It has also been subject recently to censorship efforts.

Looking into the content and subject matter it’s not difficult to understand why, but that- as usual- hardly justifies censorship.

The story’s effects on the continuity of the Batman and, in fact, the entire DC Universe included the shooting and subsequent paralysis of Barbara Gordon (a.k.a. Batgirl) by the Joker in his attempt to drive Gotham City Police Commissioner James Gordon insane. His henchmen strip Gordon naked, cage him in an abandoned amusement park’s freak show, and force him to view a giant screen of his wounded daughter in various states of undress, hoping to drive Gordon insane in order to prove that even the most upstanding citizen can go mad after having “one bad day.”

That theme is presented in a retelling of the fateful day a simple man became the monstrous Joker and its parallel to the Bruce Wayne-Batman transition, brilliantly exploring the idea that Batman is just as insane as the criminals he faces, albeit simply manifesting it in a different way. In an interview, Moore summarized the theme as, “Psychologically, Batman and the Joker are mirror images of each other.”

The Joker delivers the point home in a masterful monologue to Batman about having just “one bad day.”

Critic Geoff Klock summarized those ideas saying, “both Batman and the Joker are creations of a random and tragic ‘one bad day.’ Batman spends his life forging meaning from the random tragedy, whereas the Joker reflects the absurdity of life, and all its random injustice.”

The events in the story also directly led to a storyline shortly after in which the Joker beats the second Robin, Jason Todd, to death with a crow bar. It might be worth noting that fans were part of a long voting campaign to decide whether to kill off Todd’s controversial character.

It has been hailed by critics as one of the greatest Batman stories ever written, with IGN declaring it the third best of all time. The story even influenced Tim Burton’s film adaptation of the franchise as well as Christopher Nolan’s critically-acclaimed persona of the Joker artfully played by Heath Ledger, who used the novel as reference material for the role.

The book has been the subject of feminist critique for its treatment of Barbara Gordon. Author Brian Cronin noted that “[many] readers felt the violence towards [her] was too much.” Author Sharon Packer also wrote: “Anyone who feels that feminist critics overreacted is advised to consult the source material…Moore’s The Killing Joke is sadistic to the core.”

Gail Simone included the character’s paralysis in a list of “major female characters that had been killed, mutilated, and depowered,” dubbing the phenomenon “Women in Refrigerators” in reference to a 1994 Green Lantern story where the title character discovers his girlfriend’s mutilated body in his refrigerator.

Jeffrey A. Brown, author of Dangerous Curves: Action Heroines, Gender, Fetishism, and Popular Culture (2011), noted The Killing Joke as an example of the “inherent misogyny of the male-dominated comic book industry.”

Still, with all of this in mind, the Columbus, Nebraska Public library Board did the right thing and rejected a protest to remove the title from its bookshelves.

A patron had referred to the book as “very adult” and said in the challenge that it “advocates rape and violence,” requesting the book be removed from the shelves where it is currently located in the young adult area of the library yet cataloged in the graphic novels section.

During this week’s meeting board member Carol Keller said, “I don’t find it worthy of being removed from the shelf.” Others agreed, voting 3-0, with two members absent, noting that many comic books and other publications include violence and the patron’s interpretation of rape was “misconstrued.”

Batman: The Killing Joke will now be added to the list of Alan Moore’s books that have been challenged in libraries across the nation such as Watchmen, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and Neonomicon-, which was officially banned from a South Carolina library last December amid a media firestorm and covered here in Banned Books Awareness.

Not only is this a victory for free speech, but it’s a stark reminder that comic books have definitely grown up. Now if only some people would.

For more information on the Banned Books Awareness and Reading for Knowledge project and the complete list of titles covered, please visit the official website at http://bbark.deepforestproductions.com/

Sources: Columbus Telegram, Wikipedia, Comic book Legal Defense Fund
© 2013 R. Wolf Baldassarro/Deep Forest Productions

Dav Pilkey’s “Captain Underpants” has been repeatedly banned or challenged due to concerns over offensive language and charges of being “unsuited for age group.”

“It’s pretty exciting to be on a list that frequently features Mark Twain, Harper Lee, and Maya Angelou,” Pilkey said in a recent statement to the Huffington Post. “But I worry that some parents might see this list and discourage their kids from reading [it], even though they have not had a chance to read the books themselves.”

The Office for Intellectual Freedom received 464 challenges last year- a 25 percent jump from 2011, but still low compared to the 1980s and ‘90s.

The “Captain Underpants” books have long been debated among parents and educators. Some praise the books because they encourage boys to read, others criticize them for having toilet humor and an irreverent attitude; the title character is a superhero created by two fourth graders about their cantankerous principal, Mr. Krupp.

The series’ premise is a simple one. It follows the adventures of two mischievous class clowns, George Beard and Harold Hutchins, who have inadvertently turned grumpy Mr. Krupp into a tighty-whitey-wearing, cape-bearing superhero. With help from the boys, he defends the world from evil characters such as Professor Poopypants, Dr. Diaper, the Naughty Cafeteria Ladies, and the Wicked Wedgie Woman.

The boys are also constantly pulling off silly pranks, such as turning a sign that says, “Please Wash Your Hands after Using the Toilet” into one that reads “Please Wash Your Hands in the Toilet.”

“I don’t see these books as encouraging disrespect for authority. Perhaps they demonstrate the value of questioning authority,” Pilkey said. “Some of the authority figures in the books are villains. They are bullies and they do vicious things.”

Pilkey said his semi-autobiographical characters are based in part on teachers and principals he had between second and fifth grade- some of whom were villains who got away with it because they were authority figures.

“None of the children in my school, including me, thought to question them,” he said. “So, I do feel there is real value in showing kids that not all authority figures are good or kind or honorable.”

