Most people aren't aware of it, but the First Amendment is under constant bombardment -- in the form of censorship. The web-site promoting the American Library Association's "Banned Books Week" quotes the 1989 Supreme Court decision of Texas v. Johnson, in which Justice William J. Brennan said, "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."
The purpose of the week long celebration, cosponsored by the ALA, is to shed light on the many examples of attempted censorship in our nation over the course of the past year. Despite over two-hundred years of free speech in this country, the First Amendment is challenged almost on a continual basis. In order to truly protect our freedom of speech, we must look very closely at any decision that would limit it.
Attempted book bans, or challenges, happen when someone files a complaint about a book, requesting that it be removed from a library. The most frequently challenged books of 1998 included John Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men," Maya Angelou's "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings," and Judy Blume's "Blubber," due to questions over content and age-appropriateness of the subject matter.
Understandably, some parents are opposed to letting their children read certain books due to moral or religious beliefs. But banning the book is not the solution. Parents can easily ask librarians for help in finding appropriate books for their children.
Parents who are concerned about their children accessing these materials behind their backs need not worry; children don't need to go to the library to access adult subject matter. In the age of the Internet, it is increasingly difficult, to protect children from violent, sexually explicit or otherwise questionable materials. Since most children are computer-literate, they are quite capable of finding adult subject matter on the Internet, although usually in a less-educational format. In comparison to the dark alley's of the Internet, the library's corridors are relatively puritan.
Ironically, in the middle of the ALA's celebration of free speech, there is a major First Amendment debate taking place in New York City. The Brooklyn Museum of Arts' newest exhibit includes a painting entitled, "The Holy Virgin Mary," that depicts a black Virgin Mary decorated with elephant dung and pornographic images. Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has demanded that the museum take down the artwork, and considers it so unacceptable for display that he has threatened to revoke the museum's funding.
After the museum filed charges against the Mayor's office on Tuesday, for a violation of their First Amendment rights, the Mayor's office withheld the latest funding check. On Wednesday, the U.S. Senate joined Mayor Giuliani in condemning the Museum's decision by voting to withhold the museum's federal funding.
Assuming the Mayor and Senators would rescind money for any art that they or a significant number of their constituents felt was objectionable, this decision creates a dangerous precedent. It implies that artistic expression should be limited to subject matter deemed appropriate by the majority.
Should politicians have the ability to dictate what is or isn't art? How is that any different from politicians revoking a library's funding, in order to enforce the banning of a book?
Another unanswered question is regarding the Mayor's true intentions, (a difficult thing to surmise from any politician). Mayor Giuliani's moderate Republican policies have made him one of the most popular mayors in New York's history and has helped reduce crime to record lows, and bring prosperity back to the city's streets. Perhaps the real reason for changing his moderate demeanor is in order to win votes in the upcoming Senate race, from more conservative upstate-New Yorkers.
Even the First Amendment has its limits. The Supreme Court has already ruled that obscenity, child pornography, defamation and speech that incites violence can be restricted or prohibited by the government. Even if museums abide by the Court's decision, many people would argue that it is unwise or unnecessary to fund any form of art in an era of budget cuts. Others would say that it is important to support art as an expression of culture and a form of education.
The most important distinction to make is between deciding to fund the arts, and deciding to revoke that funding. Since the former is completely legal, the Mayor was free to deny the museum funding at the onset. But to rescind funding for a museum after the exhibit has already been chosen, is censorship.
Freedom of speech through art and literature will undoubtedly be a source of debate for many years to come. Despite the fact that we may not agree with other people's forms of expression, it is important that decisions of legitimacy and quality regarding art and literature be made by educated scholars, teachers, and librarians who can defend their opinions with well-constructed criticisms. The alternative is to ban any form of speech that the majority finds offensive.
Democracy and an open society is founded on the freedom to exchange ideas and opinions through various mediums. If we begin to put limitations on those freedoms, we place our democracy and our very way of life at risk.
