In the post, entitled “Censorship Bites,” Hopkins announced that her invitation had been revoked after a middle-school librarian and parents approached a superintendent and the school board about her participation. Hopkins’s novels in verse deal with gritty subject matter: her Crank series, which concludes next month with Fallout, centers on meth addiction, while her 2009 novel, Tricks, was about teen prostitution.

The result had a domino effect, with 4 other teen authors pulling out of the event. Those authors are Pete Hautman, Melissa de la Cruz, Matt de la Pena and Tera Lynn Childs.

“What is important is that a handful of people – the superintendent, the one (one!) librarian, and “several” (three? five?) parents – took it upon themselves to overrule the vast majority of teachers and librarians and students who had chosen one of the most popular YA authors in America to be their headliner,” wrote Hautman in a blog post.

I have come out strongly against censorship on this blog, especially regarding literature. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail in this case and the invitation will be re-extended to Ellen Hopkins.

Related posts

• Golden Compass brings controversy to US schools
• School board keeps controversial Sherman Alexie book on reading list
• China still struggles with censorship

There’s a case before the U.S. Supreme Court that is based on whether or not videos of dog fights should be banned, and if so, does that ban violate Americans right to freedom of speech. Here’s an excerpt from an article I found on Publishers Weekly:

First Amendment advocates were generally encouraged by Tuesday’s oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Stevens. The case, which many First Amendment supporters have called the most important free speech case in 25 years, involves the conviction of Robert Stevens for selling a dog-fighting video that a federal court found violated a 1999 law that makes it a crime to create, sell or possess videos and other depictions of cruelty to animals.

This is not only a free speech issue, it’s also an animal rights issue. I’m a huge animal lover and a vegetarian. Seeing depictions of animal cruelty is something I cannot tolerate on an emotional or even a logical level. There’s just no reason for it. One of the reasons why I became a vegetarian is because I refuse to support the U.S. factory farming industry which has a long record of inhumane, abusive and cruel treatment of animals that eventually make their way to dinner plates all across the country.

In fairness, I don’t think the free speech advocates that are hoping to see this case overturned are in favor of animal torture. Rather, their argument is that the law is way too sweeping and could have unintended consequences. For example, the animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) often uses graphic images of animal abuse to further their cause. Issues of free speech are never black and white. Should those images outlawed as well.

Limiting the scope of the law is another possibility, according to the PW article:

While the Media Coalition would like to see the law found unconstitutional, there is a chance that the Supreme Court could find a way to limit the scope of the law without completely throwing it out.

On another level this case is ridiculous because dog fighting is already illegal around the United States. This has been seen in the most recent and high profile dog fighting case of football player Michael Vick. Furthermore, dog fighting is not a sport – it’s nothing more than abuse to animals so humans can makes some money off of it. Dog fighting is inhumane, cruel and barbaric. I seriously wonder about the mentality of people who enjoy this sort of thing.

My opinion is that laws should be passed for specific cases, like dog fighting. If dog fighting is illegal, then make any images and/or depictions (i.e. video) of dog fighting also illegal. Free speech should not be an excuse to throw our humanity and compassion out the window.

Do you think the Supreme Court should overturn this case, even if the possibility exists that it could make videos of dog fighting legal? Leave a comment below and share your opinion.

P.S. I was going to quote and link to a CNN article for this post, but the article contained disturbing images and graphic descriptions of animal abuse, so I decided to leave the CNN article out for all you animal lovers out there.

Related posts

• Various groups seek to lift injunction in Salinger sequel case of ‘Catcher in the Rye’
• Hatchette takes stand on text-to-speech functionality of ebook readers…kind of
• Despite criticism, ‘free’ is very powerful

I’ve always been an advocate for freedom of speech, freedom of ideas, intellectual freedom and being able to have equal access to all books, despite their unpopular views or objectionable content. The American Library Association agrees:

Intellectual freedom—the freedom to access information and express ideas, even if the information and ideas might be considered unorthodox or unpopular—provides the foundation for Banned Books Week.  BBW stresses the importance of ensuring the availability of unorthodox or unpopular viewpoints for all who wish to read and access them.

I’ll be honest, there are books out there I don’t like and totally disagree with. But I’d never think of trying to get those books banned in anyway, shape, or form. The foundation for my beliefs is that if I want a book banned because of my beliefs, then there is always someone who would want to ban books I do agree with. I don’t want to be a hypocrite.