The president of Scholastic’s trade division, Ellie Berger, said in a statement that the appearance of Captain Underpants on the 2012 ALA list coincides with the publication of Dav Pilkey’s first new book in six years and the series’ return to national bestseller lists. Both, she says, are evidence that this bestselling series continues to inspire a love of reading (and underpants) for a new generation of kids.

The series has been a mainstay at the top of the list of formal complaints filed with libraries or schools requesting that the books be removed because of inappropriateness for over a decade.

Some notable incidents include the Riverside Unified School District in California and the school superintendent of the Maple Hill School in Naugatuck, Connecticut who sought to ban the series in 2001 due to concerns that it caused unruly behavior among children.

By 2002, it was the sixth most frequently challenged book according to the American Library Association.

In 2003 it was banned for insensitivity and being “unsuited to age group,” as well as for “encouraging children to disobey authority.”

Offensive language and modeling bad behavior were the top reasons for challenges to the series in 2005 and, in 2006, it was challenged for anti-family content, being unsuited to age group, and violence.

Three 17-year-old girls were told to leave New York’s Long Beach High School in 2006 when they showed up on Superhero Day dressed as the Captain.

The girls wore beige leotards and nude stockings under white briefs and red capes, but Principal Nicholas Restivo wasn’t laughing. He said he knew that they weren’t naked, but that it “appeared that way,” so he sent them home to change.

One of the girls, honor student Chelsea Horowitz, said that she didn’t understand the fuss. “They’re not see-through or anything.”

In spite of the ongoing controversy, the widely popular book series that began in 1997 has grown to include 10 titles and 3 spin-offs and won a Disney Adventures Kids’ Choice Award in 2007. DreamWorks Animation acquired rights to the series to make an animated feature film adaptation.

Captain Underpants has battled talking toilets and the infamous Professor Poopypants, but in the end his most challenging arch-nemesis seems to be adults with no sense of humor.

For more information on the Banned Books Awareness and Reading for Knowledge project and the complete list of titles covered, please visit the official website at http://bbark.deepforestproductions.com/

Sources: The Huffington Post, Marshall University, American Library Association, NBC News, New York Sun
© 2013 R. Wolf Baldassarro/Deep Forest Productions

That’s what is happening to rare nationalist works that were banned by the British during India’s quest for independence.

Between 1885 and 1905 there was a rise of Indian Nationalism opposed to an India that had been controlled by one imperialistic regime after another since 1604.

During that time, various books and pamphlets had been written and distributed on the subject. According to literary critic and writer Deepak Mehta, the only remaining copies of these books are physically disintegrating and they are in danger of being lost to historians, scholars, and the annals of literature forever.

British rule ended in 1947, but now, more than 60 years after Independence, one would have expected these nationalistic writings-, which the British had banned as seditious to the state- to be easily available to scholars and literature lovers worldwide.

The truth, however, is that many of those works are now haphazardly buried at the National Archives in Delhi and the India Office Library at the British Museum, which charges $47 US per page to copy the 49 books and 58 rare pamphlets in its keeping.

Mehta, whose research focuses on those books that were considered dangerous by the British among an Indian populous under their rule, says that no attempts have been made to rediscover the writings.

There cannot be a price on knowledge and history because the understanding and clarity that results from it is the true prize. These works are no longer “seditious to the state” and should be freely available to academic institutions for preservation.

Here we are some 60 years later, still too stubborn to open our minds and learn from history. That isn’t just depressing, it’s pathetic.

Ideas and the written word have been suppressed for political reasons since the inception of politics and government to cloak the masses in the darkness of ignorance, thus maintaining the power of those in charge; but there comes a time when the light of freedom must push back the darkness and stand in defiance, just as Mahatma Gandhi did in those final days of British rule.

For more information on the Banned Books Awareness and Reading for Knowledge project and the complete list of titles covered, please visit the official website at http://bbark.deepforestproductions.com/

Sources: The Times of India
© 2013 R. Wolf Baldassarro/Deep Forest Productions

Gone with the Wind garnered the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction in 1937 and its 1939 film adaptation has entered legendary cinema status after winning eight competitive and two honorary awards in 1940.

However, as one has come to expect from instant and beloved classics, both the novel and its big-screen counterpart have been steeped in controversy from the start.

The film has been credited for triggering many of the changes to the way Blacks are depicted on film, but has also been accused of historical revisionism and criticized for glorification of slavery. Despite the criticism, and after several re-releases throughout the 20th century, the story has become rooted in popular culture where it has been heavily referenced, parodied, and analyzed. Adjusted for inflation, it is the most successful film in box-office history and, in 1989, was selected to be preserved by the National Film Registry.

The criticism of Gone with the Wind concerning its portrayal of Blacks in the 19^th-century South is exemplified in how former field hands during the early days of Reconstruction were described in part 4, chapter 37, as “behaving as creatures of small intelligence might naturally be expected to do. Like monkeys or small children turned loose among treasured objects whose value is beyond their comprehension, they ran wild- either from perverse pleasure in destruction or simply because of their ignorance.”

Mitchell also downplayed the violent role of the Ku Klux Klan.

Bestselling author Pat Conroy, in his preface for the novel, described Mitchell’s portrayal of the Klan as having “the same romanticized role it had in The Birth of a Nation and appears to be a benign combination of the Elks Club and a men’s equestrian society.”

However, historian Richard N. Current defends any historical inaccuracies when he pointed out that while Gone with the Wind perpetuates many myths about Reconstruction- particularly with respect to Blacks- Mitchell did not originate them and the young novelist could hardly be faulted for not knowing what the majority of professional historians didn’t know themselves until many years later.

Mitchell, herself, replied to a reader in 1937 that she had spent “ten years of reading thousands of books, documents, letters, diaries, old newspapers, and interviewing people who had lived through those terrible times” in preparation for writing her first draft.

