Can It Happen Here? – The Return of Book-Banning and Burning in the United States

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Introduction

- Nashville, Tennessee pastor Greg Locke holds bonfire to burn books
- PEN America, a nonprofit organization that works towards defending free expression in the United States and the world through the advancement of literature and human rights, released a formal report in April 2022 detailing over 1,000 unique books banned since July 1, 2021, spanning 86 school districts in 26 states.
- PEN America’s Index of School Book Bans
- Book Ban Efforts Spread Across the U.S. The New York Times, January 30, 2022
- When are book bans unconstitutional? A First Amendment scholar explains Iowa Capital Dispatch, May 1, 2022
- Schools nationwide are quietly removing books from their libraries The Washington Post, March 22, 2022
- Asked to Delete References to Racism From Her Book, an Author Refused The New York Times, May 11, 2022

Key Incidents from the Tracker

- Georgia college students protest author’s message by burning books – October 2019
- Tennessee public library fires employee for burning books by Trump and Coulter – February 2021
- Texas school district removes books deemed to be “inappropriate” from reading list – March 2021
- Wyoming prosecutors consider criminal charges against librarians for circulating controversial books – October 2021
- Pennsylvania teen creates banned book club in response to national censorship – January 2022
- Tennessee school board bans acclaimed Holocaust graphic novel Maus, author responds – January 2022
- Pastor, angry citizens ask Kansas school officials to remove LGBTQ-oriented book from library shelves, effort fails – February 2022
- Florida rejects math textbooks over ‘prohibited topics’ – April 2022
- Wisconsin school board denies students access to book about internment of Japanese Americans during World War II – June 2022

‘Gender Queer: A Memoir’ by Maia Kobabe

How a Debut Graphic Memoir Became the Most Banned Book in the Country The New York Times, May 1, 2022
Fairfax school system pulls two books from libraries after complaints over sexual content The Washington Post, September 28, 2021
Controversial book permanently pulled from school libraries in Fort Mill WSOC-TV 9, November 19, 2021
Author of ‘Gender Queer,’ one of most-banned books in U.S., addresses controversy NBC News, December 19, 2021

‘Maus’ by Art Spiegelman

Banned by Tennessee School Board, ‘Maus’ Soars to the Top of Bestseller Charts Smithsonian Magazine, February 2, 2022
School Board in Tennessee Bans Teaching of Holocaust Novel ‘Maus’ The New York Times, January 27, 2022

Critical Incidents Across the Country

A Texas lawmaker is targeting 850 books that he says could make students feel uneasy NPR, October 28, 2021
With Rising Book Bans, Librarians Have Come Under Attack
The New York Times, July 6, 2022
Youngkin ad features mother who pushed to have ‘Beloved’ banned from son’s curriculum The Hill, October 25, 2021
QAnon Pastor Holds Book Burning at His Church Vice News, February 4, 2022
Gay Couple Yells “Hail Satan!” and Burns a Bible at Christian Book Burning Them, February 8, 2022

U.S. Prisons: Another Frontier

Literature Locked Up: How Prison Book Restriction Policies Constitute the Nation’s Largest Book Ban PEN America, September 29, 2019
Censorship and Banned Book Lists in Correctional Facilities National Institute of Corrections, February 9, 2022
Michigan prisons ban Spanish and Swahili dictionaries to prevent inmate disruptions NPR, June 2, 2022
Book bans in prison cut inmates’ lifeline to outside world NBC, May 23, 2022
Reading While Incarcerated Saved Me. So Why Are Prisons Banning Books? The New York Times, August 17, 2022

Historical Analysis

The books have been burning CBC News, September 10, 2010
A Brief History of Book Burning, From the Printing Press to Internet Archives Smithsonian Magazine, August 31, 2017
1933 Book Burnings United States Holocaust Museum

Pro / Con

Below are select commentaries featuring additional opinions on the issue. When reading, identify the author’s key arguments and how their perspective fits into the book banning trend more broadly—while at first glance the pieces below may seem strictly for or against book censorship, the points made by each author are more nuanced.

