Friday, October 23, 2009

Archives > Perspectives > Readers Letters

Censorship the worst offense

Published: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 12:51 PM CDT
 
Print
E-mail
Comment (No comments posted.)
Rate
Text Size
del.icio.usdiggNewsVine
To The Editor:

Re “At drugstores, Christian lit not opiate of the masses” (news article, July 2):

Of all places I thought least likely to invite censorship is Chelsea. Yet, you ran a front-page story about some Chelsea residents seeking to ban books on sale at CVS and other drugstores—books they find full of “hate speech.” And because they take offense at ideas in the books, they propose boycotting the stores that sell the books. What’s next, attempts to ban the sale of Bibles and the Torah? And, “Huckleberry Finn,” too, where “nigger” is oft used in Mark Twain’s classic anti-slavery work?

Why did your article omit any defense of free speech or even entertain the possibility that there are residents of Chelsea, like myself, who take offense at efforts to ban “hateful” and “offensive” ideas through the banning of books? So what that such books are on sale! That Chelsea is a gay-friendly community—indeed the home to many gays and lesbians—is no excuse, much less justification, for patrons of stores to peruse and seek to remove the books for such “offensive” ideas as “anti-gay” rhetoric and opinion. Spare me from the self-appointed indignant who would dictate the reading list and tastes of others in our community’s stores.

We read books not always because we agree with the authors or the argumentation therein, but because we are intrigued or curious about the ideas. Censorship is a lazy and disreputable as well as discredited “answer” to the ideas of “others” that “we” hate. Indeed, censorship is not a refutation at all, but a concession that the ideas of others do not always conform with the seeming majority view, which the censor seeks to make the only acceptable viewpoint. In this connection, if censorship is to hold sway, the speech that we revere—that in favor of equal rights, pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, for example—will be regarded by others in other communities as “blasphemous” and as so jarring as to also warrant censorship.

Our free society, in order to remain free, has to oppose inane attempts to silence people and to suppress ideas or to ban books that disagree with us. The tired canard of “protecting” our children from “hate speech” is exactly the cry of those who have long opposed positive social and cultural change. They wanted to protect their children’s eyes and psyches from anti-slavery works and anti-segregation literature, and from the opinions of those who advocated “miscegenation” and, God forbid, homosexuality and abortion rights, which, to some, is regarded as “murder.” Even the gender equality movement was the target of censors who sought to preserve the status quo.

Where will so-called “progressive” censorship start and stop? Would it ban not only books, but records? Satires and polemics from political and religious authors, dissidents and minorities? Whose voices and votes would count to ban a book? I recall the concerns of many whites who objected to the book, “Look Out Whitey, Black Power’s Gonna Git Your Mama,” and to “Soul on Ice,” as well as to “The Autobiography of Malcolm X.” Those books, too, were full of “hate speech”—to some sensitive eyes.

If one doesn’t want to read a book, don’t—and don’t buy it.

But don’t tell me that I may not look at or have at a store a book simply because its words do not mirror the philosophy of those who want to “protect” children and “minorities” and me from “offensive” ideas. The upshot of such censorship is that what passes for “acceptable” reading will amount to pabulum and the homogenized opinions approved by the self-righteous amongst us who always think—indeed “know”—what’s good and what’s bad for the rest of us. No thank you.

Michael Meyers

Meyers is executive director, New York Civil Rights Coalition




  Next
  NYPL prez has it wrong

Home > Readers Letters Top of Page ^

Article Rating

Current Rating: 0 of 0 votes!Rate File:

Reader Comments

The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of chelseanow.com.
You must register with a valid email to post comments. Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments.

Registered users sign in here:

Become a Registered User
*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login?
(requires cookies)
  Forgot Your Password?
 

Do not use usernames or passwords from your financial accounts!

Note: Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required!

*Create a Member ID:
*Choose a password:
*Re-enter password:
*E-mail Address:
*Year of Birth:
 

(children under 13 cannot register)

*First Name:
*Last Name:
Company:
Home Phone:
Business Phone:
*Address:
*City:
*State:
*Zip Code:
 
Editor's Latest

We deserve better

This was supposed to be the year for marriage equality and other progressive LGBT breakthroughs. In Washington, the nation witnessed the historic inauguration of the first African-American president, a compelling, transformational leader who took office voicing the strongest pro-LGBT agenda in history. In Albany, after 40 years, the Democrats finally were back in control of the State Senate. There, they offered the promise of enacting three key pieces of legislation that the former Republican leadership had stood in the way of—marriage equality, transgender rights and a school anti-bullying law with protections based on sexual and gender identity.

Updated: Thursday, July 16, 2009 3:56 PM CDT
Readers' Letters
The Listings