This is supported in a very detailed 1991 biography of Mitchell (“Southern Daughter” by Darden Asbury Pyron). The author, a historian at Florida International University, wrote that, “She spent a vast amount of time verifying historical facts. The fear of missing something or getting something wrong drove her to distraction.”

One of the most infamous and judged scenes is what the law and society of today would define as “marital rape.” The scene begins with Scarlett and Rhett at the bottom of the staircase; he begins to kiss her, refusing to be told ‘no’ by the struggling Scarlett. Rhett overpowers her resistance and carries her up the stairs to the bedroom, where the audience is left with little doubt what happened next. The next scene shows Scarlett the following morning, aglow with barely-suppressed sexual satisfaction and Rhett apologizes for his behavior by blaming it on his drinking. The scene combines romance and rape in such a way that they are indistinguishable from each other and reinforces one of the most malicious myths about forced sex- that women secretly enjoy it, and that it is an acceptable way for a man to treat his wife.

Molly Haskell has argued that, nevertheless, women are mostly complacent of the scene and that it is consistent with what women have in mind when they fantasize about being raped- wherein their fantasies revolve around love and romance rather than forced sex. They assume that Scarlett was not an unwilling sexual partner and wanted Rhett to take such initiative.

So here we are with Gone with the Wind finding itself at number 26 on the American Library Association’s list of the 100 most-banned classics.

Some of the more notable incidents include when the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice objected to Scarlett being married more than once; the Watch and Ward society in Boston attempted to fan the flames of dissent, wanting to get people upset over the prominence of Belle Ward (a madam) in the novel, but book sellers were making way too much money to care what censors were saying.

The government of the former USSR banned Gone with the Wind for 65 years. A Russian translation, by Tatiana Kudriavtseva, was finally published in Russia in 2001. In a CNN interview, she says, “The whole thing happened in Russia…we were survivors of war, like Scarlett, and this novel was ringing a lot of bells for us. We saw the ravages, we saw the fires, we saw the pilloried villages, and we saw the poverty and the hunger… Gone with the Wind is considered in Russia as [the] American War and Peace.”

From its publication, many around the United States took issue with much of the language in the novel, especially the use of words such as “damn” and “whore.” Today, opposition has shifted from the profane to the social, with distain over the use of the word “nigger” in this and other classic novels.

Perhaps the most notorious incident regarding the language was when Rhett uttered that famous line in the movie, “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.”

Moviegoers staged a mass exodus at various screenings across the nation upon hearing the word, insulted by its use. Media censors responded by levying a fine against the studio for the incident; so it was surprising to many that it would win anything at the 13^th Academy Awards, let alone Best Picture and Director.

It was banned from the Anaheim, California Union High School District’s English classrooms in 1978, according to the Anaheim Secondary Teachers Association, for its depiction of the behavior of Scarlett O’Hara and the freed slaves in the novel.

It was also challenged in the Waukegan, Illinois School District in 1984 because of the novel’s above-mentioned use of the word “nigger.”

Again, here we are with a novel depicting a fictionalized set of people amid accurate historical events and the societal attitudes associated with not just the referenced period, but also the time in which it was written and published. Today’s views of profanity may have changed, but the shame of slavery coupled with current politically-correct ignorance are once more being dealt with not by mature discussion and knowledgeable discourse, but by banning books and burying heads in the sands of time.

There continues to be this pandemic of parents and other self-righteous individuals who believe that they- and they alone- must shelter everyone from the realities of history and have the absolute authority to do so.

The most important thing about history, though, is that it is a mirror of not only our past; but of our present and our future. We must understand the mistakes of the past if we are to have an enlightened and free society going forward. We have a duty and a need to know that such behavior and atrocity did occur so that we can learn what we have overcome and how far we have to go.

So when people, for any reason, want to throw out books that they disagree with or are offended by it leaves me with a very annoyed and defiant disposition. Their ignorance offends me, but that doesn’t mean I should attempt to ban their right to their opinion. I encourage them to explain in mature dialogue their reasoning.

To the book burners; to those who hide from the truth of history; to those who oppress out of ignorance and fear I can only say this: Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.

For more information on the Banned Books Awareness and Reading for Knowledge project and the complete list of titles covered, please visit the official website at http://bbark.deepforestproductions.com/

Sources: American Library Association, Wikipedia, Dangerous Pages, CNN
© 2013 R. Wolf Baldassarro/Deep Forest Productions

Labeling the graphic novel as “inappropriate,” CEO Barbara Byrd-Bennett also ordered mandatory training for any high school teacher who wishes to continue using the illustrated story of Marjane Satrapi growing up in revolutionary Iran “due to the powerful images of torture in the book,” she stated in an email sent on March 13^th to all CPS principals.

The CPS Office of Communications has refused to explain to the public or the press how this incident took place, why Persepolis has suddenly become controversial after being read by thousands of teachers and students since its publication, and has even refused to confirm that the censorship order had gone out at all. Luckily, for you, my dear readers, you can view a screenshot of the email here.

This just so happens- perhaps coincidentally, perhaps not- to also come on the eve of a massive closing of many of the district’s schools.

Satrapi, who is in Germany, criticized the district for pulling a book that has been approved for use in their schools for nearly a decade and for requiring “special training” for teachers. “For me, the worst in all of that is it’s absolutely the biggest insult to the intelligence of the teachers,” she said last week to the Chicago Sun Times.

She has visited Chicago several times, including a 2004 trip when she signed copies of Persepolis at some CPS schools; so Satrapi couldn’t believe problems arose in the district saying, “Even in Texas I didn’t have trouble with [it].”

The book is Satrapi’s illustrated recollection as a child and teenager during the Iranian Revolution; the 2007 animated film version won awards and critical acclaim.

On its own website, CPS even lists Persepolis as a good resource in the 2012-2013 Literacy Content Framework for seventh graders, along with Sandra Cisneros’ The House on Mango Street; also listed is Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre for 11th graders.

