Printer Friendly

Burning sensations: How would-be censors promote free speech. (Culture & Reviews).

IN DECEMBER, just as author J.K. Rowling--the world's most famous living single mother--was about to be made an honest woman again, New Mexico pastor Jack Brock announced a most generous and unlikely wedding present. Brock, the leader of the Alamogordo Christ Community Church, scheduled a "holy bonfire" of all his congregants' Harry Potter books for December 30. The popular novels about a boy wizard, the 74-year-old parson told Reuters, "are an abomination to God and to me" and are liable to "destroy the lives of many young people." His Christmas Eve sermon asked the tough question, "Baby Jesus or Harry Potter?"

Rowling, a member in good standing of the Church of Scotland, declined to comment. But one suspects that the she had to suppress a chuckle, when she thought of all those kids sneaking out to buy new copies of the destroyed contraband.

Some fundamentalists cheered the Rev. Brock's efforts to burn Harry Potter and other suspect works. More commonly, however, they and their more moderate co-religionists winced. Certainly, the overwhelming majority of residents in Alamogordo (population: 30,000) were mortified, as their town was inundated with mass media scrutiny of the least flattering sort. In the end, more than a dozen big press outfits, including the Associated Press, CNN, and the BBC, showed up to cover the spectacle. As an annoyed reader wrote to the local paper of record, the Alamogordo Daily "News, "There's nothing better than showing the entire state that blind ignorance is alive somewhere in [our town]." In the suddenly lively letters page of the Daily News, opinion ran heavily, if not quite unanimously, against the book burning, with Brock and his flock routinely compared to the Nazis and Osama bin Laden.

Upward of 800 demonstrators- including a coalition of Unitarians, Pagans, Democrats, Methodists, Presbyterians, and one Adolf Hitler impersonator-protested the wanton destruction of best-selling literature. (Other items burned included J.R.R. Tolkein novels and the works of Shakespeare.) As the 400 members of the Christ Community Church put flame to paper in a private ceremony, one agitator held up a sandwich board sign that read "'God' hates book burners," and another claimed to have surreptitiously saved a Stephen King novel from the flames.

Many of the demonstrators said that the book burning reminded them of Fahrenheit 451, the Taliban's destruction of ancient Buddha statues, and similar acts of cultural repression. The protesters could draw on a long, sad string of historic precedents by which to denounce the event. Even John Calvin, that great exponent of Christian liberty, famously forced his godless opponents to burn their own books publicly in order to escape execution.

But to characterize the book burning as a serious threat to free expression, as several demonstrators and many outside commentators did, is to misunderstand completely how such actions resonate in contemporary America. The United States has certain features built into its legal framework, including theoretically inviolable property rights and freedoms of speech and the press, that make it very difficult for would-be Ayatollahs to coerce the ejection of' certain writings or ideas.

Granted, the Constitution also guarantees freedom of religion; but, these mechanisms force religion to bend in such a way that, in effect the pastors propose and the congregations dispose. Brock himself acknowledged this, writing in a church newsletter that "if you do not feel led to participate in tonight's [book burning], then please do not feel condemned or excluded, just follow God's leading for your family."

Worse from Brock's perspective, at least), civic habit: have collided with technology to create an automatic response to any hint censorship. When a concerned citizen takes it upon himself to publicly burn books, it invites press coverage. Which, in turn, invites outraged" charges of "censorship" by en1ightened souls everywhere. Which, in turn, invites more press coverage-- and on and on.

The upshot is inevitably an out come similar to the one in New Mexico in December: disproportionate protest and ridicule for the burners, bigger sales and near immortality for the targeted book. The work, whatever its merits, automatically joins the American Library Association's coveted list of "challenged and banned books" ensuring that it will be stocked and read well into the nest century.

Which for an author is a far more thoughtful wedding gift than a crock-pot or place setting.

Jeremy Lott (lott@deviantreadings.com) is senior editor of Spintech.
COPYRIGHT 2002 Reason Foundation
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2002, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Lott, Jeremy
Publication:Reason
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Mar 1, 2002
Words:728
Previous Article:Hollywood's second sex: Women and the movies. (Culture & Reviews).
Next Article:Free hand. (Artifact).
Topics:


Related Articles
Free Speech For Me - But Not For Thee: How The American Left and Right Relentlessly Censor Each Other.
Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech.
Pillars of Salt, Monuments of Grace: New England Crime Literature and the Origins of American Popular Culture, 1674-1860.
Kindly Inquisitors: the New Attacks on Free Thought.
Defending Pornography: Free Speech, Sex, and the Fight for Women's Rights.
Defending Pornography: Free Speech, Sex, and the Fight for Women's Rights.
The Good Digestion Guide.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters