by WALTER BRASCH
Parents demanded it be banned.
School superintendents placed it in restricted sections of their libraries.
It is the most challenged book four of the past five years, according to the American Library Association (ALA).
“It” is a 32-page illustrated children’s book, And Tango Makes Three, by Peter Parnell and Justin Richardson, with illustrations by Henry Cole. The book is based upon the real story of Roy and Silo, two male penguins, who had formed a six-year bond at New York City’s Central Park Zoo, and who “adopted” a fertilized egg and raised the chick until she could be on her own.
Gays saw the story as a positive reinforcement of their lifestyle. Riding to rescue America from homosexuality were the biddies against perversion. Gay love is against the Bible, they wailed; the book isn’t suitable for the delicate minds of children, they cried as they pushed libraries and schools to remove it from their shelves or at the very least make it restricted.
The penguins may have been gay—or maybe they weren’t. It’s not unusual for animals to form close bonds with others of their same sex. But the issue is far greater than whether or not the penguins were gay or if the book promoted homosexuality as a valid lifestyle. People have an inherent need to defend their own values, lifestyles, and worldviews by attacking others who have a different set of beliefs. Banning or destroying free speech and the freedom to publish is one of the ways people believe they can protect their own lifestyles.
During the first decade of the 21st century, the most challenged books, according to the ALA, were J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series, apparently because some people believe fictionalized witchcraft is a dagger into the soul of organized religion. Stephanie Meyer’s Twilight series was the 10th most challenged in 2010. Perhaps some parents weren’t comfortable with their adolescents having to make a choice between werewolves and vampires.
Among the most challenged books is Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, the vicious satire about firemen burning books to save humanity. Other books that are consistently among the ALA’s list of most challenged are Brave New World (Aldous Huxley), The Chocolate War (Robert Cormier), Of Mice and Men (John Steinbeck), I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings (Maya Angelou), Forever (Judy Blume), and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (Mark Twain), regarded by most major literary scholars as the finest American novel.
Name a classic, and it’s probably on the list of the most challenged books. Conservatives, especially fundamental religious conservatives, tend to challenge more books. But, challenges aren’t confined to any one political ideology. Liberals are frequently at the forefront of challenging books that may not agree with their own social philosophies. The feminist movement, while giving the nation a better awareness of the rights of women, wanted to ban Playboy and all works that depicted what they believed were unflattering images if women. Liberals have also attacked the works of Joel Chandler Harris (the Br’er Rabbit series), without understanding history, folklore, or the intent of the journalist-author, who was well-regarded as liberal for his era.
Although there are dozens of reasons why people say they want to restrict or ban a book, the one reason that threads its way through all of them is that the book challenges conventional authority or features a character who is perceived to be “different,” who may give readers ideas that many see as “dangerous.”
The belief there are works that are “dangerous” is why governments create and enforce laws that restrict publication. In colonial America, as in almost all countries and territories at that time, the monarchy required every book to be licensed, to be read by a government official or committee to determine if the book was suitable for the people. If so, it received a royal license. If not, it could not be printed.
In 1644, two decades before his epic poem Paradise Lost was published, John Milton wrote a pamphlet, to be distributed to members of Parliament, against a recently-enacted licensing law. In defiance of the law, the pamphlet was published without license. Using Biblical references and pointing out that the Greek and Roman civilizations didn’t license books, Milton argued, “As good almost kill a man as kill a good book; who kills a man kills a reasonable create [in] God’s image,” he told Parliament, “but he who destroys a good book kills reason itself, kills the image of God.” He concluded his pamphlet with a plea, “Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.”
A century later, Sir William Blackstone, one of England’s foremost jurists and legal scholars, argued against prior restraint, the right of governments to block publication of any work they found offensive for any reason.
The arguments of Milton and Blackstone became the basis of the foundation of a new country, to be known as the United States of America, and the establishment of the First Amendment.
Every year, at the end of September, the American Library Association sponsors Banned Book Week, and publishes a summary of book challenges. And every year, it is made more obvious that those who want to ban books, sometimes building bonfires and throwing books upon them as did Nazi Germany, fail to understand the principles of why this nation was created.
[Walter Brasch was a newspaper and magazine reporter and editor before becoming a professor of mass communications, with specialties in First Amendment and contemporary social issues. His current book is the mystery novel, Before the First Snow, a look at the 1960s, and how issues unresolved during those years are affecting today’s society.]
I think I’ve lot interest in this topic. Here’s why: we’ve reached a point where book banners are viewed with revulsion by society and are easily embarrassed and battled.
If you’re ever in a situation where your local government engages in this sort of thing, protest the stuffing out of them. Put their face on a poster board with a sign saying “= Nazi” (because its true) and ruin their reputation utterly. Get the Internet involved (horribly easy today). Ruin a few lives this way and it’ll stop.
Oh, and e-books will really kill this off. Hard for local goons to ban bits streaming across the ether.
Ah but then we have pornography. More specifically, the pornography of children.
Indeed some books and publications are destructive to society. Unrestricted freedom comes with a cost and that cost can in this circumstance result in the abuse and death of the most innocent among us.
The First Amendment is NOT absolute and never shall be. Because there are no absolutes except the creator and that IMO, is God’s intent and law.
The issue with child pornography isn’t a first amendment issue, it’s an issue of child abuse.
Children were abused in the taking of the photographs, hence it is illegal.
The law basically states (put simply) that you can’t profit off crime, even if you’re not the one who committed it, nor can you possess anything that is the result of a crime. Hence buying stolen goods, eating endangered-animal meat or wearing endangered-animal fur, or having anything else in your possession that resulted from an illegal act is also illegal.
It’s a way of killing the demand for illegal items and therefore the economic incentive to carry out crime.
I have to agree with Barky on this one.
Child abuse IS a CRIME and child porn is a criminal, not first amendment, issue.
Wow because no one is allowed to think something is inappropriate for their elementary aged child to read without deserving of being called Nazi in public. While I couldn’t care less about 2 penguins I don’t think being concerned about what your child is exposed to deserves the Nazi treatment.
Don’t you think you are going a little far here? We are talking about a elementary school library not a book store or a public library. The idea that parents want to control what their children are exposed to doesn’t seem unreasonable to me. Maybe even just to make sure they are their to discus and explain any questions. Sure in this case it is related to the story being pushed as good PR for homosexuality. While it may be unfortunate that parents are concerned for that reason it doesn’t lessen their right to choose. Next time it could be something you have issues with and you who wants to prevent your 7 yo kid from reading. Oh and come on parental controls and tracking software may very well make it easier than ever for parents to control what their children read.
Ray Bradbury was ahead of his time, that’s for sure. What an excellent writer.