So what changed?

The book was removed after agreeing with a complaint from a teacher and principal in the Austin-North Lawndale network.

Lane Technical High school students waved signs along Western Avenue after school on March 15th, chanting, “No more banned books!” and “Let us read!” as they stood amid freezing rain. Several said they had already read Persepolis as seventh graders.

No parents have complained about the book either, according to Valerie Mason, who has taught Persepolis at Lane Tech for the last five years to 11th and 12th graders. In fact, many parents have asked to borrow copies after talking with their children about the graphic novel.

Student Katie McDermott didn’t see the language or images as problematic because the class had a guide for discussions.

“If we don’t create opinions, we won’t have individualism,” McDermott said. “If (students) can’t voice themselves, then we won’t have a country that’s individualistic,” said the 18-year-old, who helped organize the student protest.

Junior Matthew Wettig even contacted Satrapi for the school paper, The Lane Warrior.

“I didn’t know how she could possibly know about it,” he said. “So I just thought not only it’s my duty as a human being but as a journalist to shed light to her on the situation.”

Members of the American Library Association and the Freedom to Read Foundation joined the protest.

The Chicago-based ALA, in a letter to Byrd-Bennett, Chicago Board of Education President David Vitale, and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, expressed its ethical and legal concerns regarding the situation and asked for an explanation for the policy change.

The Chicago Teachers Union also expressed its surprise over the ban.

“The only place we’ve heard of this book being banned is in Iran,” CTU financial secretary Kristine Mayle wrote in a statement. “We understand why the district would be afraid of a book like this, because it’s about questioning authority, class structures, racism, and gender issues.”

According to additional comments to the CTU’s press release, the district is now claiming that Persepolis is banned “only from seventh grade classrooms but will be available in school libraries,” but the hidden catch is that 160 of its schools don’t have libraries- “and they know that,” said CTU spokeswoman Stephanie Gadlin.

For more information on the Banned Books Awareness and Reading for Knowledge project and the complete list of titles covered, please visit the official website at http://bbark.deepforestproductions.com/

Sources: Chicago Sun Times, Daily KOS
© 2013 R. Wolf Baldassarro/Deep Forest Productions

It’s well established that religion is often used as the justification behind many of the book challenges and outright bans occurring in schools and public libraries. It’s also been seen right here in this series that the official religious texts of those same religions has come under fire in their own right at times. Both the New American Bible and the Holy Qur’an, for example, have been repeatedly suppressed around the world; but now our libraries- long thought of as impartial bastions of information- have taken to censoring access to educational resources about those religious practices that they differ in opinion from or perceive in a negative light because of intolerance or ignorance.

In a lawsuit filed in January in the U.S. district court by the ACLU on behalf of a Salem, Missouri resident it’s clear that library officials are in serious need of an elementary school civics lesson on the First Amendment.

Anaka Hunter isn’t even a Wiccan; she happens to be part Native American. Curious to learn about her heritage, she went to the Salem Public Library in July, 2010 to research Native American spirituality in the computer lab but soon found that every site she tried was blocked by the library’s internet filtering system.

Confused by the blocks, she asked Glenda Wofford, director of the Salem Library, what was going on. Wofford clarified that those sites, as well any sites about Wicca, astrology, and paganism, were blocked because the library considered them to be “occult” and “criminal skills.”

Under Missouri law, as in many states, public libraries are required to put filtering systems on their Internet browsers to keep patrons from accessing pornography- which itself has been subject to lawsuits because pornography is protected under the First Amendment. Some libraries, such as the one in Salem, also choose to filter out other material at their own discretion. Wofford informed Hunter that she could unlock certain sites for people who needed information for school projects and offered to make more material available to Hunter. Hunter soon discovered that Wofford wouldn’t help very much: she only unlocked one page of one website.

When Hunter protested that she felt it was unfair to classify Native American spirituality as “occult” or “criminal skills,” Wofford told her that she had an “obligation to call the proper authorities to report anyone who requested access to blocked sites if she thought they were going to misuse the information.”

Basically, Wofford was going to call the police if Hunter kept asking questions, so she stopped trying to do her research at the Salem Public Library. She did, however, bring the matter up at a library board meeting that November.

Rothert, one of the ACLU lawyers who filed the lawsuit on Hunter’s behalf, stated that “they listened to her, but they made no changes. They didn’t give a reason. They just said, ‘Are you done?’” Essentially, they were just giving her a sarcastic brush off of their snooty shoulders.

Amusingly, even though patrons of the Salem library can’t even access the Wikipedia entry about Wicca, they can look up paganism in The Catholic Encyclopedia and “Astrology and Horoscopes: The Bible and Christian View.”

“It violates the establishment clause [in the First Amendment],” Rothert explains. “You can learn what the Catholic Church thinks of paganism, but if you want the pagan view of paganism, it’s blocked. It gives preferential treatment to some religions. Any example of a minority religion discussed in a positive way has been blocked.”

There’s also the precedent set by the landmark 1986 case, Dettmer versus Landon, which solidified Wicca as a federally-recognized religion with full protections under the law.

Rothert had remained hopeful that the matter would be settled outside of the courtroom, but Wofford and the library remained inflexible, refusing to give an explanation for blocking Hunter’s web search.

The ACLU of Eastern Missouri announced earlier this week that Judge Richard Webber, in a ruling which reiterates the rights to freedom of religion and the freedom of expression, has ordered the public library in Salem to stop blocking patrons’ access to websites relating to minority religions.

The decision clarifies that going forward the library is prohibited from having filters that block access to sites beyond basic pornography and virus filters that they can legally maintain.

The official judgment, which you can view here, recognizes that changes were made by the library in August of 2011, prior to the filing of the lawsuit, such that Salem patrons did in fact have access to the websites in question in the litigation. In the order, Webber writes that the library is hereafter prohibited from reactivating any filter categories other than “adult image, pornography, phishing, proxy anonymizer, viruses, or web chat.”

