Defense of Free Speech in Marshall, Mo

Now for something that is way out of my geographic range, in Marshall Mo, where there is a fight at the public library over two graphic novels, one of which is one of the best stories that I had ever read. Blankets by Craig Thompson is that title, the other is Fun Home by Alison Bechdel which I have not read (or heard of). Blankets does contain nudity all of which is central to the story, none of which is remotely obscene. Some citizens of Marshall, Mo are demanding that these books be pulled off the shelves. Their claim is that they are “Pornographic”, would cause “seedy people coming to the library and moving into our community,” and that it is just plain “common sense” to ban these books. Several members of the community complained that graphic novels are not art or literature. The library spoke out against removing the books but held a public meeting where both sides expressed their views. Ultimately the library removed the two books for a temporary basis while they make standards to admit books in the library, at which time the policy will be reviewed.

I am not a citizen of Marshall but I find the calls for censorship despicable. It is “common sense” to me that people read the books that they are attempting to censor (which the community members have not done). The Supreme Court in the US has ruled in the past that communities can not remove books from a public library because the community does not like the content or because of “unorthodox” views. Some would argue that communities should be able to set standards to what is acceptable, but I argue that is bunk. Communities DO NOT have a right to set standards on free speech because one of the reasons for free speech is dissidence. If I have an opposing view not only should I be able to express it, but I have the right to academically organize it. This is a check on the power of the masses when they have temporarily self-destructive views.

This is not entirely the case here. Blankets does have some themes that Evangelicals may not like. The theme here is if this is obscene. Is blankets pornography? Pornography is defined by Webster Dictionary has three definitions but one is an adverb. The other two each on has common criteria; does it arouse or cause sexual excitement? This is pretty objective because for some people high heeled shoes cause arousal, but high heeled shoes are not pornographic. Webster also has another criterion, intention, for two definitions. There is clearly no intention to cause sexual arousal. Now the people demanding censorship may have a different definition of pornography, one that Daniele da Volterra and Pope Pious IV may have shared, where any depiction of a naked body is pornography. The problem with this is that they use the word in a way to get a sensational response beyond their definition. They can not say “it has a picture of a naked person,” in it because most books depicting art would also be banned which is not what they are calling for. So my conclusion is that the people demanding censorship are abiding by the real definition of pornography. Without Blankets being porno it may still be obscene, but obscene is such an open term (used deliberately) that it is near-impossible to claim anything as obscene. Blankets and I think I can safely assume Fun Home are not obscene if hardcore pornography is not obscene.

Why is this issue an important issue? To me free speech is the foundation. Once people start chipping away at it then they will try to chip more. The freedom of speech keeps a check on everyone’s speech and claims because they can be refuted. Some people claim that this is the second amendment but that is a crass argument because we have access to both tools but with a few exceptions we have only had to use one.