The reality is that despite a lot of progress made with intellectual freedom, there are still people who would like to see books banned:

The books featured during Banned Books Week have been targets of attempted bannings.  Fortunately, while some books were banned or restricted, in a majority of cases the books were not banned, all thanks to the efforts of librarians, teachers, booksellers, and members of the community to retain the books in the library collections.  Imagine how many more books might be challenged—and possibly banned or restricted—if librarians, teachers, and booksellers across the country did not use Banned Books Week each year to teach the importance of our First Amendment rights and the power of literature, and to draw attention to the danger that exists when restraints are imposed on the availability of information in a free society.

I’d urge everyone out there to be an advocate for the freedom to read whatever we want, even if the material is objectionable. Surprisingly, a lot of books that top the regularly banned books list are what we’d now consider classics. And there are still many countries in the world that censor literature based on politics and/or religion. We all must work hard to stop this practice in those countries. We must also work in the U.S. to keep our freedom alive and well.

Related posts

• Ebooks offer perfect solution to the problem of banned books!
• UPDATE: What books did Sarah Palin want to ban from library?
• Republican VP pick Sarah Palin wanted to ban certain books from public library!

A lot of people, it seems, are getting hung up on the idea that the ebooks in question were illegally uploaded to Amazon’s system, and therefore, Amazon had every right to delete them from the Kindles and issue a refund. But I think there’s a deeper problem, and a danger lurking in the shadows if something isn’t done.

Let’s face it, Amazon seems to cave in to pressure rather easily. They caved when a writers groups cried and howled over the Kindle 2’s text-to-speech functionality, saying it encroached on their audio book rights. Amazon caved to publishers who demanded the TTS be disabled on many popular titles.  They cave to most publishers who demand strict DRM on their titles.

Add this to Amazon’s ability to remotely access and control the content that you buy (uh, or rent) on your Kindle, and you have a recipe for disaster. According to this New York Times article, I’m not alone in thinking this:

A growing number of civil libertarians and customer advocates wants Amazon to fundamentally alter its method for selling Kindle books, lest it be forced to one day change or recall books, perhaps by a judge ruling in a defamation case — or by a government deciding a particular work is politically damaging or embarrassing.

Think about that for a minute: Amazon being forced to remove titles you buy for your Kindle because of politics, or a defamation case. That is really scary! And as the Kindle starts rolling out in other countries, where citizen protections are more relaxed, the possibilities are even scarier:

Mr. Zittrain predicts that governments in some parts of the world will want to use it “like a line item veto for content,” removing objectionable sentences or chapters in some books.

“It could happen first in jurisdictions like the United Kingdom, where there isn’t as rich a First Amendment tradition and where libel suits happen much more frequently,” he said.

One of the Kindle’s best known features is the ability to purchase and download books wirelessly. Every time you do, you are connecting to a network Amazon controls, which allows them to delete any title they wish right off your device. Yes, a simple solution is to keep the wireless feature turned off, but that defeats it’s purpose, right?

This great feature could end up killing the Kindle if users find their ebooks being manipulated (i.e. deleted, edited, etc) in ways they never agreed to. CEO Jeff Bezos said an incident like what happened with the Orwell titles would never happen again. For some reason I’m having trouble believing him. It was a convenient thing to say at the time. It appeased a lot of people. And Bezos is hoping Kindle users will forget the whole fiasco.

My point is that there will come a point when consumers will say “Enough!” and demand that Amazon leave their ebooks alone. Once an ebook is purchased, that’s it – Amazon shouldn’t be able to touch it, just like when you buy a print book from the local bookstore. If Amazon keeps pushing the envelope like they have, then consumers will move on to a more consumer-friendly device. It’s that simple.

Do you believe that Amazon needs to fundamentally change the way they sell ebooks? Share your thoughts in the comments below!

Related posts

• Almost 2 months later, Amazon offers compensation for deleted Orwell titles
• Amazon deletes Orwell titles from customers Kindles
• Amazon releases Kindle 2

Luckily for us, the school board decided that the book, The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian (aff link), will stay on the reading list despite objections from a rather small group of parents. According to the PW article, the book was objected to because of vulgar language and references to sexual acts:

…the parents objected to the book’s “descriptions of masturbation, racist language, graphic depictions of sex, and references to bestiality.”

You can find any of the above in the works of Shakespeare, Mark Twain, and many other authors whose works we say are classics. I do find it interesting, however, that the book in question in this case is a book about a Native American written by a Native American. I have read a lot of Sherman Alexie’s work and I really admire him as a writer, in part because he tells it like it is.

