Movie banning

The school system at Quince Orchard High School has devised a new plan on regulating the "age-appropriateness" of movies in classrooms and has, in effect, removed many titles that have been used for years. "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest", "Romeo and Juliet", "The Count of Monte Cristo" and "Psycho" have been pulled from shelves because the leadership team"did not feel that it was necessary to show R-rated movies as part of the instructional program" (Sedam). The superintendents voted that all rated-R movies are officially banned and PG-13 movies can no longer be shown in middle schools, such as "Romeo and Juliet". Teachers aruge that these movies have never been controversial to use in the past and have helped students when the literature was too "risqué" to read. The leadership team that makes the decisions for the school district is comprised of three deputy superintendents, five associate superintendents, six community superintendents, three union presidents and other senior staff members including the superintendent’s chief of staff and the director of the Public Information Office (Sedam). Teachers argue, though, that they were not involved in this decision making process. The associate superintendent, Jody Leleck, says that there is no real advantage of movies in the classroom and they simply do not help kids better understand the curriculum. Teachers, though, feel that education is multi-faceted and this decision takes away the ability to use various teaching methods: ‘‘We’ve cut down on the number of spices that teachers can use in their lessons" (Blum).

When I read the article, I was floored because finally parents and teachers were on the same page. They did not want to see the movies pulled from the shelves, but the superintendents demanded that these new stringent rules be enacted. The opening paragraph aligns teachers and parents: "The school system has gone too far by pulling movies adapted from classic works of literature out of the classroom, some parents and teachers say" (Sadem). I thought, 'finally!' But then I read on...it is the higher administration that is pulling the plug on movies because it is not age-appropriate and they do not see the advantages of movies in the classroom. May I ask them, then, if they would rather the students read books with sexually explicit material? If they can do that, then something hypocritical is going on here. And since when is media not a useful tool in the classroom? Not only does it give a break to the regimented schedule, but it allows students to see that literature is not just a hobby inside the english classroom. People make movies because of its significance to the outside world. Without this connection, students do devalue literature. Plus, isn't media becoming highly common in classrooms, with I-Movies, computers, proxima use, etc.? How are movies exempt from this category? In addition, middle schoolers cannot watch PG-13 movies...why??? "Romeo and Juliet" is rated PG-13...so now they cannot watch that movie. How ridiculous! Do you think they are not watching rated-R movies at home and at the theatres? Instead of pretending like students are these innocent children who go home and do chores for 5 hours and are the most puritanical of all people, why not try to relate to them by showing a movie they have interest in? Are superintendents afraid they may enjoy it? How silly of an idea...

source: http://www.gazette.net/stories/120705/montedu192725_31903.shtml

Harry Potter Book Burning

Censorship has many forms, from banning books from shelves to advocating against sex, drugs, and other "bad" ideas literature is written about. Book burning, though, has been in existence since the first records of written documentation. Many people burned books because of political, religious, and moral reasons. However, it is not completely gone from our society. In numerous areas across the globe, book burning still occurs. More recently, with the Harry Potter explosion, advocates against sorcery and witchcraft have held public book burning demonstrations to show the evilness of the literature.
The Jesus Non-demoninational Church in Greenville burned numerous Harry Potter books because they felt that it went against the Bible. Pastor Tommy Turner, "I don't want anyone to go to hell, and the bible says if people use sorcery and witchcraft they will go to hell" (HPANA). The group also burned cds from groups such as *NSYNC and rationalized that since the music was not glorifying God, it should not be accepted (HPANA).
Other people act in similar ways. In 1999, when the 3rd Harry Potter book was published, David Williamson of Columbia, South Carolina argued that the books teach "the overall context of the occult -- witches and how Harry is being trained through this school he goes to to be a better wizard" (CBN News). He uses Bible verses to justify his opinion and his group of followers believe that Harry Potter books are a hindrance to the separation of church and state (CBN News).

I have read a few of the Harry Potter books and have never thought of them as trying to corrupt me. I thought they were entertaining and a good read. Never did I think that witchcraft and sorcery, along with rebelliousness, was being condoned. If people approach books like that, then isn't the Bible about death, controlling others, and violence?
I could not believe that people still burn books. How terrible it must be to be a writer of a book that is being burned...what a criticism to the author! How dare people think they are better than the writer and to purposely damage a text that has taken numerous years to create? There is just no justification for such behavior. If the American flag cannot be burned, then why are books any different? Aren't books a reminder of the democratic freedoms we have in this country? Therefore, shouldn't they be held with as high regard as the American flag, another symbol of liberty? Wow...the priorities are not correct here.



Sources: http://www.hpana.com/news.17092.html, http://www.religioustolerance.org/potter2.htm

Censoring Adults??