My first thought is that if the term “viruses” is blocked, how that will impact medical research on those computers. Secondly, libraries should not be in the business of censoring viewpoints that they either disagree with or have no factual knowledge of.

In a response made Friday to the Riverfront Times, library officials said that they were pleased with the ruling and that “We are pleased this matter is behind us and that the public library and its employees can again focus its resources and revenues solely to the purpose of serving its patrons.”

But that flowery retort seems to be at odds with a fairly lengthy public statement they made after the ACLU promoted the court’s decision:

“The Salem Public Library and its Director were very pleased with the court’s judgment. By agreeing to the consent judgment, the Salem Public Library does nothing more than agree to continue to use the new updated categories recommended by its service provider and adopted by the library before the suit was filed.”

That might sound all nice on the surface, but underneath their breath they’re saying very little to address the issues regarding freedom of speech and censorship that is at the root of the lawsuit- that the sites should not have been blocked to begin with, not to mention the threats of calling in the goon squad should patrons keep asking questions.

The library’s statement goes on to argue that the decision does nothing to change their amended policy preceding the official filing of the lawsuit and deflected focus on questions of whether the library would have to pay attorney’s fees and costs associated with the action, noting that her lawyers dropped this request, which the library says held up this case for several months.

Nevertheless, the official judgment, while noting that access policy changes were made prior to the filing of the lawsuit, makes clear that the library cannot reactivate those oppressive filters as soon as the court’s back is turned. It’ll be interesting to see if Salem attempts to slink back into their old ways.

For more information on the Banned Books Awareness and Reading for Knowledge project and the complete list of titles covered, please visit the official website at http://www.deepforestproductions.com/BBARK.html

Sources: Riverfront Times, National Coalition Against Censorship
© 2013 R. Wolf Baldassarro/Deep Forest Productions

L. Frank Baum’s tale was originally published in 1900 and adapted into a stage play in 1902 before arriving on the silver screen in 1939. It remains one of the most well known American literary works over a century later.

The New York Times praised the novel in a September 1900 review, writing that it “would appeal to child readers and to younger children who could not read yet.” The review also applauded the illustrations for being a “pleasant complement to the text.”

Nevertheless, it has come under attack several times. Ministers and educators challenged it for its “ungodly” influence and for depicting women in strong leadership roles. They opposed not only children reading it, but adults as well, lest it undermine longstanding gender roles.

In 1928, the city of Chicago banned it from all public libraries. In the 1950’s, Florida state librarian, Dorothy Dodd said the books were ‘unwholesome for children” and pushed to have them removed from all of the state’s libraries.

In 1957, the director of the Detroit Public Library banned The Wizard of Oz for having “no value for children of today,” for supporting “negativism”, and for “bringing children’s minds to a cowardly level.” Professor Russel B. Nye of Michigan State University publically responded that “if the message of the Oz books- that love, kindness, and unselfishness make the world a better place- has no value today, then maybe the time is ripe for reassess a good many other things besides the Detroit Library’s approved list of children’s books.”

In one of the most noted cases of censorship efforts against the book, seven Fundamentalist Christian families in Tennessee opposed the novel’s inclusion in the public school syllabus and filed a lawsuit in 1986 based on the novel’s depiction of benevolent witches and promoting the belief that essential human attributes were “individually developed rather than God given.”

On the charge of including good witches in the story, they argued that all witches are bad, therefore it is “theologically impossible” for good witches to exist.

HUH?!!

One parent said, “I do not want my children seduced into godless supernaturalism,” accusing the book of teaching children to be self-reliant rather than dependent on God to see them through difficult times. Other reasons for the opposition included the novel teaching that females are equal to males and that animals are personified and can speak.

The presiding judge ruled that rather than remove the book, the children were allowed to be excused from lesson plans centered on the novel. When they appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court, the court refused to hear the case. The group’s lawyers advised all “God-fearing Christians to remove their children from public schools.”

In 2004 both Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson conspired to get the movie banned from broadcast on public television because of “moral turpitude.” Robertson would publically state that “The Almighty told me that flying monkeys and witches are an affront to all good Christians.”

When asked at the time if either had ever seen the movie or read the book, they denied, saying that they “feared ungodly influence.”

I guess it’s better to be influenced by uneducated opinion and superstitious vitriol.

The book has even been used on the political spectrum, with some claiming that it promotes socialist and Marxist values due to its perceived lack of a divine presence.

Some librarians have also interpreted the book as a parody of American imperialism and racism. They rejected the author’s introductory explanation as an American fairy tale to encourage children to cherish life’s joyous wonderment, going so far as to describe the book as a “foolishly sentimental, poorly written, sensational, untrue-to-life, and unwholesome book.”

In an article posted by Professor Quentin Taylor of Rogers State University, it is argued that far from being a story to entertain children, The Wizard of Oz is actually an allegory for economics, politics, and 1890’s Populism.

In this modern age of YouTube and DVRs nothing ever gets lost, much to the chagrin of many politicians; but in the 1970’s something could be seen by millions and then disappear, never to be seen again, to be spoken about only as an urban legend. Such was the case of a fabled 1976 episode of Sesame Street, which featured Margaret Hamilton famously reprising her role as the Wicked Witch.

It wasn’t matter of a lost reel. The reason was far more bewildering- the Wicked Witch was deemed “too scary for the children watching the show.”

In the episode, the Wicked Witch is flying over Sesame Street when she drops her broom. David, a law student working at Mr. Hooper’s store, finds it. The Witch demands it back, threatening to turn Big Bird into a feather duster. Meanwhile, Oscar the Grouch becomes lovesick for the nasty witch.