I always wonder what goes on in the minds of parents who want these books banned. I understand they are trying (or think they are trying) to keep their kid’s best interest in mind. But still, telling them you can’t read this book because it contains this kind of subject matter just seems wrong.

Luckily I came across this article Controversial book to stay on reading list from the Chicago Tribune. One of the parents who objected to the Alexie book spoke out:

Jennifer Andersen said she was one of seven parents who attended a District 117 school board meeting Thursday to ask that the book be banned from the curriculum, or at the very least be accompanied with a warning about the content.

As I said before, if you ban this book or put a warning label on it, then you’re going to have to do the same with a lot of the classics – which contain a surprising amount of disturbing material. The only difference between the Alexie book and the classics is just that, the other books are classics. Shakespeare can write about the most hideous acts and make them seem entirely appropriate.

But the article continues:

She said that she is not promoting censorship. While the book has a good storyline, she said, she questioned why the author felt it was necessary to include language that “would not be allowed in school hallways.”

“It saddens me. I understand they think this is a great book about overcoming difficult situations in a child’s life,” she said. “How can we look past the vulgarity?”

You want the book off the reading list because of your own personal views, yet you think you are not promoting censorship? I’ll take your word for it.

Seriously though, if you can’t look past the vulgarity in a piece of literature, then you are only looking at the surface. I think we want to teach are youngins to dig deeper than just a few bad words in the book. My own language I use while talking is usually not peppered with profranity, yet that does not mean I object to it in the books I read. Why? Because I know that sometimes being vulgar serves a deeper purpose.

Anyway, I’ll get off my high horse now. I’m happy common sense prevailed in this case and that these students will have the opportunity to enjoy Sherman Alexie’s work, much like I have. I will admit that I have not read this book in question, but I might just read it now to see what all the fuss is about.

What do you think? Did the school board make the right decision in this case? Leave a comment with your opinion. I look forward to hearing from you.

Related posts

• Texas school suspends teacher over “inappropriate” book
• Canadian Catholic School Board Bans Fantasy Novel
• Wisconsin library board members dismissed for refusal to remove ‘controversial’ titles

In case you missed it, here’s what happened according to this Guardian article:

The row began brewing on Monday, when newspaper reports emerged of a "ban" imposed by the festival on The Gulf Between Us, a novel by Bedell, because one of its characters, a sheikh in a fictional Gulf state, was gay. Bedell had been told by the festival organisers that her book was unsuitable for inclusion because they "[did] not want our festival remembered for the launch of a controversial book", she told reporters. Meanwhile, her publishers, Penguin, had been told by booksellers in UAE that the novel itself had been censored by the authorities.

Of course outrage ensued and prominant author Margaret Atwood withdrew from the festival in protest. She will now attend via video conference. But it turns out, this might be a case of a relatively unknown author (Geraldine Bedell) causing more of an uproar than was needed:

On Thursday, a UAE newspaper quoted the head of censorship at the country’s National Media Council (NMC), denying the novel had ever been banned. As such, Atwood argues, the words "banned" and "censored" were "not helpful".

The article continues:

As for the alleged "banning" of the manuscript: "We don’t have direct contact with the censor’s office on these matters, we rely on information from the booksellers and they told us it was banned. That is why the story broke now – not because Bedell ’saved it up’ for publication." The novel will not be published until April.

The whole thing seems a little murky to me. So I am going to officially withhold any judgement. However, I do believe that Dubai is taking a step in the right direction by hosting a censorship debate at the festival:

The debate next Saturday will include a panel of international writers who will discuss the issues of censorship and cultural misconceptions about the acceptable limits of freedom of expression. It is a joint venture between EAIFL and PEN, the literary anti-censorship organisation, of which Atwood is vice-president.

This comes from this AFP article, which goes on to quote Dubai’s Head of the National Media Council, Ibrahim al-Abed says that they don’t ban books unless they are "crude pornography" or "contemptuous of religion".

With all that said, I have a feeling the author Bedell made a mountain out of a mole hill and created a firestorm of controversy when, well, there wasn’t any.

As I said early, however, I’m withholding my judgment in this matter until things are further clarified. I still maintain my firm stance against literary censorship, but I accusing someone of such is just as bad.

Related posts

• Novel banned from Dubai literary festival
• Censorship makes its way to Teen Lit Festival
• School board keeps controversial Sherman Alexie book on reading list

The second reason why this story caught my attention is because it deals with censorship. I take a hard, unyielding stand on any form of literary censorship because I firmly believe that literature reveals fundamental truths about the human condition – and those truths cannot be suppressed.

