Banning Books, Freedom of Expression, and the Risk of Inhibiting Artists

Art is a product of society. Whether it is in support of or in opposition to that society, art reflects a part of the society in which it is made. And just as art owes society an accurate portrayal, society needs to view that art as resulting from the whole of society. It is risky to take measures against artists and their freedoms of expression. Obviously, it would be almost impossible to prohibit one from acting on their artistic freedoms, but the possibility of control is displayed in the distribution and access to the work of art itself.

Even though there is a general thought that art is unrestricted, there are multiple instances of governmental sanctions on artistic expression in this nation's history, one of the most prevalent being banned books. Fahrenheit 451, for example, a book written by Ray Bradbury which centers around the very theme of censorship, was edited for use in school literature classes to omit the words "hell," "damn," and "abortion."

An important part of artistic expression is point of view, and even this was questioned through the challenging of Sylvia Plath's The Bell Jar for its unacceptable point of view. One of the most recently publicized cases involves Dan Brown's The DaVinci Code, which, after having been determined offensive to Christianity, was banned in Lebanon. Another reason for its banning is that it is based on historical inaccuracies. (It should be mentioned here, however, that fiction books are not required to, nor do they claim to, reflect history accurately. That is, of course, implied in the term "fiction.")

These two previous cases surround the problem of limiting artistic expression. One book introduces an "abnormal" point of view (the term abnormal being in quotes to emphasize the question of normality itself, as we all have unique viewpoints) and the other a direct opposition to a specific religious institution. Both are progressive in terms of new ways of thinking, but can a book really be detrimental to society? What about William Powell's The Anarchist Cookbook, which provides information on, among other things, the building of explosives?

As art has the potential to essentially be a reflection of the time in which it is created, one might hope those works which accurately portray society would be revered; however, this is not the case. Because most of the characters are from broken homes and use drugs and alcohol, The Outsiders by S.E. Hinton was challenged in South Milwaukee. In this case, the story was written around the truths of social problems, but unfortunately it was written in a society which was not ready to accept and therefore address those problems.

Monitoring the availability of such "progressive" material does not stop the mind from working. Although there is rarely one common point of view among any given populous, it would be ridiculous to expect that the restriction of artwork due to "objectionable" content is the end-all of that very content. To presume that someone who does not have access to The Bell Jar, for instance, might not eventually question sanity is foolish. Banning art only increases curiosity about said art. No matter what the subject material, a book, simply put, is a collection of pages on which words are written. While these words may not be supportive of society, they also do not harm society.