She spends the episode trying to get the broom back, even going so far as to disguise herself as a kindly old woman. There’s even am inside joke when Mr. Hooper offers the Witch a cup of coffee and she tells him she can’t stand the stuff. Hamilton was appearing in Maxwell House commercials at the time the show aired.

According to information on the Muppet Wiki, the episode prompted a high volume of negative mail from parents. Typical responses included concerns that their children were afraid and now refused to watch the show, using such phrases as “screams and tears” and “the threat of the witch’s power remains in children’s eyes.”

A somewhat unusual response even came from a Wiccan viewer concerned with the perpetuation of a negative fairy tale stereotype and recommended a segment portraying witches as they really are in the modern world.

Due to the overwhelming reaction, additional test screenings were held from March 1 through the 5th, “to assess children’s reactions.”

Wow, I was three years old at the time and probably saw the episode myself. But, I digress…

The viewings indicated that that children were “exceptionally attentive during the Margaret Hamilton segments,” and those who watched the episode in color were fascinated by her green face. The issue of fear was difficult to fully judge, however, due to confusing answers and the fact that the children were surrounded by their peers and adults, and not watching alone. Despite all of the available information, Anna Herera of the Children’s Television Workshop Research Department suggested that “the Margaret Hamilton show not be re-run.”

What’s surprising is that Hamilton appeared as herself, albeit dressed up as a witch, a year earlier for Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood. The footage has found a home and new life on YouTube.

Baum wrote The Wizard of Oz with no intentions of a sequel; but after reading the novel, thousands of children wrote letters to him requesting that he continue the story. In 1904, he published the first sequel, The Marvelous Land of Oz, explaining that he reluctantly wrote the sequel to address the popular demand. He would write sequels in 1907, 1908, and 1909. In 1911’s The Emerald City of Oz he wrote that he could not continue writing sequels because “Ozland had lost contact with the rest of the world.” Children refused to accept this so Baum wrote a sequel every year from 1913 until his death in 1919.

For more information on the Banned Books Awareness and Reading for Knowledge project and the complete list of titles covered, please visit the official website at http://www.deepforestproductions.com/BBARK.html

Sources: Wikipedia, Christian Science Monitor, About.com
© 2013 R. Wolf Baldassarro/Deep Forest Productions

Many other countries think that censorship only happens within the borders of America due to its Puritanical history and the deepening culture war between liberals and conservatives that is supplanting logic and reason with ideological rhetoric and fundamentalism.

No one seems to be paying much attention to Canada. After all, Canada is where someone rear ends your car and you’re the one doing the apologizing. Dear, sweet, respectful Canada- where someone insults you in the worst imaginable ways and you react by thanking them for their opinion and their time before walking on down the street.

The American Library Association holds Banned Books Week in the last week of September, but our neighbors to the north celebrate Freedom to Read Week earlier, which falls between February 24 and March 2.

By world standards, Canada may seem to be the true land of freedom, but the freedom to read can never be misjudged or taken for granted. Incidents are rising of books and magazines being confiscated at the border; many schools and libraries are seeing books removed from shelves; the free expression of ideas on the internet is under increased scrutiny; and scientific organizations are being blocked from speaking out to the public or through academic mediums.

According to a report this week in the Globe and Mail, the University of Victoria’s Environmental Law Clinic and Democracy Watch requested that federal Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault investigate claims that scientists are being prohibited from speaking freely with journalists and, ultimately through them, the public.

In a report called Muzzling Civil Servants: A Threat to Democracy, the researchers presented some distressing trends: Scientists are either told not to speak to journalists at all or to only release sanitized statements approved by institutional Public Relations censors. These restrictions are most controlled when a journalist is seeking information about research relating to climate change or the tar sands. Canadian environmental scientists are required to gain approval from the Privy Council Office before speaking publicly on “sensitive topics such as climate change” or on issues pertaining to, say, the protection of polar bears and caribou.

The average citizen must be protected from attaining such knowledge lest they go off on some crazy rampage upon learning of the plight of the caribou, don’t you know. Who knows just how crazy it would be. It would be panic in the streets; flotsam and jetsam; Sodom and Gomorrah; the zombie apocalypse.

The report states that government scientists are “frustrated,” which is an understatement in every sense of the word, and makes clear just how deliberate the censorship policies are: “The federal government has recently made concerted efforts to prevent the media- and through them, the general public- from speaking to government scientists, and this, in turn, impoverishes the public debate on issues of significant national concern.”

The government’s authoritarian control of scientists’ research under Harper’s administration has raised concerns around the world for several years now, including repeated condemnation from Nature magazine. Damn those tree-hugging hippies.

Thousands of scientists from across Canada marched on Parliament Hill last July to protest cuts in research in environment and climate change and other restrictions placed on their ability to speak freely about their work. They created what has to be the most awesome chant in the history of political protest: “What do we want? Science! When do we want it? After peer review!”

The tightening of the information flow is growing stronger with each new policy. Margaret Munro of Postmedia News also reported last week that a University of Delaware scientist, Andreas Muenchow, was furious over a new confidentiality agreement brought in by Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans. “I’m not signing it,” Muenchow told the reporter.

Canadian Journalists for Free Expression released a report about the freedom of information requests: “Canada’s access to information system is in a deep crisis and without urgent reform could soon become dysfunctional,” the report noted. Fewer requests are being processed, and those that do make it that far move along at a noticeably slow pace, often returning marred by the red pen of government censorship.

As a result of these policies, Canada recently dropped out of the top 10 to No. 20 in the World Freedom Index, which measures, among other things, how unrestrained a country’s media is. Jamaica, by contrast, now ranks highest in the region.

