I'm banned? Cool!

Allow me, in advance, to apologize for the length of this post - I tend to get wordy when I get all fired up.

I despise censorship in any fuckin' form.  Any.  I think protestations on behalf of uptight parents, politicians, school board members, city councilors, et. al. that "We must protect the children" are weak and are served up only to deflect attention from the poles (or polls) that are firmly lodged up their asses.

Now, of course, I may be overreacting to two stories I recently came across.  If I am, allow me to apologize here and now for getting into a lather; for getting my knickers in a knot; a bee in my bonnet; or any other witty cliche that describes my agitation.  I don't think I am though.

The first came to my attention the other day on MSNBC.com.  The story details some controversy in Maryland regarding a book entitled The Earth, My Butt, and Other Big Round Things by Carolyn Mackler.  The young adult novel has been widely praised and has received several honors including the Michael L. Printz Honor Book silver medal from the Young Adult Library Services Association.  It's a frank depiction of a young (15 years old) girl's "struggle over whether and when to lose her virginity and the disgust  she feels with her own overweight body."  It's not a very rosy picture - it's far from Leave it to Beaver or Father Knows Best.  Today, there's a follow-up story on MSNBC.com about the Carroll County superintendent, Charles I. Ecker, reconsidering the ban he imposed a couple of months ago.  In the article he praises the book very highly and even goes on to say that "If I had the authority, I’d make every parent read it because it’s about family relations, about how parents treat a child that may not be the way they think they should be.”  Well, holy fuckin' shit, Batman! So, what caused him to ban it you ask?  It has some foul language (oops, maybe I'll get banned) and "some sexual things in it that (he) thought was unfortunate."  Really?  Where's my sarcasm tag when I need it.  But, let's get to the heart of it - he overturned a committee that voted to accept the book because a parent...ONE...challenged the book's language and sexual themes.  I will place money right now that that parent's child(ren) will end up on a therapist's couch.  Now, there is a kicker and it comes from Mr. Ecker.  He says, "he was in a quandary. He believes in the First Amendment, he said, and “it’s a wonderful message,” but it is also a difficult one that some pupils may not be ready for."  Is it just me, or is he making himself the parent of the entire district?  And, can you really say, in all honesty you believe in the First Amendment and then ban a book?  Also on MSNBC.com is a poll (unscientific, of course) that shows (unfortunately) that of 282 respondents (at time of writing) only 45%, less than half, believe that books of this nature should be allowed in public schools.  55% believe either the books should be available elsewhere or it all depends on the book.  Reason #2,458,965 for the fall of Western Civilization.

Ok, parents, here's the deal.  You, my friends, are the parent.  It is your responsibility, and yours alone, to bring up your children and only your children.  If you find something objectionable, fine, keep it away from your child.  But do not...DO NOT...believe that that gives you the right to impose your values on me and keep it from mine.  That's not how this all works.

Ok - second story that really pissed me off.  Last Friday (December 16) three senators (Joe Lieberman (D, CT), Hillary Rodham Clinton (D, NY) and Evan Bayh (D, IL)) introduced legislation "that will codify the (videogame) industry's voluntary ratings system."  Games will be assigned letters ("EC" - appropriate for early childhood to "AO" - adults only) and any retailer that sells games rated mature or adults only to children under 17 could face fines of up to $5,000.  Good to see that everything in the country is running smoothly that these aspiring presidential candidates have the time to introduce this ridiculous legislation.  First Amendment anyone?  Bueller?  Bueller?  I must say, however, that there are some voices of reason out there in the wilderness.  In 2001, "in overturning an Indianapolis statute, Judge Richard A. Posner said the graphic content in videogames, while coarse to many, deserves the same protection as gruesome passages in such literary classics as "The Odyssey," "The Divine Comedy" and "War and Peace." (Emphasis mine)  He continues:

"Violence has always been and remains a central interest of humankind and a recurrent, even obsessive theme of culture," Judge Posner wrote. "To shield children right up until the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to deal with the world as we know it."

I just find it disgusting and insulting that individuals, elected or not, have it in their heads that they are the arbiters of what you and I can read, play, listen to (PMRC anyone?) or watch.  Like Chag said a couple of weeks ago, "I Don't Need The Government To Babysit My Children."

Comments

[suburban misfit]

Don't video games already come with ratings? I mean, seriously, that's just stupid.

I'm so disappointed in Bayh. I was going to support him in his bid, but now...I just don't know. The government has so many more important things to worry about.

[Melissa]

You would think the government would have better things to worry about than video games. And they do have ratings.

I can not stand the thought of schools banning books. I live in Los Angeles, so not many schools out here do that. I actually went to a school that had a banned books section in the library, just to show us which ones were "banned". The librarian at my school got a kick out of it. I don't think anybody but my husband and I are responsible for our children. In less I am beating them or abusing them in some way, it is no one else's business what I let my kids do. There are so many other things to worry about than what kids play on video games and read in books. Sheesh - people need to get a life.

[Kemp]

If that pisses you off, then this linked story will as well.

I, like you, am against censorship in any form... I've done countless research on it and my Master's thesis even dealt with it. It's just plain wrong. This article isn't about censorship per se, but it touches on it from the fact that there is apparently a watch list for certain books being checked out of libraries.

To make a long story short (to late) a few months ago a student at the University of Massachusetts checked out a copy of Mao's "Little Red Book" for a class. A few weeks (or months) later, two federal agents came to his door to interview him because he tried to check it out.

Here's a link to the story from the Harvard University newspaper:
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=510725

[Jared]

I'll agree as far as book-banning goes.

I think, though, that people are mistaken in believing that the First Amendment guarantees the right to do whatever you please, whenever you want.

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of expression. Can anyone think of a good agrument for Carmageddon as a tretise on the social mores of contemporary American culture? Or the billboard for Bill's House O' Funbags? This is simply about money and entertainment, neither of which fall under the First Amendment.

I'm tired of the First Amendment being used as an excuse to ignore any sense of social responsibility.

[suburban misfit]

I'm all for social responsibility but I don't think it's the government's job to police it. It should be a community thing. If enough people complain about a certain thing (let's go with the House O'Funbags example) that thing will go away. I do not want the government to tell me what my children can and cannot do (within reason, obviously; there are laws that make sense). I also do not want the government to tell me what is appropriate for my children. They start with video games (and believe me, there will not be any T-rated games in this house, ever; he'll have to get them in college if he wants them) and then they'll go on to books and movies and it'll never stop.

It's MY job to police my children and decide what comes into this house, and it's MY job to teach them that the House O'Funbags isn't a good place. Just because some parents don't do their jobs I shouldn't be punished.

[Chris]

You, my friend, are my hero. I couldn't agree more nor could I have said it any better myself. Thank you.

[Robin]

I agree too. This issue is like so many others where some group of people finds something objectionable so we should ban it "for the good of the children."

We (my wife and I) are solely responsible for our child(ren) and what they watch/play/read. That is simply not a role that government should (or even can) fill. I shouldn't have my control/authority limited by a government that does not necessarily share the same values as I do.