The books that fill our shelves, sit in library collections, and create bookshop displays are not just randomly placed – they have been carefully selected and approved  to   be  there. But who decides what we can and cannot read? 

In America, the incumbent Republican party is increasingly pushing for book censorship, specifically targeting literature that critiques authority and challenges social norms. Classic books such as Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale and literature centred around the LGBT community have been their recent victims, being outlawed from some schools and libraries. This raises fundamental questions about who controls access to literature and what is deemed as unacceptable content. 

But what actually is book censorship? Censorship in general is defined as the regulation of free speech, and, when applied to books, is clarified as the act of an authoritative body suppressing certain ideas within a book. Though the Trump Administration sets out to ban certain books entirely, tamer forms of book censorship exist. This includes curriculum restrictions, in which schools and universities themselves can exclude books from their curriculum due to objections from parents and advocacy groups. Another form is self-censorship, where authors avoid certain topics in their writing due to fear of legal trouble or backlash. Age restrictions (preventing younger readers from accessing inappropriate material) and redaction (cutting out individual offensive words or content to align with modern sensitivities) also fall under the book censorship umbrella. 

Though the Republicans’ actions are objectively damaging to American schoolchildren (who arguably should be allowed to form their own opinions about literature), some forms of censorship can be positive. For example, books that spread false or dangerous claims about minority groups — commonly seen in older literature — can increase discrimination. Therefore, to avoid this, publishers may choose to revise outdated language (such as removing slurs) to make the reading experience of these texts less harmful to readers. Consequently, if books like these are restricted from public domain or somewhat censored, a space for more inclusive literature that accurately represents these diverse communities can be created. Thus, this allows for marginalised voices to be heard whilst protecting minority groups. 

However, this raises complex questions about who decides what counts as harmful literature. So where do we draw the line? Should the responsibility to censor books lie with authorities such as governments, schools, libraries, publishers, and even the authors themselves? Or, should readers have complete freedom to choose their own reading material? If this power lies solely with governments, it risks political or ideological bias as authorities might seek to ban books that critique their policies, suppressing intellectual diversity. Ironically, oppressive and controlled political environments are the very thing a lot of banned books tend to critique, George Orwell’s 1984 being a prime example of this. Over the course of this novel, Orwell’s protagonist, Winston, comes to realise the dangers of the totalitarian regime he is living under and attempts to resist it. Regarding these sorts of literature, what authorities (such as the Trump Administration) fail to recognise is that these books are cautionary tales for people like themselves, and not instruction manuals of rebellion for readers to follow. If those in power truly believe their policies are fair, then they should have no fear about their citizens being inspired by the themes of revolt they read about in texts such as Orwell’s. A more reasonable approach might be for libraries and schools to have greater influence over what books should be censored and how, as they are institutions with a more direct knowledge of books and their impacts on readers, rather than leaving this power to centralised government control.

But the dilemma doesn’t end there! Even if censorship is left to educational institutions, the ethics of book censorship are further complicated when considering how to decide what qualifies as offensive, dangerous, or inappropriate material. Subjectivity remains an issue – one person’s idea of harmful content might differ from someone else’s. In fact, one person may view ‘inappropriate’ or ‘offensive’ content as valuable in terms of its historical legacy and/ or educational purposes, creating a further divide in opinions.

There is a slippery slope here – is there a way to collectively agree about what content to censor? And, even if one type of content was chosen to be restricted from books today, it may lead to further censorship in the future that could limit free expression, thus reducing the diversity of literature. Additionally, the ethics of book censorship are often a shifting debate, changing over time. Books that were once banned for being deemed as ‘too controversial’ such as Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain are now considered as ‘essential’ literature and are often taught in secondary schools. Both books were originally banned for racist language, but are now celebrated for their insightful critiques of racism and slavery in America’s Deep South. As these novels are now seen as prime examples for sparking meaningful discussions about race and morality, it raises the question of whether offensive language within certain books should be withdrawn in order to protect readers from its offensive implications, or if it should be preserved to create an awareness of the wrongness of this sort of language. In today’s increasingly polarised world, it seems hard for both of these options to be simultaneously feasible. However, this issue may be solved by releasing editions of the novel with redacted offensive content, and leaving some editions of the novel as they are. In this way, readers can take authority over what content they are reading, allowing them to decide for themselves what they feel comfortable with. 

Ultimately, there is a fine line between protection and suppression, ensuring the ethics of book censorship remain complex. Though certain restrictions can protect vulnerable groups, excessive censorship risks stifling free expression. However, as long as our responses to literature do not lead to harm, the freedom to read, question, and critique should be ours alone.

Photo Credit: Sally Wilson, Wikimedia Commons