How To Keep Library Porn From Kids Without Banning Books The Federalist, January 19, 2022
There’s More Than One Way to Ban a Book The New York Times, July 24, 2022
The Many Faces of Literary Censorship by Kat Rosenfield, March 28, 2022
Book bans are threatening American democracy. Here’s how to fight back. The Washington Post, August 9, 2022
Do Liberals Care if Books Disappear? The New York Times, March 6, 2021
To ban books (such as ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’) is to turn away from history Washington Examiner, October 17, 2017
A different book battle Washington Examiner, May 17, 2022
Reading While Incarcerated Saved Me. So Why Are Prisons Banning Books? The New York Times, August 17, 2022
Why I banned a book: How censorship can impact a learning community by Scott DiMarco, July 2013

Discussion Questions

What published content, if any, might justify a book being banned or restricted from schools, libraries, etc.?
To what extent do recent book bannings fit into broader US political and social trends?
Regarding the public education system, should members of local school boards have the power to control the course material taught in their schools? How does the distribution of educational administrative powers across federal, state, and local governments affect book bannings? Furthermore, what rights do parents have in controlling what their children are taught and exposed to in public education?
Should book burning be considered a symbolic demonstration and thus an act of Free Speech, or an act of censorship?
When considering incarcerated populations, do federal and state governments have freer legal grounds to ban published materials from circulating in prisons? Are there greater legal obstacles when censoring the same materials in non-incarcerated populations?
Among proponents of book banning, to what extent does their perception of a book’s content and its effects on readers, align or not align with the actual content of a banned book? How have social and cultural perceptions distorted the “true meaning” or purpose of a publication? Is there an objective “true meaning” or intent of every published work?
Are writers whose books are banned from schools, libraries, etc. having their right to Free Speech restricted?
Are individuals who are unable to read a book because their local or state government has banned it having their right to Free Speech restricted?
How can banned books be reinstated in libraries and public school curricula? Should banned books be reinstated?

Activity

Click on these themes below: Artistic Expression + Legal Action + Identity

Discuss: What does this confluence of stories with these filters tell us about free speech issues and book bannings in America? Free speech and the availability of information?

Themes

Artistic Expression

A pro-Trump mural vandalized with the slogan “stop white supremacy.” A television reboot canceled after a racist remark from its star comedienne. A painter denied a venue after previous sex offenses came to light. University productions of vintage theater works canceled because of language that now seems insensitive. Artists are traditionally seen as having broad creative freedom to express themselves, yet the national climate and divisions along lines of identity have demonstrated just how political art can be. These cases underline that no art form — from theater to sculpture to music — is free from society’s battles about speech.

Foreign Policy

Though less so in recent years, the United States has often sought to expand freedom of expression beyond its borders as a condition of its relations with other countries. Is it right to do so? As speech freedoms are threatened abroad by increasingly authoritarian leaders — and those who embolden them — more and more individuals are likely to be prevented from telling the truth about conditions in their countries. Often inadvertently, U.S. leaders have also complained about Americans’ freedom to criticize, oblivious to the message this sends to foreign leaders.

Hate Speech

For decades, activists have proposed that hate speech — speech that disparages a particular group of people — be restricted in certain arenas. In some universities, for instance, student activists have sought to ban speakers who express openly racist or anti-LGBTQ views. While advocates of civil rights and social justice argue that Free Speech is often used to perpetuate stereotypes and hatred against long-marginalized communities, strict interpreters of the First Amendment tend to agree with a famous line from former Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who wrote in a 1929 opinion that the principle of free speech is not “free thought for those who agree with us, but freedom for the thought that we hate.”

Heckler’s Veto

There is seemingly a script for Free Speech disruptions on college campuses: A political provocateur is invited to campus, and protesters agitate against him or her with the aim of precluding the speaker from delivering a talk. This kind of disruption — called “the heckler’s veto” — is repudiated everywhere by experts on First Amendment jurisprudence, who claim that this combative practice is not the way to settle disputes in our society. But some also argue that protesters are guaranteed the right to heckle or even silence a speaker by the First Amendment. Others still take issue with the idea that virulent racism or other threatening speech can be calmly discussed and analyzed.

Identity

Almost any aspect of one’s life can be considered a marker of identity: Beyond race and gender, people cite factors like ability, age, sexual orientation, citizenship or immigration status, and religion as definitional elements of who they are. And Americans today often speak of the communities that form around those identities with an astounding dearth of knowledge about the history that has shaped and informed those experiences. Sometimes, ignorance about these issues can lead to outright combativeness. As people grapple with how to live their identities in a public way, they may encounter the vitriol of those who don’t want to accept their place in society. Should the state protect the views of those who allegedly wish to invalidate the identities of others?

