaceably to Assemble, and To Petition the Government for a Redress of Grievances.”

      -- First Amendment

    Despite that guarantee, there are many that believe some materials should be banned, particularly from our nation's schools and public libraries.  The American Library Association has a web site in connection with banned books week, which is celebrated every year in September.  Their site discusses many of the current issues surrounding book banning and includes a list of the top 100 banned books.  The digital library, in association with the University of Pennsylvania, has an online exhibit featuring book banning.  Women writers, like their male counterparts, have been censored and banned for a variety of reasons. The next page lists women writers who have been banned or censored.

    Citizens of other countries do not necessarily have the same guarantee of freedom that exists in the United States. The Digital Freedom Network web site makes available the writings of people around the globe who are currently being censored by their governments.

       

    The internet is perhaps one of the most potent tools against censorship that exists today. Many books that have been banned in the past are even available in an electronic format. Attempts have been made to limit or censor what may be posted on the web, which has led to the blue ribbon campaign.  Web sites often display a blue ribbon in support of freedom of speech on the web. 

    The primary concerns of would-be censors seem to center around protecting children from online pornography.  The difficulty lies in where the line between protection and censorship is to be drawn. 

    Thus far no measure has been upheld that limits access to the internet.  The most recent case in favor of access involved the Alameda County library  in California and was reported also in the New York Times. A case was filed against the library because a 12-year-old boy was able to access pornography through the library's internet connection.  The suit claimed the following:

    ". . .the plaintiff contended that the library policy violates the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, which stipulates, among other things, that the government should not cause harm to its citizens." 
    The argument was made that the library had a responsibility to protect children from the potential of emotional or physical harm  that could result from accessing pornography. On the other side of the argument, library's policy stipulates that it the parent's responsibility to monitor their children's internet use. The case was dismissed on the grounds that the 14th amendment was not intended to ensure that the government would protect citizens against themselves.

    Clearly the issues surrounding internet access and usage have not been resolved but will continue to be debated and defined in our nation's courts and legislatures. An article in the New York Times on January 24, 1999 outlined the current debate over internet censorship in state legislatures.

    BIBLIOGRAPHY

    Clausing, Jeri: "State Lawmakers Ready Scores of Internet Bills." New York Times, January 24, 1999.

    Olsen, Tillie: Silences. New York: Dell Publishing, 1978.

    Richtel, Matt: "Library Filtering Case Dismissed."  New York Times, January 14, 1999.

    (The New York Times has a search feature. The easiest way to find the above articles is to go to the Search Page and then type in the author's name.)
     
     


    Page was last modified on June 8, 2001.