Not only does censoring literature affect students in schools and libraries, but also adults who wish to read more complex books. Human Events, a conservative journal, recently compiled a list of the "Ten Most Harmful Books" of the 19th and 20th centuries. Topping out the list was The Communist Manifesto, by Marx and Engels, Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler, Quotations from Chairman Mao, by Mao Zedong, The Kinsey Report, by Alfred Kinsey, Democracy and Education, by John Dewey, The Feminine Mystique, by Betty Freidan, The Course of Philosophy, by August Compte, Beyond Good and Evil, by Freidricj Nietzsche, and General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money by John Maynard Keynes (Apple).
I do not quite understand how calling this books "harmful" is justified. After all, we learned the most valuable lessons from these books and they idealize some of the founding philosphies of countries such as the U.S. and China. If these books were ever censored, children would never understand the full ramifications of the Holocaust because they could not read Hitler's actual words, nor would they comprehend the ideas of Mao Zedong, which are considered to be important fundamentals of the Chinese society. Even considering to create such a list of books is detrimental to society and I shun the person, or people, who decided to do it. Are people that bored or senseless to devise a list of books not to read? How can you tell people what to read and what not to read, especially when it comes to adults? If we can vote and drive a car legally, then we should be able to read whatever we want, from The Little Mermaid to a book about how cults affect society. Just because someone is reading Mein Kampf does not mean they are antisemitic or want to take over the world.
Michael Apple, author of Dangerous Reading, points out that if we censor these types of books, shouldn't the Bible be censored as well? After all, it did start many wars and genocides and is the cause for most religious persecution in the world. But, we do not censor the Bible...because we are a biased society and we are unjustified in our actions. Will it ever end?

Source: Dangerous Reading. Michael W. Apple, 2005

Book Banning to Movie Banning...when does it stop?

As if banning books were not enough of a hindrance to education, the Winnacunnet Cooperative School Board has banned R-Rated movies from being shown in classrooms unless teachers can provide educational reasoning for showing it. The board voted unanimously and was a result of parental complaints that movies being shown to their children were inappropriate.
Movies such as Great Expectations, Saving Private Ryan, and Schindler's List are now banned in this school district. Teachers tried to resist by sending the board a petition of more than 70 signatures, but it did not help. Parents argue that there are no benefits to the movies. They feel it takes away from class time and shows inappropriate content, such as sexual activity.

Maybe parents ought to perceive school through their children's eyes. Everyday, students are learning about literature and grammar. Movies act as a balancing act for learning. Some students are auditory learners and some are visual. So when kids read Great Expectations, some students do not understand it. But when they see the movie, they can better comprehend the material within the text. Plus, movies add some excitement to the class...a break in the schedule sometimes allows students to de-stress and relax for a bit. Plus, many movies like Saving Private Ryan are well-made reproductions. Do parents believe that kids do not know what sex is or that they never saw someone get shot in a movie or on tv?

Banning books is demoralizing...banning movies is just stupid.

source: http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/hampton/11252005/news/74967.htm

Supreme Court Cases on Censorship

As I have stated numerous times before, censorship has been around for many decades. More importantly, reasons for censorship have not dramatically changed over time, showing that society, although more liberal today, still refuses to believe holistically in the First Amendment. The following are towo Supreme Court cases. I am using two very different time periods because I want to demonstrate how censorship has not changed all that much.


Case # 1: Evans v. Selma Union High School District of Fresno County, Cali. 1924

The California Supreme Court decided in favor of Selma Union High School to allow it to purchase 12 copies of the Bible in the King James version. There was some controvery over this and some people felt that allowing such a text in a high school library would be promoting the theory of dogma and would, in effect, corrupt the students. The Supreme Court, though, stated, "The mere act of purchasing a book does not carry with it any implication of adoption of the theory or dogma contained therein, or any approval of the book itself, except as a work of literature fit to be included in a reference library."


Case # 2: Counts v. Cedarville School District, Arkansas, 2003

A federal district court ruled against the Cedarville School District's attempt to restrict the reading of Harry Potter books. The school had been using a system by which parents needed to give written permission for their children to read the books. The school felt that the books condoned witchcraft and defying authority. However, the court decided that doing so directly infringed on the students' First Amendment rights and “[r]egardless of the personal distaste with which these individuals regard 'witchcraft,’ it is not properly within their power and authority as members of defendant’s school board to prevent the students at Cedarville from reading about it.” The court also said that requiring written parental consent was "stigmatizing" the Harry Potter books and those who choose to read them.


I was happy to see that both court cases resulted in support of anti-censorship. However, the negative implications from these two examples is that people continually find some of the most absurd reasons to censor books...defying authority? I think the parents could come up with something a little better than this to use...if they are going to try to censor a book, they should at least come prepared. If I were the judge and I read their reasons for trying to censor the Harry Potter books, I would laugh in their faces and rip the papers up...

Source: http://www.nsba.org/site/doc_cosa.asp?TRACKID=&VID=50&CID=487&DID=11872

Steps to take when faced with a book challenge

Many of us know what censorship is in its most basic form. But when it comes to understanding how to combat it, people are dumbfounded. It seems as though there is no way to battle the censorship advocates and people feel helpless. But there are things teachers can do to fight against book banning.

