Clarifying 'Pornography' And </p><p>'Book Banning
To the Editor:
I spoke at the April 18 BOE meeting and my remarks are public record, so I will not rehash my statements. However, as an English teacher, I often impart upon my students the importance of diction and connotation in the close reading and evaluation of text and speech, and would like to provide some much-needed clarification on the meaning of some important words being bandied about.
First, pornography.
The definition of pornography has been defined in various ways by the courts for purposes of censorship, but it is generally agreed that pornography is, according to one ruling, “a visible material such as a photograph or videotape, including a material in electronic form, depicting a genital or other similar pornography which excites or stimulates sexual desire.” The main defining element of pornography in all the legal definitions is the intent to excite or stimulate. If you are forming an opinion on this topic but have not yet read the books in question, I encourage you to do so.
If you find any of the panels being shared on social media “stimulating,” you probably have a bigger problem you might want to address in therapy. The courts have, time and again, ruled that pornography is protected speech, and that “sexually explicit” content does not automatically equal pornography, especially not in the context of a larger story with a non-erotic narrative (which definitely applies to both Flamer and Blankets, the two texts currently in question).
The second word I’d like to discuss is banning. Those seeking to ban these books, and our BOE chair, have bristled at the idea of this discussion being called “book banning,” but that is exactly, precisely, legally what it is. The courts have ruled time and time again that once a text is put on a library shelf, it becomes protected speech.
Our BOE policy and the American Library Association guidelines for book selection both provide clear parameters for the selection of books, and they were followed in the case of the two books being discussed. Both are critically acclaimed, important examples of their genre, and provide unique and important viewpoints. When the books were challenged, and the BOE took up the responsibility for deciding on the removal of these books as outlined in the policy, they became a government body contemplating the prohibition of materials from general reading availability, or potential banners.
Library book challenge IS the number one way books are banned in the United States. There is no getting around this fact. We can’t soften it with semantics.
The case law on school library challenges has been settled and affirmed for over a century. I will save that for my next speech at the Board on May 2. But it is important that we understand the legal definitions we’re dealing with.
Sincerely,
Jacquelyn Kaplan
Sandy Hook
Let me clarify – school libraries are not public libraries. The BoE has jurisdiction over the selection of materials. And parents and tax payers have a right and duty to challenge material they view as offensive, sexual in nature and perverted. The progressive ideology is being foisted on school children by sneaking this material into school libraries under the guise of ‘diverity’. Place this stuff in Booth and be done with this specious argument.
Thank you for your letter! I wish you would have also clarified and defined what the rules/regulations/guidelines are regarding the acceptance and removal of content from the NPS libraries – something you, as an NPS teacher, are likely far more familiar with than the rest of us. To me, this is the single most important information regarding this heated topic. Knowing the rules not only creates a foundation for quality debate, it also creates guardrails that promote healthy, objective dialog. Without the rules, these discussions are blatantly subjective that get us absolutely nowhere. This whole controversy can be easily resolved by simply reading the books and rules together. Then we can have objective debate/dialog regarding whether the rules need to be changed or updated. Without the rules, we get debates where people blurt out “free speech” or “pornography” or “banning” or “smut.” It should also help remove the bulk of the politics people inject into this discussion which I find disgusting. These are our children and we should be doing everything in our power to give them the best upbringing and education. We simply cannot do this if all we do is scream about politics.
Look to The Bee’s April 28 edition for clarity on the school district’s policy and process for considering the requested removal of library materials.
I happily will! Thank you in advance for publishing this information. Can you also please include the policy and process for accepting materials? I think this information is just as important and will provide important context that can help better guide the discussions. Just think how different these discussions would be if the book proposed for removal meets all acceptance criteria vs a book that does not. There should be a lot of criticism and controversy if people are trying to remove a book that meets the acceptance criteria. There should not be a lot of criticism and controversy if people are trying to remove a book that does not meet the acceptance criteria because it never should have been in the library to begin with.
I think your future article will help Newtown have much more meaningful and adult discussions on this topic compared to what I see from our state/federal politicians or mainstream news outlets.