Any time is a good time to celebrate the freedom to read, but this week is an especially good time to engage in our most precious civil liberty regardless of which country we call home. Some activities are as simple as visiting a library or bookstore with your children; but rather than just reading anything off of the shelf, read something that’s banned- something controversial. Better yet, write something controversial. Who knows- you just might get banned yourself. That would be legen- wait for it- *BEEEEEEEP- We apologize for the inconvenience, but this article has been deemed by the state to be promoting subordinate, subversive activity and has been silenced for your protection.*

For more information on the Banned Books Awareness and Reading for Knowledge project and the complete list of titles covered, please visit the official website at http://www.deepforestproductions.com/BBARK.html

Sources: Globe and Mail, freedomtoread.ca
© 2013 R. Wolf Baldassarro/Deep Forest Productions

The intricacy and subject matter of the literature we enjoy also evolves with us as we learn and grow; from the days of A Cat in the Hat, through A Wrinkle in Time, to Tom Sawyer, Harry Potter, and beyond to when, as adults, we can look fondly at those stories from our youth while we enthrall ourselves in the latest whodunit by John Grisham, or peer into the saucy side of life with Fifty Shades of Grey.

The Harry Potter series, for example, grew to become more complex with each new title. The characters, the challenges, and the themes evolved along with the reader through the years at Hogwarts building to the grand climax. Those who were fortunate to grow up alongside the release of each book hold a special affinity for the series.

So how would those readers, many of whom are now young adults, feel if someone came along and decided to start rewriting the series with the red pen of political correctness?

You see, all of the titles mentioned so far in this column have one thing in common- they’ve all been censored or banned.

Imagine spending a snowy afternoon comfortably under a blanket, coffee at the side, and ready to embrace yourself in the Adventures of Tom Sawyer once again. It’s a timeless classic enjoyed both as a kid and as an adult. Unforgettable scenes such as when Tom swindles out of painting Aunt Polly’s fence by convincing everyone foolish enough to walk by that it’s an honor to spend a Saturday that way was just genius and I would wonder if I would get away with something like that. Not only did he get out of doing the work himself, but he also profits from it, winning a pocketful of such riches as a dead rat on a string, a half-eaten apple, a knife handle, and four pieces of orange peel.

Hey, don’t knock it. As a boy, I would have been happy with that kind of loot.

But just as you’re about to smile at the scene of Tom’s payoff you notice something that shocks your brain out of the 1840’s and back to the sad world that is 2013. You read it again just to be sure, and you come to the realization that this edition has been marred by the dreaded red pen of censorship. This edition’s description of the enslaved boy, Jim, has been changed to “Aunt Polly’s little helper.”

You have to be kidding me. It’s not like Jim had a choice in the matter or even took enjoyment out of “helping” Aunt Polly.

The editors of this edition have taken offense to Twain’s description of Jim as “a small colored boy” and the various uses of the word “nigger” by omitting them completely and replacing them with bland terms one would expect to hear on a local channel’s broadcast of The Breakfast Club at 1 pm on a Saturday: “I’m a hot dog? No, you’re a hot dog.” It just don’t have the same emotional depth, does it?

What’s next? Are they going to walk into the Galleria dell’Accademia in Florence and slap a pair of shorts on Michelangelo’s statue of David?

They do realize that Tom Sawyer was written and set in the mid 1800’s, right?

Being close-minded and hypocritical in 2013 does not erase the fact that people were chained and held as property, forced to work in unsanitary and inhospitable conditions in a land that was supposed to be the home of the free and the brave.

Margaret Garner fled Kentucky with her family to Ohio, a “free” state; but thanks to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, owners could cross into such states and take their “property” back. Garner and her children were trapped in a house near Cincinnati, but before the plantation owners could get their hands on Garner’s 2-year-old daughter, she cut the girl’s throat with a knife because it’s better to die free than live as a slave.

Garner became the fictional Sethe in Toni Morrison’s Pulitzer-Prize winning novel Beloved. Oh, that book has a long history of being challenged and banned, too, so as to protect our children from the ‘horrors’ of the truth of our dark past.

A mother in Virginia has become the latest to wield the red pen, demanding that school officials ban the book because it gave her son- a senior in an advanced placement English class- nightmares after reading it.

High school students not only should have the mental capacity to discuss the moral implications of these subjects, but they should be encouraged to do so. Pretending it didn’t exist does nothing to honor the legacy of those who died, and it certainly doesn’t prevent such atrocities from happening again or learning from our mistakes.

If your son can’t handle an AP English assignment without nightmares then maybe they shouldn’t be in the class at all. Perhaps they also aren’t ready for college, nor the very real world of adulthood for that matter.

If a parent objects to their child reading something, that’s all fine and dandy; but it’s a whole new ball game if they think others shouldn’t be allowed to read it either. Who are they really protecting? It’s not the students, that’s for sure. They’re protecting themselves and the rose-colored glasses permanently attached to their eyes that hide the closed mind behind them.

Good literature sparks debate. Controversial books spark debate. Sometimes the debate is on the accuracy or validity of the subject presented, and sometimes the debate is whether or not it’s a good book for children to read and, if so, at what age.

But if the only view of the world outside the classroom window they are allowed to see is watered down, sanitized, and devoid of passion, purpose, and integrity, what quality of education have they really received? If simply reading a book can give them nightmares, then what therapy-inducing horrors will they be unable to face once they finally are allowed to leave their mommy’s side?

Literature is supposed to entertain, inspire, and initiate dialogue. The classroom is there to provide a structured environment for students to learn about these issues, develop critical thinking and debate skills, and apply that knowledge to the situations they will face throughout life. It is imperative to understand the past before you can prepare for the future.

If these overprotective parents are so concerned with the mental frailty of not just their children but everyone else’s, then I better not hear them complain when their sons are 40 years old and screaming upstairs from their little cave in the basement for more meatloaf.

