Bookselling and the First Amendment

 

As someone who has lived outside of the country for extended periods of time, I cherish the values of the First  Amendment.

This is specifically true, because I have lived in places where what was written, sold and even said was censored, 

There is a particular kind of fear associated with living under that kind of repression that the average American can not even imagine!

When I was younger the prevailing attitude in the US was that censorship as one of those things that happens in Communist countries. Now that Communism is less of a perceived threat, I'm not sure that the average person even thinks much about censorship at all.  Certainly in the age of the "war on terror" most Americans are more concerned with their security than something that seems like a vague ideal.

In this climate it is not surprising that there have been some substantial efforts over the last five years to control bookseller and the books they sell.  Much of this effort is all dressed up in the guise of protecting children which sounds like an eminently good idea.

Let me say, categorically, that I believe that there are books and other printed materials that are wildly inappropriate for children and teenagers. And there is much that is printed that I personally find downright offensive.  I am not an advocate for pornography.  I want to guard the young and innocent in my family as much as anyone does!

It is safe to say that we can all agree that children are precious and guarding their innocence is important.  But how we do that is less clear.  And yet, the how is of utmost importance.  I believe that we need to carefully consider what constitutes protection.

The current cultural norm is that we protect children by guarding them from things that are deemed "harmful to minors".  OK.  So what exactly does the phrase "harmful to minors" mean?

Here is the current legal definition:

"For the purposes of the law, matter is "harmful to minors" if: "

• it describes or represents, in any form, nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sado-masochistic abuse; considered as a whole,
• it appeals to the prurient interest in sex of minors; it is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable matter for minors;
• and considered as a whole, it lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors"

This explanation sends a little chill down my spine! 

Off the top this means:  No romance novels, no medical or health books, no encyclopedias or dictionaries.  Books on anthropology, sociology, psychology and even law are largely unacceptable.  Under this definition Shakespeare and the Bible are definitely forbidden for teens -- no King No David and Bathsheba or Romeo and Juliet until you are over eighteen.

This started me thinking about my choices in reading material as a teenager. I was a avid reader.  One summer I read the entire Jean Plaidy  series about the royal families of England; something like 40 volumes.  They were full of sex and violence, but I probably still know more about British history and the British royal families than most people do.  I don't think reading those novels harmed me in any way. 

Now, take a look at the New York Times Best Seller list.  Not one of the current fiction titles listed could be sold to a minor under this legal definition because at some point they all include (at the very least) descriptions of sexual excitement.

In order to really follow this legal definition, booksellers should "card" anyone purchasing fiction, health books and as noted before, the Bible. How long will it take until someone or some group compiles a list of acceptable and non acceptable books?

It seems that there is something very wrong when we feel the need for booksellers to protect minors at the expense of creativity, literature and in the pursuit of some vague idea of this protection.

My biggest concern, however, is where does it end?  Where is the line between concern and censorship?  At what point to do we ban and burn books?  At what point do we squelch creativity?

I don't really have answers.  But I do believe that this is something that bears much thought and discussion. Just passively letting it happen is not a good alternative. 

These quiet intrusions will ultimately make huge inroads into our freedom of expression.  The price of ignoring it will be devastating.

 

del.icio.us Tags: first ammendment,books,ebooks,e-books,censored,banned books

Barnes & Noble, the Bible and the Law

First a Bible Story: the story of Richard Dorazio of White Plains, New York. Richard was sentenced to 30 days in jail Thursday after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor petty larceny charge. He admitted to City Court Judge JoAnnFriia that he had stolen a $14.01 Bible from the Barnes & Noble bookstore.

Ironically, he will have plenty of Bible reading time in the Westchester County Jail because “… the jail's clergy provides free bibles to any inmate who requests one”. B&N is hoping to give him the time to find Exodus and the Eighth Commandment that says “Thou shalt not steal.”

Barnes and Nobles doesn’t stop at protecting it’s physical property . . .

At Harvard, of all places, B&N is actively creating their own unique interpretation of intellectual property law. You see, the Harvard Co-op that they run along with the University has concluded that prices are their "intellectual property."

This is the culmination of an ongoing battle between the store and the students. Of course, the students are sick of paying inflated prices. So to get around that many of them started to do a little comparison shopping. They went into the Co-op and started copying down the book information -- including ISBN numbers and prices. Presumably they were planning to go online to find the cheapest possible copy of the required texts.

First the Co-op began kicking students out of the store for “for taking too many notes on pricing”. Outraged students and parents confronted the store asking for an explanation.

That’s when B&N upped the ante. They came up with the ridiculous notion that their pricing, when associated with the specific ISBN number of a given book, was protected under intellectual property laws. The argument is that since the ISBN number identifies the specific edition of a required text; and the pricing formula for the specific edition was devised by the B&N owned Co-op, it was de facto their intellectual property.

I suspect that this argument is the only real intellectual property to emerge in this dispute. But maybe I should check with my attorney.

In the telling of these stories I have come across a real dilemma -- is it worse to steal or to lie?

Books in the News

Admittedly, there are people who find my sense of humor a little strange; but there were two publishing news items this week that got to me. One absurd and the other ironic.

The absurd is the story about Simon and Schuester. As in: Simon & Schuster's children's publishing division acknowledged that they will be publishing a manual on the etiquette of orgies and sex clubs by author Francesca Beauman.

And the ironic is the Guardian’s story about God vs. the Skeptics. It seems that one of the fastest growing segments in the book market is religion – up 50% over the last three years. And of all the books sold, the hands-down best seller was The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. The next best? God is not Great by Christopher Hitchens.

These statistics might lead you to believe that the agnostics are “winning”. Possibly, but there has been a concurrent 120% increase in the sale of Bibles. I love irony.