The book A Gulf Between Us by Geraldine Bedell was rejected from the Dubai Literary Festival that is coming up next week. Bedell wrote this piece in the Guardian, obviously upset by her book’s exclusion from the festival. She first describes how her book is not offensive to the Arab culture and might even shed some positive light in that region:

The book certainly isn’t a PR handout for the region, but I suspect (even hope) that makes the overall warmth towards it that much more telling. The book is an affectionate portrait, and I rather expected readers to be surprised that there could be so much to like.

Then Bedell describes the reason why the book was banned:

After all the initial excitement on both sides, they took the book, sat on it for a long time and finally came back with an almost comically long list of reasons why they couldn’t have it at their festival. These included "it is set in the Gulf", "it talks about Islam", and "it focuses on the Iraq war and could be a minefield for us".

The book also features a gay character, which no doubt played a role in the book being rejected.
Furthermore, the director of the festival made a statement regarding A Gulf Between Us, saying this:

Isobel Abulhoul, director, has now issued the following statement: "I have lived in Dubai for forty years. Based on my knowledge of who would appeal to the book-reading community in the Middle East, and having read 150 pages of Bedell’s manuscript I knew that her work could offend certain cultural sensitivities. I did not believe that it was in the festival’s long term interests to acquiesce to her publisher’s (Penguin) request to launch the book at the first festival of this nature in the Middle East."

Isobel Abulhoul is making a classic assumption in cases where a book is banned – she’s assuming this novel would offend "cultural sensitivities" and thus speaking for everyone, not even giving the literary community in Dubai a chance to judge the work for themselves.

It happens here in the US as well. One group or another tries to get books out of libraries and bookstores because it’s offensive to them, and thus no one should read it (so their logic goes).

As I said at the beginning of this post, I take a firm stand against this kind of censorship. It should never be tolerated. At the same time, I hope those in charge of this literary festival in Dubai will come to their senses and let this book be a part of it. If the people don’t like it, then they can protest by simply not buying it. At least then the decision remains with the public, not just a select few.

Related posts

• Correction, not perfection: Dubai probably didn’t ban book from festival
• Poetry Flourishes in the United Arab Emirates
• Censorship makes its way to Teen Lit Festival

Yet that is exactly what happened at Waterstone’s Bookstore today in the UK. According to this BBC report, a book of poetry that was considered "Obscene and blasphemous" by a group called the Christian Voice:

Patrick Jones was due to sign copies at Waterstone’s in Cardiff but the shop cancelled the event at the last moment.

Christian Voice said the book was "obscene and blasphemous" and called on the chain to remove copies from stores.

The company said it was not a censor but felt it was "prudent" to cancel the event because of its duty to customers.

Surely, for the book signing to be canceled, it must have been directly critical and maybe even downright mean towards Christians and their faith, right? Not so fast:

He said he had not singled out Christianity in his poems, but was questioning beliefs in society.

Just as a side note, I did a quick search on Google, Amazon and Waterstone’s site because I’d very much like to read a review or two. If anyone out there can find anything like that, please leave a comment below. I found the book here on Waterstone’s site, but no reviews.

Regardless of the content, I still have a hard time understanding why Waterstone’s would give into such a group. Yes, they will still be selling the book. But was it really necessary to cancel the book signing? Luckily for Mr. Jones, he just signed copies of the book for customers outside the store on the sidewalk.

And what does Christian Voice say about this ordeal that they caused?

The national director of Christian Voice, Stephen Green, said the decision was a triumph "for the Lord, not for us".

"The Lord had not even showed me what we should do at Waterstone’s, only that it should be Christlike.

"Just the knowledge that we were on our way has put the fear of God into the opposition."

Mr Green also called for Waterstone’s to stop selling the book.

It’s that last line that disturbs me the most. While I don’t get much into religion on this blog, I do take a firm stance against any sort of book banning and censorship in general. But I will say this: Everyone has the right to their beliefs, but please, for the sake of our sanity, don’t try to force your beliefs on everyone else by pulling stunts like this.

Given the state of the world right now, and especially the state of religion, I don’t think a book of poetry, or any other book, is going to bring the world to an end.

While I hate giving publicity to these kind of groups, you can read Christian Voice’s own press release about the incident. Truly scary indeed that in 2008 (almost 2009) we still have to worry about stuff like banning books.

You can also read an atheist response here, which takes a much more hard line against Christian Voice and Waterstones for giving into such pressure.

Related posts

• Link Love Leftovers
• Correction, not perfection: Dubai probably didn’t ban book from festival
• Warning: Book Groups can turn nasty!

