Galvanic Ink

I don’t care what the subject matter is. Nor do I care to focus on the graphic nature and wording of the material. Books are nothing more than written thought and thought should never be banned. Whether you simply disagree with the thoughts being expressed or if those thoughts make you violently angry; hearing them, considering them is the only way to understand opposing viewpoints and solidify your own perspective.

Banning books has only ever taken place on the side of oppresion. Books and other means of disseminating information are one of the most fascinating resources we have as a species. Reading one book should never inform your total opinion on anything. You should read as many books as possible which express every possible detail on a particular subject. With all of this information, you can choose where you stand and you should also feel free to change your mind at any point either because of new information or because of a new way of looking at the old information.

You should never limit yourself to one way of thinking. Banning books on ANY subject does just that. It limits your intake of information so that you are forced into a more narrow way of thinking. If every book available to you expresses the idea that burning coal in your fireplace is either good for you or that it is neutral for you, you may believe that. But that doesn’t mean this is the correct stance or that it’s the correct stance for you as an individual. It just means that you haven’t been subjected to the materials which expose the dangers of burning coal in your fireplace.

If you can read a book or a sequence of books and allow the information to change who you are as a person, then there is something fundamentally wrong in how you absorb information. Whether for better or worse, when reading a book, you should always be able to justify your conclusions with your own logic and reason. This does come with the caveat that your logic and reason should both be well informed, ironically this often comes from reading more books.

But the same works in reverse. Banning books is never just about good vs evil, it’s about allowing a population to become informed enough to make the decision for themselves. If a person reads a book on racism and then chooses a side, regardless of which side they choose, it should be seen as a launching pad into investigating their mental state. A person shouldn’t become anti-racist simply because one book told them it was bad, they should become anti-racist because they fully understand the impact of racism on others.

While I would strongly disagree with someone reading Meine Kampf and subsequently growing nazi tendencies, I also understand that this is a difference in ideals. I have read plenty of books over my life which disprove a lot of those racist, elitist and dangrerous ideas which are expressed in the book. It is only because of all of these books and materials which I’ve read that allow me to take my own stance on the subjects.

There is also the matter of preconcieved thought patterns which are justified when using a selected pool of materials. Just use your own experience as an example. How many times, as a kid, did you read about the existence of racism, homosexuality, transgenderism, etc.? Did it make you consider becoming someone you weren’t already turning into? Again, for better or worse, broader information can help you view the world through a different and more unique lense. This new lense can also help you identify certain aspects about yourself which you otherwise never would have thought to examine.

If your child reads a book on transgenderism and then claims they want to be a different gender, this isn’t because they were told to do so in the material, it’s because they have been experiencing thoughts which they may have attributed to their own suppressed feelings on gender identity. This may be true, but it also may not. Their thoughts may have originated from something else, but the depictions of emotional conflict in the book were similar enough to what they were experiencing that they incorrectly believed it was from the same cause. Therapy, self examination and a broader scope of information are the only ways for them to be certain. (more on this in other articles)

I could continue with a thousand examples that prove my point. I could cite data and studies which show that I’m right, but there is no point. The reality is that some things, not many, but some very select few things are simply black and white. Banning books is wrong in literally every sense. Reasonably limiting them? Sure, we probably don’t want elementary school kids reading about Larry Flint’s escapades. Nor should we be openly displaying Lorena Bobbit’s auto-biography at marriage counceling offices. We can accept that some people aren’t in such a position that they should be reading certain materials provided those materials are written for other demographics.

But limiting access to the books isn’t the same as banning them. We shouldn’t ban the books nor should we punish people for seeking them out, reading them, or distributing them freely. We can accept that a library might restrict a 9 year old from checking out 50 Shades of Gray, but we shouldn’t restrict the library from carrying that book.

The only good versus evil is not held within the pages of the book, but in the legislators who are threatening to ban it entirely. If you disagree with me, then you are wrong. And you are standing on the side of every civilization of oppression, authoritarianism and fascism. Be better than that.