In January of 2023, a group of parents in Glen Ridge, NJ sought to remove six books in the Glen Ridge Public Library including LGBTQ+ identity and sexually graphic books. They argued that those books are “a total disrespect for the safety of minors and children in the town of Glen Ridge.” Their demand, however, was met with hundreds of protestors rallying against the proposed ban. This Glen Ridge incident is a tip of the iceberg. The 2023-2024 school year witnessed a surge in the number of book bans by nearly 200 percent, as documented by PEN America. Each year, millions of new books and ideas gush out from publishing companies to bookstores and public libraries for the public access.  However, not all books are placed on a local library’s shelf. Some books are blocked on their way to a public library due to inappropriate content, which  the library committee (organized groups and politicians) contended. In recent years, some books on LGBQ or race have been banned from public access. This issue of book banning touches upon the fundamental roots of our society, i.e., freedom of speech and press. On the other hand, if certain knowledge is toxic and somewhat terroristic, should we also cherish the freedom not to know?   

Books can become officially banned in individual schools and libraries for a multitude of reasons, namely racial or sexually explicit themes, offensive language, or a subjective conclusion of being negligible. Conservative organizations, such as Moms for Liberty, aspire to remove collections of books that deal with race or LGBTQ+ issues. Historically, there have been censorship on politically sensitive issues: even as far back as ancient Greece, renowned philosopher Plato himself suggested banning works by Homer, claiming that it promotes immoral behavior. Bans of publications in the present day highlight some recurring themes from eras in the past. The issue has even reached the U.S. Congress on whether or not the federal government should enforce bans of specific volumes, although U.S. senators and members of Congress generally have reached a consensus that it should not. Still, the question remains: Should books be banned even at the local, district or state level? One might contend that censorship ought to be enacted at the level of the publishing house, before a book comes into existence. Or, one might argue, would that undermine the freedom of the press? History may provide some insights into the issue at hand.

To begin, one must wind the clock back to the 1950s, when Americans were paranoid in rooting out communism within the nation, led by the infamous Senator Joseph McCarthy. America’s McCarthy era, as it is now eponymously remembered as, saw the ban of countless communist-affiliated publications. The era saw the banning and blacklisting of numerous famed authors and poets, namely Howard Fast and Langston Hughes. A wave of terror gripped the world of academia, as writers, teachers, and colleges curtailed their own intellectual creativity, forced to choose loyalty to the government over spreading ideas and perspectives to the world. But what if, amidst all the chaos and terror and hopelessness, there was a single flame that refused to defuse? That flame, stroked by voracious intellectuals who refused to see inspiring, educational books cease to influence future generations, were the efforts to make all these books available to their children. Another period in American history that saw the ban of countless books was the Jim Crow era. Although McCarthy-era censorship was all about preserving a political ideology, Jim Crow-era censorship aimed to maintain a racial hierarchy, where whites were always on the top. Works written by or talking positively about African Americans were removed from public schools and libraries, while in the South textbooks were written that glorified the Confederacy and ignored the brutalities of slavery. Despite all these efforts, similarly to the McCarthy era, people fiercely resisted, refusing to see masterful works never available to their children. Punishments in both eras could be severe- even for merely owning a banned book- as people who were caught were often fired from their jobs, blacklisted, or risked facing harassment and even physical violence from their neighbors. 

So, how does this all tie back to the 21st century? What can periods of terror and censorship in American history teach us about the motives of modern book bans? The most clear, direct message that history informs the modern individual is that it is imperative to uphold freedom of speech and of the press, as well as to make books available to everyone so that anyone can learn about different perspectives and ideas. The truth is determined by who is in power. The books that were banned in one era can rise up to be glorified in the next era. Our judgement of right and wrong depends on the historical paradigm, not on a universal truth. Nobody knows what is the universal truth, therefore it is crucially important to be open to diverse perspectives.

 However, an underlying and arguably even more important theme is the freedom of not knowing: the right to refuse soaking in certain facts. In other words, ‘the right not to know’ is equally important as ‘the right to know’. It may seem obvious, and yet most Americans do not even recognize their not-to-know right being infringed upon. For example, The Anarchist Cookbook by William Powell illustrates instructions for building bombs, making drugs, and conducting sabotage. Although Powell’s book is banned by most libraries, bookstores, and schools, it was never officially banned by the U.S. government. In this case, the publisher should have prevented it from coming into existence. Individuals possess a right not to know certain forms of information. In the same way that freedom itself is subject to limitations, freedom of speech ought to be exercised within boundaries that prevent it from causing harm to others. The petition from the Glen Ridge parents is an exercise of the right ‘to not know’.

This leaves us with a moot point: which should be valued more, between the right to know and the right not to know? While the Glen Ridge case ultimately ended in favor of the librarians, such outcomes are far from guaranteed. What if the pornographic book might enlighten a reader down the road in the way to awaken his identity? Or, could certain books that openly display sexuality be so graphic or violent that they risk distorting a young reader’s sense of healthy sexuality? The debates will be endless.