In 1964 (Jacobellis v. Ohio), Justice Potter Stewart concluded that defining pornography was not only difficult but likely impossible, offering (with perhaps a sigh), “But I know it when I see it.”
At issue before the Court was an Ohio law under which officials sought to ban the showing of a movie alleged to be pornographic. In his concurrence that virtually all speech is protected except “hard core pornography,” Stewart conditioned his conclusion, “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description, and perhaps I could never succeed in indelibly doing so. But I know it when I see it and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.”
The Justice’s predicament has recently been resurrected in school board debates in Virginia focusing upon the inclusion of certain books in school libraries as pornographic (see Ban the Book Burners, VoxFairfax, Nov. 29, 2021, https://wp.me/p9wDCF-3hr). There have been suggestions both to ban and burn some books. Following complaints by some parents, Fairfax County withdrew two volumes, reviewed them, and restored them to the shelves as fit for student consumption.
The contretemps is reminiscent of the term “bumpus” which is used to describe a raucous, boisterous person or a rundown house with a yard filled with weeds and junk autos. Oddly, in Britain, the term is applied to an incredibly intelligent being with superior understanding of all things.
The contretemps is reminiscent of the term “bumpus” which is used to describe a raucous, boisterous person or a rundown house with a yard filled with weeds and junk autos. Oddly, in Britain, the term is applied to an incredibly intelligent being with superior understanding of all things.
At a recent meeting of the Fairfax County School Board, parents objected to the restoration of the two books, continuing to assert their pornographic and pedophiliac content as injurious to students and, as one media report noted, “illicit”, i.e., forbidden by law, custom, or rules. And that appears precisely to be the essential problem facing educators, parents, and the community. Of course, one rule to apply is that of Justice Stewart. Then, consequently, there is the difficulty as to whose vision will apply to each and every book in a school library.
Proponents of book bans argue for the right of parents to determine what material is appropriate. It is not practical to conduct a referendum on what books are to be approved for inclusion. Nor would the debate end upon selection of a committee to make such determinations. The freedom from pornography could be maximized by abolishing school libraries altogether. Assigned reading or course reading lists by teachers could be more easily monitored for pornography-free material.
For nearly 400 years, the Catholic Church maintained an index of banned books until 1966. In 1616, the treatise by Copernicus demonstrating by mathematical evidence that the Earth rotated around the sun was banned as sacrilegious. There is no contention that literary taste is personal and that one person’s pornography is not the same as another’s.
For nearly 400 years, the Catholic Church maintained an index of banned books until 1966. In 1616, the treatise by Copernicus demonstrating by mathematical evidence that the Earth rotated around the sun was banned as sacrilegious. There is no contention that literary taste is personal and that one person’s pornography is not the same as another’s.
Banning of one volume deprives some other student of a right of inquiry and exercise of personal taste. On that point, educators assert that that journey is, in fact, the essential character of education. Neither parental literary taste nor participation is a solution to a child’s personal journey. Moreover, in the real world, more pornography exists with the click of a key on an iPad or computer than in school libraries. The availability of an item of pornography in a school library is but a single source that cannot be effectively or equitably enforced given cyber alternatives.
Not heard at the school board meeting was any voice offering that parents have a responsibility to know what their children are reading. Instead, the proffered solutions are to ban some materials and access by all students. Thus, the rule is to apply to all whether or not another parent has no objection.
Such bumpus only serves to create confusion and discord for the sake of personal taste. Banning and burning books has proven to be a failed solution to both individual and societal freedom. A world without books is unthinkable, as is one where individual objection is the universal rule.
The US could use more British-type bumpus to reason to solutions.
Categories: EDUCATION, FREE SPEECH, Issues, National, politics, SCOTUS
Join the discussion!