The high school teacher who I remember most fondly was my English teacher and debate team coach who we’ll call Mrs Mac. She was the first teacher I can recall who engaged in a genuine argument with me rather than simply telling me I was wrong and she was right because she was the teacher. Our argument was about the merits of The Grapes of Wrathwhich she loved and I found to be the dullest words in human history. She was also a staunch opponent of censorship of any kind which, as a lay teacher in a Catholic girls high school in the 1980’s, required more than a little backbone. She had on the wall of her office a picture of Gough Whitlam (Australian Prime Minister from 1972-75) for the sole reason that in 1973 the Whitlam Government wiped the list of banned books in Australia. “He may have had his faults” Mrs Mac would say “but he understood the danger of banning things”. I wonder what Mr Whitlam thinks about the current Labor Government’s proposal which would effectively censor the internet in Australia.
I’m sure I was influenced by Mrs Mac’s arguments but I have given this issue some independent thought in the intervening 25 years and I’ve never been persuaded that banning things has the desired impact (assuming the desired impact is to ‘protect’ society or some subset of it from hearing or seeing things that the censors think they’d be better off not hearing or seeing).
Yet, surprisingly to me, censorship of one kind or another continues. Increasingly, private companies are engaging in censorship of a fairly insidious kind and the latest example would appear to be Amazon.com. In an LA Times blog post Carolyn Kellogg describes how Amazon has effectively censored its website by ‘de-ranking’ certain books. To be clear, this doesn’t mean Amazon won’t sell the book (that at least would suggest some kind of staunch moral stance on their part) but it does mean that the book won’t appear on Amazon’s general or category best-seller lists and won’t appear in general or keyword search results. So you’d have to know the book exists and search by its author or title to find it. Kellogg quotes an author who contacted Amazon about the disappearance of his own book (a young adult novel featuring gay characters) from their lists and he was apparently told by a customer services representative
In consideration of our entire customer base, we exclude “adult” material from appearing in some searches and best seller lists. Since these lists are generated using sales ranks, adult materials must also be excluded from that feature.
Kellogg (and others) have investigated further and discovered that Amazon have a fairly fluid definition of ”adult” material but I don’t really care about that aspect of this. For me the problem with any kind of censorship is that we’re never all going to agree on what should, and what should not, be censored. Some people even wanted to ban Harry Potter books for pity’s sake.
I’m fairly confident that the reason Amazon have introduced this practice is because of some hefty lobbying by ‘concerned parents groups’ who’ve threatened to use their economic muscle against Amazon unless they implement these practices (why else would Amazon incur the extra work?). So all I can do is fight fire with fire and refuse to shop there until they change their policy. Which I’m more than happy to do.
The Norwegian Beacon For Freedom of Expression project has one of the best sites discussing the history of censorship and the issues surrounding the subject that I’ve come across.
My job requires me to categorise and classify things. In fact it requires me to be something of a crusader about the joys of classification. But when it comes to books I’m really, really bad at it. This week in a post at one of my favourite book blogs, 