Legal Action

In September 2017, white supremacist Richard Spencer sued for a right to speak on the campus of Michigan State University, a public, land-grant college. Similar legal action took place, with varying results, at the University of Cincinnati, the University of Florida, and Penn State University. Because the right to Free Speech is enshrined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, those initially denied a platform to speak — often because they appear to present a threat to public order — have had their way after arguing in court that a public space cannot deny anyone a soapbox. These disputes frequently result in civil lawsuits as well as administrative investigations.

National Security

Although the days depicted in Steven Spielberg’s film, “The Post” — with a war in Vietnam, an embattled White House, and the classified Pentagon Papers — are long gone, the government continues to claim it has an interest in keeping certain secret material from the public eye. Massive online leaks, such as the one undertaken by Edward Snowden, a former CIA employee and intelligence analyst, have led to the discovery of civilian surveillance programs orchestrated by the National Security Agency. Meanwhile, former President Barack Obama used the power of the executive to prosecute more leakers under the Espionage Act than all previous presidents taken together, highlighting the tension between the country’s interest in keeping the homeland secure and the public’s right to know how its business is being conducted.

Press

“The only way to assert the right to publish is to publish,” once said Ben Bagdikian, a Washington Post editor who played a pivotal role in keeping the Pentagon Papers public, after the New York Times had been temporarily restrained from publishing the documents. Just a few days later, the Post was also taken to court by the government for doing exactly that: exercising freedom of the press. The modern-era attacks on the media come from all corners, including the White House, which calls mainstream news outlets “fake news” and their journalists “enemies of the people.” Yet the press is one of the stalwart avenues for the defense of Free Speech, and individuals from all political stripes take to op-ed pages to express their (sometimes incendiary) opinions.

Professional Consequences

The concept of academic freedom is frequently invoked when to defend a professor’s incendiary comments in the classroom. But posted online, the same comments could cost the professor his or her position. Because not all universities are publicly funded, competing interpretations of exactly what speech is protected have emerged. Common disciplinary actions include removing professors from teaching, placing them on academic leave, or, particularly in the case of adjunct faculty, firing them outright. The career disruptions go beyond academia, too: in October 2017, a government contractor in Virginia was fired from her job after being photographed giving the middle finger to the presidential motorcade as she bicycled past.

Protest Politics

The First Amendment guarantees the right to assemble, but in recent years that principle has come under increased scrutiny. Whether it be state legislators who want to mitigate consequences for drivers who “accidentally” hit demonstrators or attorneys in the District of Columbia attempting to indict journalists and nurses for rioting they were not a part of, the protest scene in the United States is beginning to resemble the street battles that took place in the Vietnam War era. And as organized political movements have drawn millions for the Women’s March in 2016 or the Families Belong Together March in 2018, the politics of protest are not likely to mellow anytime soon. Does the state ever have a legitimate interest in restricting — or even punishing — protests?

Social Media

Social networks have proven to be the most difficult arenas in which to debate Free Speech. Are they supposed to be a replica of the public square, where nearly any opinion deserves amplification — and scrutiny? Or are they meant to provide a space free of hate speech and misinformation, where users can feel safe communicating their ideas about the world around them? Companies such as Facebook and Twitter have vowed to combat rhetorical bile on their platforms, but have not given the public much insight as to who decides what type of content should be censored. And social content can be permanent: if a user chooses not to delete a post, it can come back to haunt him or her years later, potentially causing career disruptions. How and where to draw the lines in these increasingly popular platforms are among the defining questions for Free Speech today.

Violence / Threats

Professors fearing for their lives as they receive death threats. Shattered storefronts in Washington, D.C., blocks away from a presidential inauguration. Bedlam in Charlottesville as a self-avowed neo-Nazi drives into a crowd of counter-protesters. The link between violence or threats thereof and Free Speech only seems to be getting closer in the United States, and it seems to defy all reason that these incidents continue to occur when the highest court has historically held that speech that incites or directly leads to violence can be restricted.

Type

Enhanced Entry (contains Podcasts, Videos, or Timeline)

Tracker Entries

This course module was prepared by Logan Richman ’25, a sophomore in the Georgetown School of Foreign Service from New Jersey. He serves as the principal research assistant for the Free Speech Project, and also plays the jazz trombone.