Many have rightly pointed out that the alleged book list I linked to in this post is probably not the list of books Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin wanted to ban from her small-town public library. In that post I expressed my doubts, as I could not find a reliable source to back the list up. For all we know, the only true list of books Sarah Palin wanted to ban from the library only exists on a lipstick-smeared napkin tucked between her bible and the corpse of the latest moose she killed.

All this attention given to Palin’s attempt to have certain books pulled from the library is finally catching the attention of the McCain Campaign, and they’re fighting back. Nothing surprising there. I did find this article on the Huffington Post blog about the issue and thought it raised some interesting points – despite there being no official list:

Certainly, there was no official list drawn up. However, in a fact the McCain email leaves out, Palin approached the librarian three times to ask about the possibility, which could legitimately appear to some as something of a pressure campaign (especially considering that Palin attempted to have the librarian removed afterward).

I should note that the lack of some official list is not evidence that Sarah Palin did not want to ban books. The McCain Campaign might even point to the fact that there is no list. They may even challenge someone to list one book Palin wanted banned. That is just pure political spin, however. At the very least, the absence of a list only indicates that Palin never made it that far, it appears a courageous librarian stopped her cold before Palin could put a plan to remove certain books from the library in motion.

Nevertheless, Republican spinsters are trying to make it appear Palin is the victim in this case. Here’s what Republican strategist Alex Castellanos said:

"A mom being concerned about what kind of books our kids read and
asking rhetorical questions about what can legally be done to protect them? What’s wrong with that? … This kind of foolishness is making her a hero to more than the evangelical right. It will make her a hero to working class women."

He gives legitimacy to Palin’s alleged activities under the guise of "protecting her children." Also, approaching a librarian 3 different times about this issue and then having tried to remove said librarian from her job after offering only resistance, hardly seems like just a "rhetorical question." And still Castellanos asks the questions: "What’s wrong with that?" What’s wrong with using your position as an elected official to remove books from a public library because they don’t line up with your personal views on morality/religion/science or whatever the issue might be? Hmmmm, let me think about that for a minute…

This is serious stuff folks! This is a woman who could very well be the leader of the free world in the not-so-distant future. I’m not going to get into the other controversies swirling around Palin at the moment, but this issue of banning books is a serious one and should not be taken lightly. This country was founded on the very basic idea of freedom of speech and expression. How easily can one person take that away?

Related posts

• UPDATE: What books did Sarah Palin want to ban from library?
• Republican VP pick Sarah Palin wanted to ban certain books from public library!
• Ebooks offer perfect solution to the problem of banned books!

And as many of you know, I’m a huge fan of ebooks. So I did a little research into how ebooks can help prevent those who want to ban books from public libraries, bookstores and other places, like Sarah Palin did, and keep books available for anyone to read. When you think about it, ebooks really are a perfect solution to keeping the power of choice firmly in the hands of the reader, where it belongs.

I came across this post from Epublishers Weekly from earlier this year that outlines 30 benefits of ebooks over print. And sure enough, at # 37, they hit the nail on the head:

Ebooks defeat attempts at censorship. All these works were banned: Analects by Confucius. Lysistrata by Aristophanes. Ars Amorata by Ovid. Pro Populo Anglicano Defensio by John Milton. The Scarlet Letter by Hawthorne. Wonder Stories by H.C. Andersen. Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman. The Kreutzer Sonata by Leo Tolstoy. The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, and Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain. Ulysses
by James Joyce. … Many of these books were confiscated, burned, or denied availability in libraries, bookstores and schools. Ebooks guarantee that readers maintain their right to read.

Basically, print books can be physically destroyed and kept from the shelves in bookstores and libraries. In smaller communities, where their might only be one or two places within reasonable distance for the public to obtain books, a book being banned by a public official (such as a Mayor trying to throw her beliefs onto the public) could easily mean that the reading public must do without.

But with ebooks, they do not exist in physical form. There is no book to burn, destroy or keep off the shelves. If one website doesn’t have the book you’re looking for, then simply go to another website that does. You are free to download books to your heart’s content!

This probably irritates the hell out of people like Sarah Palin, who would rather not have certain books available to the public. But I have always maintained, if you find a book offensive, then don’t buy/check out/read it. Tell your children they can’t read it either. The rules you lay down in your own home is your business. That is your choice. And that is what books and the free flow of information really boils down to, choice.

Related posts

• UPDATE: What books did Sarah Palin want to ban from library?
• Republican VP pick Sarah Palin wanted to ban certain books from public library!
• The importance of Banned Books Week