Where does censorship begin?

censorship |ˈsensərˌ sh ip|noun
the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts
from the Merriam-Webster dictionary

I was watching American Idol with a friend the other night, something I'd never really watched until this year, and we got into the discussion about how many people didn't win, but went on to have better careers than the winners. This led to a comment from my friend, "When that guy came out of the closet, it hurt his career." To which I replied, "It shouldn't matter what the sexual preference is, it's about performance." This led to a few more comments to which I replied, "You're homophobic." She countered, "No, I'm just prejudiced."

Now, I have to give her credit for realizing what she is and admitting to it. I don't have to agree with her beliefs and she doesn't have to agree with mine, but the topic changed and she made the statement, "I wouldn't want a Muslim or homosexual teaching my kids." To which I replied, "What if the teacher worships the fairies in the backyard?" "Not them either." Whoa. Really? There are people who actually feel this way? Unfortunately, I was a coward and didn't ask this Bible-belt Christian how she would feel about a Jew teaching her children. I just didn't want to find out.

This discussion led to a discussion among a group of friends about "sensitive" subjects in books. I got railed about having the "token homosexual" characters to sell books. First of all, they aren't token characters, it's who they are. Am I happy that the guy I had picked out in my wip to be the LI is more than likely gay? No, I was half in love with him myself. But I found a better LI for her in the long run.

So this discussion, which began very benignly over American Idol winners eventually morphed into a discussion about "questionable books". Some of these women said they wouldn't let their teens read certain books with openly gay characters or other things that they disagree with AND would ask the library to remove them, thereby, pushing their views on others. After reading Deb's post about the Bitch Media list, I was reminded of this conversation. This is one of the places where censorship begins.

Where will it end?

Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too. ~Voltaire

Books won't stay banned. They won't burn. Ideas won't go to jail. In the long run of history, the censor and the inquisitor have always lost. The only weapon against bad ideas is better ideas. ~Alfred Whitney Griswold, New York Times, 24 February 1959

Bitch Media: Does Wishy Washy Equal Censorship?

Some of you might have noticed a controversy within the YA community today. It started with what sounded like an exciting concept, a list of the Top 100 Young Adult Books for the Feminist Reader, compiled by Bitch Media.

You could go read the list here. Except, well, it’s not the original list. And therein lies the controversy.

Soon after the list was published, a commenter complained about Sisters Red’s (by Jackson Pearce) appearance on the list. “Living Dead Girl” by Elizabeth Scott and “Tender Morsels” by Margo Lanagan quickly followed. That’s to be expected though, right? Of course not everyone is going to agree about what constitutes great “feminist” literature. Nothing out of the ordinary there.

It’s Bitch Media’s response that gets kind of...peculiar. Instead of opening up discussion about the books, or better yet, DEFENDING the reasons why the books made their list in the first place, Bitch Media started removing books from the list. Not only that, but the person commenting on Bitch Media’s behalf indicated she hadn’t even read the books in question. Here are the reasons stated for removing the books:

“We've decided to remove these books from the list -- Sisters Red because of the victim-blaming scene that was discussed earlier in this post, Tender Morsels because of the way that the book validates (by failing to critique or discuss) characters who use rape as an act of vengeance, and Living Dead Girl because of its triggering nature.”

Well, you can probably imagine what followed. Several other authors—including Scott Westerfeld, Maureen Johnson, Justine Larbalestier, and Diana Peterfreund---took offense to this action, and ultimately asked to have their books removed from the list as well, some claiming censorship on the part of Bitch Media.

Personally, I feel like putting books on a list and then removing them based on commenter opinion strips the entire list of its value. Read the books first. Discuss them. Decide at that point if you think they’re appropriate. Do not carelessly toss books on the list, only to waffle later at the first sign of dissent. Also, as Scott points out, where is the logic in removing one potentially "triggering" book while leaving behind scores of others, including his own Uglies or Laurie Halse Anderson's Wintergirls?

And while some of my other writer friends might disagree, I absolutely believe this smacks of censorship. The list-makers are trying to “protect” readers from potentially objectionable material. If that’s not a form of censorship, well, I’m not sure what is.

Please, tell us your thoughts on this matter. Do you agree or disagree with removing the books in question, and if you disagree, do you think it’s censorship?