Dylanfine7777777

/sandbox

FINAL DRAFT (couldn't indent in sandbox for some reason)

The origins of Book censorship in the United States do not commence until the mid-nineteenth century. One of the first cases in America that was publicized was the banning of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species in Trinity College and Cambridge. The piece contains Darwin’s theory of evolution and has been banned in other parts of America, such as Tennessee, in the early twentieth century. The practice of banning books becomes more prevalent in the mid-twentieth century as progressive writers such as Ernest Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and T.S. Elliot began their literary careers. These men were all modernists and did not refrain from revealing their opinions about controversial subject matter. For example, Hemingway's A Farewell to Arms depicts the grim realities of World War I. The toils of the two lovers, Frederic Henry and Catherine Barkley, include the graphic detailing of a childbirth gone awry. This story strays greatly from traditionalist literature, the majority of American literature at the time, which depicts good prevailing over evil. Cities such as Boston banned this novel in 1929, labeling the book "salacious". In addition, Boston in the 1920s brought the censorship of other novels such as The American Mercury, Elmer Gantry, An American Tragedy, Strange Interlude, and Lady Chatterley’s Lover. The rise of censorship in Boston spurred gripes from people in area. The Harvard Crimson in 1929 once wrote, "it has become so tiresome to reproach Boston for their constant repression of creative work, that we are beginning to surrender in despair." However the censorship in Boston was all justified because according to the U.S. federal political system, it is the duty of the states to implant their educational policies. The texts selected for the schools are ultimately approved by the state. School board’s, as part of the Tenth amendment, do have the right to select which state-approved text should be placed in the libraries. Over the years, parents on the school board have challenged their state’s selection of certain books for their libraries. The parent's and school board's main reason is in an effort to protect children from content deemed by them as inappropriate. Supreme Court cases have derived from this subject matter such as Board of Education, Island Trees School District v. Pico in 1982. This case represents the school board’s desire to emplace certain values in the children versus the students’ First Amendment rights. The court came to the conclusion that, "The First Amendment imposes limitations upon a local school board's exercise of its discretion to remove books from high school and junior high school libraries." The result of the Supreme Court case has not, to the present day, ceased the protests of parents and school boards to protect children from content they believe to be “anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic and just plain filthy."        

This Wikipedia article, additionally, needs more information on the organizations arguing against book censorship. Three anti-censorship organizations that the Wikipedia article mentions are the American Library Association, the Freedom to Read Foundation, and the National Coalition. Yet more detail needs to be provided as to how these organizations actually aid in the fight against book censorship. For example, the American Library Association, established in 1876, holds an annual event on the last week of September called Banned Books Week. The intention of this event is, “bring together the entire book community; librarians, booksellers, publishers, journalists, teachers, and readers of all types, in shared support of the freedom to seek and to express ideas, even those some consider unorthodox or unpopular.” The organization also provides information on the main reasons for book banning. The American Library Association on their website has noted the top three reasons for book censorship in the United States. The motives for this controversial practice are as following: the material was considered to be "sexually explicit”, the content contained "offensive language”, and the book was "unsuited to any age group." The Freedom to Read Foundation focuses more on the legal issues regarding book censorship. One of their main objections is to, “to supply legal counsel, which counsel may or may not be directly employed by the Foundation, and otherwise to provide support to such libraries and librarians as are suffering legal injustices.” Founded on November 20, 1969, the association made it’s first U.S. Supreme Court appeal in Kaplan v. California. The case involved an “adult” bookstore owner who was convicted of, “violating a California obscenity statute by selling a plain-covered unillustrated book containing repetitively descriptive material of an explicitly sexual nature.” The Freedom to Read Foundation brought the case before the Supreme Court and filed, “a motion asking the Court to consider an amicus brief addressing constitutional questions posed by the new three-prong test for obscenity in Miller v. California.” The motion was ultimately denied as the Court ruled that First Amendment rights only applied to, “serious literature or political works”. Lastly, another important aspect that should be added to the article is additional information about some of the books that were at the top of censorship charts for a long amount of the time. For example, the Harry Potter series topped the censored charts in the years 1999, 2001, and 2002. J.K. Rowling’s fiction stories, which first came out in 1997, were among the most challenged in the United States due to their positive portrayal of witchcraft. ALA president, Virginia Walter, has stated that the majority of the people calling for book’s censorship are, “traditional Christians who believe the Bible is a literal document. Any exposure to witches or wizards shown in a positive light is anathema to them.”  Walter’s also states that she supports parents’ rights, “to make decisions for their own children, but they do not have the right to restrict the choices of others or censor for others.”