Adapted from "Books Under Fire"

The ALA, NCTE, and PFAW have compiled a list of things to do when faced with book censorship:

-- ask parents to contribute to developing school reading programs
-- provide recommended, rather than required, reading lists
-- be prepared to defend your choices by keeping files of supportive professional reviews
-- use collective bargaining contracts to negotiate freedom clauses
-- use a variety of texts to teach a concept or theme
-- meet with the complaining parent to try to resolve the conflict
-- request a written complaint that details the negative effect the book might have on students and ask parents to suggest replacement materials
-- provide a copy of the district's formal curriculum materials review policy
-- even when the complaint is being reviewed, keep the material available to other students

some of these ideas may sound risky, such as the last one. But these ideas should not be used to make teachers subservient to the review system. Rather, teachers should be able to combat censorship by hitting it straight in the face, while also going on with their teaching lives.

Source: "Books Under Fire", Kathie Durbin, 2005

Comstockery

On March 3rd, 1873, The U.S. government enacted the Comstock Law. It was meant to stop obscene literature from being sent through the mail as well as restrict birth control, birth control information, and other sexually explicit material.
The Comstock Law was named after its intiator, Anthony Comstock. George Bernard Shaw, an author that was censored because of the Comstock Law, coined the term "comstockery".

Be it enacted… That whoever, within the District of Columbia or any of the Territories of the United States…shall sell…or shall offer to sell, or to lend, or to give away, or in any manner to exhibit, or shall otherwise publish or offer to publish in any manner, or shall have in his possession, for any such purpose or purposes, an obscene book, pamphlet, paper, writing, advertisement, circular, print, picture, drawing or other representation, figure, or image on or of paper of other material, or any cast instrument, or other article of an immoral nature, or any drug or medicine, or any article whatever, for the prevention of conception, or for causing unlawful abortion, or shall advertise the same for sale, or shall write or print, or cause to be written or printed, any card, circular, book, pamphlet, advertisement, or notice of any kind, stating when, where, how, or of whom, or by what means, any of the articles in this section…can be purchased or obtained, or shall manufacture, draw, or print, or in any wise make any of such articles, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof in any court of the United States…he shall be imprisoned at hard labor in the penitentiary for not less than six months nor more than five years for each offense, or fined not less than one hundred dollars nor more than two thousand dollars, with costs of court.

Leading female advocate Margaret Sanger, with her devotion to spreading awareness about contraception and sexual information, created controversy within the United States. She created the Planned Parenthood Foundation we hear of today. Her efforts led to the uplifting of restrictions concerning birth control and sexual information in Comstock Law in 1938.

The Comstock Law is another example of how censorship is deeply rooted in American history. Although the Comstock Law is still technically a federal law, it is not typically followed because society has become more liberal than in the late 1930's. However, censorship advocates still turn to it when cornered by anti-censorship advocates and use it as a loop hole to justify book banning.

Comic book censorship

Censorship is not a new issue...it has been a prevalent problem in American society for decades. In 1955, the U.S. Senate investigated the so-called direct link between comic books and juvenile delinquency. It was stated that parents had gone to administration with concern as to how the content of comic books has had a "deleterious effect upon their children of certain of the media of mass communication". The government says that the public has a right to state their concerns for the welfare of their children and that "certian types of mass communication media are to be reckoned with as contributing to the country's alarming rise in juvenile delinquency". It rationalizes that although juvenile delinquency is not caused by one factor, comic books have a significant effect upon the entire problem. It also justifies that just as juvenile delinquency has been a rapidly evolving issue, so has the increase in print media, television and radio. The Senate says that children today are exposed to the sights and sounds of new entertainment that can be delterious to their upbringing and are very different to the way kids were raised decades before. They say comic books are a "powerful counterpoise working evil" and greatly impact a child during its developmental years.

The Senate uses the following criteria as reaons for why comic books are so harmful:

character, plot and setting
the use of supernatural powers to hurt others using real-life
situations
would show kids that they can use violence on others
language
words alone are more graphic than words and battle scenes are
depicted
using harsh words. Kids learn to use these harsh words to evoke
power over
others
sequence
the sequence of events is so quick that kids believe that there are
no long-term consequences to their actions. stories show the
climax of events
in the end so that kids believe that the best is yet to come.

I have to approach this issue in two perspectives. Firstly, the year is 1955 and the US was not as liberal at it is now, so the Senate and parents who complained to administrations were probably shocked at the new wave of literature and entertainment available to the masses. Secondly, I view this topic with a 2005 perspective. The reason I do so is because there is a direct correlation between the arguments in 1955 and 2005 concerning censorship. Are not the arguments posed by the 1955 Senate similar, if not exact, replications of the arguments today? They complain that the literature has gotten out of control and is corrupting youth...and in 2005 the same feelings are expressed.
This idea poses a great threat for me. Have we not changed as a society since 1955? Are we still stuck in a time when we thought comic books were harmful for children? What happened to parenting and showing kids the difference between recreation and reality?
Comic books are just another form of literature, just like the newspaper. Isn't the newspaper worse? Doesn't the newspaper tell about actual events that occured, such as rape, murder, war, death, suffering, etc?

Source: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8580/kefauver.html