Grrr. I was in the middle of a long and intricate post when my computer froze and I lost it all. I'll try to recapitulate.
The central question seems to be about the conflict seems to be between the protection of children from potentially harmful influences and the right of an individual to be exposed to ideas. The situation is further confused by the question of who decides what influences can be harmful.
As for the first question: I take it as axiomatic that any person has a right to be exposed to any idea. This right can only be abridged when it is in direct contradiction to another right, such as the right to freedom from harm. So in order for censorship to be justifiable, it must uphold a right superior to that which it abridges. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the right to freedom from harm is superior.
Note that, like all rights, this right can be abrogated or waived as long as the person doing so is fully aware of the consequences. Of course, no one can ever be completely aware of the consequences of anything; but it is commonly held that adults of average intelligence have sufficient awareness that we may for all practical purposes consider them fully aware of the potential consequences of their actions. Censorship with the aim of the protection of the audience is thus unjustifiable among fully aware adults, because they are free to choose to abrogate their right to freedom from harm.
We might still wonder whether censorship is permissible on the grounds that it prevents harm from being done by one person to another. A fully aware person may abrogate his or her own right to freedom from harm, but may not abridge the rights of others. This is a question of compulsion. Where does the responsibility for one person doing harm to another lie - in the person whose action causes harm or in the medium through which the idea was transmitted? I think it is clear that it lies with the person, provided that the person is fully aware. Censorship is thus unjustified among fully aware adults because no idea can have power of compulsion over them.
The question then turns to children. The oft-advanced justification for censorship among children is that they are not fully aware and thus can harm themselves without meaning to abrogate their right to freedom from harm; or they can harm others without making a rational decision to abridge another's rights. This makes some sense. Thus, censorship is justified, if there is a direct causal link between the exposure of such a person to an idea and harm to that person or to another person, because it defends the right of the person (and of others) to be free from harm (note that such a direct causal relationship can never exist for fully aware adults, because they can always choose not to cause harm, or to abrogate their right). However, note several things:
1. There is a preponderance of evidence that there is no direct causal link between, say, observing violence and committing violence. For every child who plays Grand Theft Auto and then causes harm to others, there is a vastly greater number that play GTA and do not cause harm. And this is a fairly extreme case - who will argue that Harry Potter is more inciteful than some television or video games?
2. There are many factors that contribute to a person's harmful behavior, among which the influence of artistic media is small. The number of factors to be taken into account makes it extremely unlikely that there is a causal link between any one of the factors and the resulting behavior. Note that in almost all (maybe literally all) of the cases where a child's harmful actions are blamed on a game or television show, there are other factors present that likely outweigh that influence.
3. Whether or not there is a probable causal connection between an idea and a harmful act depends upon the person in question. What may be said to inspire violence in one will not do so in another. Therefore, blanket censorship of something, though it may protect a few, abridges the rights of many.
The above discussion is somewhat abstract, but I think it makes a decent general case against censorship. There is something further, and more specific, though, to be said about censorship on religious grounds, especially in schools (and I'm surprised no one has apparently been angered by this as much as I have). Simply put, it's illegal. At least, it is in the U.S. And with good cause. The first amendment makes it unconstitutional for a government institution to make regulations based on religious beliefs. To ban a book from a school because it is "anti-religious" or "promotes witchcraft" is a blatant and unconscienable violation of the separation between church and state.
So my answer to the original question: no. There is no justification for any of the bannings that have been mentioned.
This is of course a completely different question from that of requiring that students not read Tolkien while they are in class and are supposed to be doing other work.
|