Celebrate Reading with Banned Book Week

About this time every year the American Library Association sponsors Banned Book Week, a time to celebrate the freedom to read. Yes, the freedom to read—something most Americans take for granted. 

In recognition of Banned Books Week, I and some members of the Free Expression class last year recorded some YouTube videos reading selections from banned books. I'm not organizing a similar project this year, but students and other interested parties are welcome to think about—and even read—a banned book this fall.

There more information about the official Banned Book, check out the ALA website here.

Also, check out this link to a list of books banned for homosexual themes, which is one area of controversy in the fight over access to books and the role of libraries.

Author Salman Rushdie Writes of His Life in Hiding

In 1998, writer Salman Rushdie published a novel called The Satanic Verses. It was a serious novel, not intended to provoke, but the book was soon identified as offensive to Islam and Rushdie found himself the subject of a fatwa. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini called for Rushdie to be killed for his offenses to Islam.

This is news now because of the recent violence against Americans for a crude and offensive film anti-Islam produced in the U.S. and posted to YouTube. It's also news because Rushdie has published a memoir of his days in hiding. The book, Joseph Anton, tells of his 10 years living under police protection. (The New York Times has an interview with Rushdie about the book. Here's the link.) 

All of this gets raises important questions about free speech and religion. In the U.S., for example, people are rarely offended by a novel (a novel!) and they rarely resort to riots or violence. In the Middle East, however, religious sensitivities are different and free speech traditions are weak.

In sum, what are we to think of this clash of ideas? In the U.S. we tend to value free speech and tolerate religious criticism. But when does speech cross the line? And how should those offended by speech respond short of violence?

Think about these questions. I'd like to discuss this in some detail in class.

Ben Franklin's Ideas about Free Expression

I put this site online in order to stimulate discussion of free expression, the topic of this class. I am interested in having students discuss and debate some of the key ideas and historical principles that have shaped American notions of free speech and free press. 

Here's an example from none other than Benjamin Franklin, who was a colonial printer and publisher. One of his most famous works relating to free expression is "An Apology for Printers." In it, Franklin spells out some of his ideas about the business of printing and how it relates to the larger issue of free expression. 

Here are some highlights from Franklin's essay: 

1. That the Opinions of Men are almost as various as their Faces; an Observation general enough to become a common Proverb, So many Men so many Minds. 

2. That the Business of Printing has chiefly to do with Mens Opinions; most things that are printed tending to promote some, or oppose others. 

4. That it is as unreasonable in any one Man or Set of Men to expect to be pleas'd with every thing that is printed, as to think that nobody ought to be pleas'd but themselves. 

5. Printers are educated in the Belief, that when Men differ in Opinion, both Sides ought to have the Advantage of being heard by the Publick; and that when Truth and Error have fair Play, the former is always an overmatch for the latter: Hence they chearfully serve all contending Writers that pay them well, without regarding on which side they are of the Question in Dispute. 

7. It is unreasonable to imagine Printers approve of every thing they print, and to censure them on any particular thing accordingly…. 

8. That if all Printers were determin'd not to print any thing till they were sure it would offend no body, there would be very little printed. 

Questions: Is Franklin correct in his defense of printers? Why or why not? What principles of free expression does he express in this apology? Does his defense of printing really apply to the digital age? How? 

These are the kinds of issues and questions I want to see discussed and debated on this blog. If we all pitch it and take these discussions seriously, we may become more and interested in the topic and articulate about free expression and what it means today. 

Stay tuned.