For more information on the Banned Books Awareness and Reading for Knowledge project and the complete list of titles covered, please visit the official website at http://www.deepforestproductions.com/BBARK.html

© 2013 R. Wolf Baldassarro/Deep Forest Productions

For a full account of that situation, you can visit my blog for the scoop. I’ll focus here, appropriately, on the various censorship decisions that have been made by the world’s number one search engine. There was so much information uncovered that I could actually write an entire book on the subject, but I’ll whittle it down to some fundamental examples.

I never imagined that the content of the columns here at Banned Books Awareness would have resulted in a personal battle with one of the world’s most powerful internet properties, but that’s exactly what happened last week over policies regarding Google’s AdSense advertising program.

In a private email that I received from Kevin Ryall, the CEO of World Education Network, he explained that I might have noticed that the world.edu website has not been running Google AdSense advertisements since the beginning of the year (I hadn’t). The reason for this being that, without warning, Google blocked all ads in response to an educational article posted to the website by a University of Cambridge professor on the subject of women’s orgasms.

The article, being several months old, was removed from the server in an attempt to resolve the issue. Google replied that they would review the status of the website as a whole.

Then, Tuesday morning, a response came that started out by thanking Ryall for his patience in the matter but informed him that, upon review of the site, the policy team “…[is] a little concerned about some of the language used on your banned book section.” One of the specific examples they provided was from last week’s column regarding a copy of a 200-year-old sex manual- banned in the United Kingdom from about 1780 until 1961- that has gone up for public auction in Scotland.

Per the AdSense content policy, the program is not to be used on any websites that sell or promote “hate against any group, violence, or pornography,” (Read it. Some of the potential “violations” listed under the Content Guidelines might make you shake your head) but what makes this situation rather frustrating is that the email told Ryall to remove all ads from “any pages that include references to sex, sexuality, or the reproductive system.”

Now, as anyone who reads this column on a regular basis knows, one of the main reasons a book has been banned or challenged is because of sexual themes, but I digress…

Okay, I get it; Google doesn’t want its ad program being used on porn sites. Fair enough. But even the United States Supreme Court agrees that pornography is protected by the First Amendment’s Freedom of Expression clause. So right there I have an issue with Google’s policy; but now that extends to academic discourse about the human body as well. Really, Google?

This issue impacts not just myself, but every writer who posts content on a website that utilizes the AdSense program- regardless if it’s on world.edu or elsewhere. If a writer wants to get paid for their work, then they better watch what they say before the censors at Google shut down their revenue stream.

For the record, not only am I pleased to be part of the world.edu family of writers, but I also appreciate their decision to stand behind my body of work in response to Google.

I’m not the first to take issue with Google over this, nor will I be the last.

In August 2008, Google closed the AdSense account of a site that carried a negative view of Scientology (it closed a similar site 3 months prior). It wasn’t clear if the deletions were concerning any anti-religious content, but the cases did raise questions about Google’s AdSense terms of use.

In May 2011, Google cancelled an AdWord advertisement legally purchased by a Dublin sex worker rights group named “Turn Off the Blue Light” (TOBL), claiming that it represented an “egregious violation” of the policy by “selling adult sexual services.” The fact is that TOBL is a nonprofit campaign for sex worker rights and is not advertising or selling adult sexual services.

In July, after members protested outside Google’s European headquarters in Dublin and through a write-in campaign, Google relented, reviewed the group’s website, and found that its content advocated a political position, and restored the AdWord status.

In June 2012, Google did the same to an Australian political party’s website; reinstating status over a month later on the eve of an election, doing so only after it was reported in the media that the Party was considering suing Google. In September 13, 2012 the Party submitted formal complaints against Google with the US Department of Justice, accusing Google of “unlawful interference in the conduct of a state election with corrupt intent.”

Other common criticisms include the misuse and manipulation of search results, its compilation of data that may violate privacy, censorship of search results and content, and business practices that amount to antitrust, monopoly, and restraint of trade.

Google has been repeatedly criticized for various instances of censorship- most notably when it operated in China from January 2006 to March 2010, locking out entire websites from appearing in search results.

Google’s search results have also been manipulated to filter out content or webpages they don’t want you to see, using their AdSense terms of use as an excuse.

In February 2003, Google blocked the advertisements of Oceana, a non-profit organization protesting the Royal Caribbean cruise line’s sewage treatment practices. Google cited its right to do so under the previously-mentioned AdSense Content policy, stating “Google does not accept advertising if the ad or site advocates against other individuals, groups, or organizations.”

In April 2008, Google refused to run ads for a UK Christian group opposed to abortion, explaining that “Google policy does not permit the advertisement of websites that contain ‘abortion and religion-related content.’” The UK Christian group sued Google for discrimination and as a result, in September 2008, Google was forced to change its policy and anti-abortion ads began to run.

In Germany and France, a study reported that approximately 113 White Nationalist, Nazi, anti-Semitic, radical Islamic, and related websites had been removed from the German and French versions of Google.

As of January 26, 2011, Google’s Auto Complete feature no longer completes certain words such as “bittorrent”, “torrent”, or “utorrent,” and Google actively censors search terms or phrases that its algorithm considers unsafe, such as profanity and pornographic words; they are not, however, censored from the actual search results.

The latest example regards a subject that is very much in the social and political rhetoric as of late- guns. As of June 2012, Google’s Shopping policies were modified to prohibit the inclusion of “firearms” and firearm-related products, such as ammunition and accessory kits in search results.

Google software might be everywhere, Google Search might be lightening quick- hell, Googling has even become a verb in American English,- and many news articles, school reports, and research papers begin with the tools offered by the company, but the question everyone should want an answer to is, “For all the educational resources provided, what information is being kept from me?”

I know. Go Ask Jeeves.

For more information on the Banned Books Awareness and Reading for Knowledge project and the complete list of titles covered, please visit the official website at http://www.deepforestproductions.com/BBARK.html

Sources: Wikipedia, ZDNet, PC World, Washington Post
© 2013 R. Wolf Baldassarro/Deep Forest Productions